HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 06-49RESOLUTION NO. 06-49
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE FINAL MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR DESIGN
REVIEW 06-008, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AS
REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. That Design Review 06-008 is considered a "Project' pursuant to the terms
of the California Environmental Quality Act;
B. An Initial Study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared
for this project and distributed for public review. The Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration evaluated the implications of the proposed Rawlings
Reservoir Replacement project.
C. Prior to approving of the Project, the City Council evaluated the proposed
Mitigated Negative Declaration and determined that, with incorporation of
the mitigation measures, the project would not have a significant effect on
the environment.
D. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration was advertised for public review for
30 days in compliance with Section 15105 of CEQA.
E. The City Council of the City of Tustin has considered evidence presented
by the Community Development Director and other interested parties
regarding the subject Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, including
the Responses to Comments, at the April 17, 2006, meeting.
II. A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit A, has been
completed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines. The City Council has received
and considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including
the Responses to Comments, prior to recommending approval of the proposed Project
and finds that it adequately discusses the environmental effects of the proposed project.
On the basis of the initial study and comments received during the public review process,
the City Council finds that although the proposed project could have impacts, there will
not be a significant effect because mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration mitigate any potential significant effects to a point where clearly no
significant effect would occur. In addition, the City Council finds that the project involves
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 1 of 171
no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife
resources as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. The City Council
hereby adopts the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the purpose of approving
Design Review 06-008, and adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
attached hereto as Exhibit B.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on
Me I i day of April, 2006.
ATTEST:
STOKER,PAMELA
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin,
California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of
the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 06-49 was duly
passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 17`h day
of April, 2006 by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBERAYES: ➢AIIRRT HAGFN AMANTF BONE KAWASK=MA (5)
COUNCILMEMBER NOES: NONE (01
COUNCILMEMBERABSTAINED: NONE (0)
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: NnNF (0)
,K00 0, •��i���r,�
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 2 of 171
EXHIBIT A
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 3 of 171
RAWLINGS RESERVOIR
REPLACEMENT PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARA TON
Prepared for.-
City
or:
City of Tustin
Water Services
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Prepared by:
C O N S U L T I N G
BonTerra Consulting
151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E-200
Costa Mesa, California 92626
December 21, 2005
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 4 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Paae
Section 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................1-2
1.1 Purpose of the Initial Study..................................................................... 1-2
1.2 Summary of Findings ..............................................................................1-2
1.3 Project Approval .....................................................................................1-2
1.4 Organization of the Initial Study ..............................................................1-2
Section 2.0 Environmental Setting and Project Backg round ...........................................2-2
2.1 Existing Environmental Setting ...............................................................2-2
2.2 Project Background............. .............. .................................................... .2-2
Section 3.0 Project D escri ption ..... ..................................... ....................... ........................ .3-2
3.1 Introduction ................................................... ......................................... .3-2
3.2 Project Characteristics................. ............................. ............................. .3-2
3.2.1 Reservoir Demolition........ .......................................... ................ .3-2
3.2.2 New Reservoir Construction and On-Site Improvements ...........3-2
3.2.3 Off-Site Project Features ............................................................3-2
3.3 Discretionary Approvals ........................... ........................... ....................3-2
Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist Form........................................................................4-2
Section 5.0 Environmental Evaluation ...............................................................................5-2
I. Aesthetics...... ........... .................................................................. ............5-1
II. Agricultural Resources......... ....................................... ............... .............5-2
III. Air Quality.................. ................................................................. ............5-3
IV. Biological Resources .................................................................. .......... 5-1 0
V. Cultural Resources ....................................................................... ........ 5-12
VI. Geology and Soils......................................... .................................. ...... 5-13
VII. Hazard and Hazardous Materials .........................................................5-16
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................5-19
IX. Land Use and Planning ........................................................................5-23
X. Mineral Resources.... ......... ................................................................... 5-24
XI. Noise ................................... ....................... ..................... ..................... 5-24
XII. Population and Housing............. ...........................................................5-26
XIII. Public Services. .......................... ............................. .............................5-27
XIV. Recreation. .................................... ..................... ....... ...........................5-27
XV. TransportationlTraffic...................... ........................... ...........................5-28
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems ...............................................................5-30
XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance......................................................5-31
Section 6.0 Document Preparers and Contributors ..........................................................6-2
R:\PmjectsITustinUOO3\1S-122005.doc
Table of Contents
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 5 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
TABLES
Table Paoe
1 SCAQMD Regional Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance...............................5-2
2 Demolition Air Pollutant Emissions ................................................................................5-2
3 Grading Air Pollutant Emissions ............................................................................. ....... .5-2
4 Construction Air Pollutant Emissions .............................................................................5-2
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit
Follows Paoe
1 Regional Location ......................................................................................................... .2-2
2 Local Vicinity............................................................................... ................................. ..2-2
3 Aerial Photograph ......................................................................................................... .2-2
4 Existing Site Conditions ................................. ............................................................. ...2-2
5a, b Site Photographs............................. .............................................................................. .2-2
6 Conceptual Layout ............................. ........................................................................... .3-2
7 Cross-Sections ......... ....... .............................................................................................. .3-2
8 Off-Site Project Features ....................................... ........................................................ .3-2
9 Typical Construction Noise Levels .................................................................................5-2
LIST OF APPENDICES
A Air Quality Calculations
R:\Projects\ TustinIJOO3\IS-122005.doc
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 6 of 171
Table of Contents
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY
The purpose of this Initial Study (IS) is to describe the Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
and provide an evaluation of potential environmental effects associated with the project's
construction and use. The project involves the demolition of the existing 3.82 million gallon (MG)
Rawlings Reservoir and the construction of two new 3.0 MG each concrete domestic water
tanks within the same site. The proposed project is located at 13331 Foothill Boulevard in an
incorporated "island" within the City of Tustin, just west of Newport Boulevard. The area
surrounding the site, including a sliver of property along Foothill Boulevard, is within
unincorporated Orange County.
The proposed project also involves implementation of an off-site storm drain connection. The
project's storm drain system would be connected to a new storm drain to be installed in Foothill
Boulevard that would extend to an existing storm drain facility along either Hewes Street or
Newport Avenue. A construction easement within the area west of the project site is also
required to facilitate the excavation needed for the new reservoirs.
The IS has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as
amended (Public Resources Code 921000 et seq.), and in accordance with the State CEQA
Guidelines (California Code of Regulations 915000 et seq.). Pursuant to Section 15367 of the
State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Tustin is the lead agency for the project. The lead agency is
the public agency that has the pr incipal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The
City of Tustin, as the lead agency, shall have the authority for project approval and certification
of the accompanying environmental documentation.
1.2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Based on the environmental checklist form prepared for the project and supporting environmental
analysis, the proposed Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project would have no impact or less
than significant impacts in the following environmental impact areas: Aesthetics, Agriculture,
Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and
Planning, Minerals Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services. Recreation,
and TransportationlTraffic.
The proposed project has the potential to have Air Quality, Geology and Soils. Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, and Utilities and Services impacts unless the recommended mitigation
measures are incorporated into the project.
According to the CEQA Guidelines, it is appropriate to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) for the proposed project because, after incorporation of the recommended mitigation
measures, potentially significant environmental impacts would be eliminated or reduced to a
level considered less than signifi cant.
1.3 PROJECT APPROVAL
This IS and proposed MND have been submitted to the appropriate responsible and trustee
agencies for review and comment, the County Clerk of Orange County for posting, and made
available for public review. The Notice of Intent to Adopt an MND for the project has been
posted on the site. All documents referenced in the IS are available for review at the City of
Tustin Community Development Department located at 300 Centennial Way.
R:\ProjectsITustin\JOO3\IS-122005.doc
1-1
Introduction
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 7 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
There will be a 30-day public review period for the IS and proposed MND. The review period
has been established in accordance with g15073 of the CEQA guidelines. In reviewing the IS
and the proposed MND, affected public agencies and the interested public should focus on the
sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the potential impacts on the
environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project are proposed to be avoided
or mitigated. Comments on the analysis contained herein may be sent to the following:
Mr. Scott Reekstin
Community Development Department
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
The City will consider comments from agencies, organizations, and members of the public. The
City of Tustin City Council is tentatively scheduled to consider the project and the environmental
documentation in February 2006 once the public review and com ment period has expired.
1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY
The IS is organized into the following sections:
o Section 1 - Introduction. This section provides an introduction and overview describing
the conclusions of the IS.
o Section 2 - Project Background and Environmental Setting. This section provides
background information regarding the proposed project and describes the existing
environmental setting of the project area.
o Section 3 - Project Description. This section provides a description of the proposed
project's characteristics including construction activities.
o Section 4 - Environmental Checklist Form. The completed City of Tustin CEQA
checklist form provides an overview of the potential impacts that mayor may not result
from project implementation. The environmental checklist form also includes "mandatory
findings of significance" required by CEQA.
o Section 5 - Environmental Evaluation. This section contains an analysis of
environmental impacts identified in the environmental checklist and identifies mitigation
measures that have been recommended to eliminate potential significant effects or
reduce them to a level that is considered less than significant. Reference sources used
in the environmental evaluation are identified at the end of each environmental topic.
o Section 6 - Document Preparers and Contributors. This section identifies those
individuals responsible for preparing and contributing to the IS and proposed M ND.
RIProjects\TustinU0031IS-122005.doc
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 8 of 171
1-2
Introduction
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
SECTION 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND PROJECT BACKGROUND
2.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site encompasses approximately 1.7 acres and is located at 13331 Foothill
Boulevard approximately 1,000 feet northwest of Newport Avenue. The property is an
incorporated City of Tustin island surrounded by areas within unincorporated Orange County.
Regional location and local vicinity maps are provided in Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively. The
project site is bound by Foothill Boulevard and Foothill High School to the south, an unnamed
private road and single family residences to the east, an undeveloped slope and a single family
residence to the west, and a single family residence to the north. Exhibit 3 provides an aerial
photograph of the project site and surrounding areas.
Existing site conditions are depicted on Exhibit 4, and site photographs are provided in
Exhibits 5a and 5b. The existing reservoir consists of a rectangular 3.82 MG trapezoidal bottom
structure in the northern portion of the site. The reservoir is partially buried and has been cut
into the natural, southeast-facing hillside. The existing reservoir was constructed in 1971 and
has concrete-block perimeter walls and a wood-framed roof. A concrete-block retaining wall is
located along the northern property boundary at the toe of an ascending off-site slope. There
are an existing residence and pool upslope from the reservoir. This retaining wall has a
reinforced concrete foundation structurally integrated with the parallel northerly wall of the
reservoir. A concrete wall and chain-link fence form the eastern project boundary and are
adjacent to an unnamed private-access asphalt road. A booster pump station is located in the
southern portion of the project site and is housed in a concrete structure. An earthen berm
descends from the south side of the reservoir down to the paved driveway and pump station
(refer to photographs provided in Exhibits 5a and 5b).
The majority of the site contains landscape vegetation with various ornamental trees and
shrubs. The understory and open areas on the property are dominated by invasive non-native
grass species and barren ground. The most abundant ornamental tree and scrub genus on the
project site include oleander (Nerium oleander), acacia (Acacia sp.), Russian thistle (Salso/a
tragus), fig, (Ficus sp.), pine (Pinus sp.), pepper tree (Schinus sp.), rhus (Rhus sp.), and gum
(Eucalyptus sp.).
2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The City of Tustin Water Services Division supplies domestic water to the entire community and
adjacent areas and maintains water wells, water main lines, service laterals, hydrants, and
water storage facilities. The City's water system is divided into three pressure Zones (1, 2,
and 3) and currently provides for 7.83 MG of the total storage from five reservoirs. Before it was
taken out of service in 2004, the Rawlings Reservoir provided an additional 3.82 MG of storage
for pressure Zones 1 and 2 to meet operational and emergency storage needs.
Water storage is a key element of any water distribution system. Reservoirs are constructed to
provide water supply during peak periods of the day for fire protection and as a backup for
emergency conditions. "Operational storage" is the storage volume required to supply peak
system demands above the maximum day demand. "Fire storage" is water needed to provide a
rate of flow for a required period of time as identified by the Fire Marshal for the types of
development served by the system. "Emergency storage" is the water supply needed at times
when other sources of supply are out of service or reduced due to an emergency or repair
situation.
R:IProJecIs\ T uslin\JOO3\IS-122005.doc
2-1
Environmental Setting and
Project Background
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 9 of 171
1
~
;;
~
i
~
.
,
.
a
;"1'"
",'
-!:
<
., '"{ ~.
Pasadena
@-----
Rlatto
Ontario
"'-
Riverside
uk"woo
LaKe
Maths...,s
PACIFIC
OCEAN
Regional Location
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
"
w~eSOiMtion Np,.,06-49,
,Page 1
Exhibit 1
S.S
Miles
~/~
CONSUlTING
A\Pro"'clI\TusUn\J003\Gr.phlcs~xl_RL_l00705pdl
-L~r/~"' "~rl~"\i F~~I~ ~ ~~~~~ :t; \-~,I\.
OuID, ~ -.I ~-'Ij /~ ./t\i -.
J j r -1 ,., /, l ->,',,/~,~ ~I
~, d ,,1_ '"'- Jr-. , /' ;J..l...!r" ---.:..'% i-t ~~ 1
B ~iL Flood ~:-, II ~ ____ -
J Jfi =:JIm I ~ ^~ C:;:~' ~~ EI" - . --- ~ T,"~ .," /
- ,'" '-'i~ ~ '" J f . ~ Modeno D. ~
- --&>" H I~t.:, \::::1 J:-- I_II I-L.... ~a~~~ j . \ c t\;
-.l ~~"r ~:i!, ~~~~I' ILl toI,,- IJl !2 ffi I,.;}. ! i! i c~~,
~ fJ- jjl~ /1!- ~ '~ Y;; Je g ,~,
C Ii pJm.V 'u r: .'~ I ~~lI~ c~ '"< ww ~ r:l
l' ... cr". - bL WY I . J (, ::
-~\~ ~j =i. / Q h"!::~" r- ~~ ~ ~~ ~ . ~
l.mJ 1R' ~~' ~~IJ ~tl ~j~ ) c : _ I 1-; ~ (. ~l -~r~ ~ ~ I:
Q&",;" ~I D ';::i! II F. ffljfj\'=-L ~ .~.:--~ !Z fo'/"'""J
? slJJ ~~ I ~ 'J~~, I ~ ~i~ ~ ?'-
t;;;;k71 ~ k c IV:- n.1 . lit. :m," Mo~1n ~ [J~;::L . ~~ ~.~ ,~~
~:;:; I. J"'{ ',I.:' tW' hi r}'C^ "~ 1~,pj , '.if l~ J\:;' . ~
5k.~ f- i - -1 ~ \~~I I~lu/j<! l~(T./ " If.ik/y',~ ~r----...r d
L I~ ~ I~ .Lf4 cr~Jn~ ---V/:';/-:- I~-/;> 4' ",~---L 8, -, )
) .'" it r:"l ~.ut' '/YA) 1/ :/~ L..
'u ro~ :"!.: i 5 '" ~ LLL~ I-h ~ .r; =- ,'iIJ.O "oQjJt(' d., 1 Project Location I/;~_H.o, ~) ~
~: <i "YAl1'f1~ : ,;II" 1:-- /";j <1, ~ ~ '\::/-.,'1./1 I
. OBI 0 _ ~ ~l~. {1'~H= ~~.. A-,'\\~3LaN.{,_);
;~lW~~: "@:~L?;; '";_ lL?r~'Y~. ~~{.!{/~
:t'l ~Il -L~ r I..q ~~; ~'h. ~ ~i....,~~~
.~ - "',/~~, l- I '"fl1/.T;'. 1-'9 . 'i'~~k7'l y. 2ii \
"" !:-' ! ~ /.,~ /~,,,... tl c',
11J_ ~ i:r.-.D t I~ e 'Lit I~:r ~~'''f: .......,i (
\ i ~r"f-'~m:.; Ie "'. '""
I '--i. --- llO I _ I K;~- fIoob'ob ""'. . J..,. -: <'. .~
lmm. c ~_ =. MOllIulAor'~-: ~~Y. () _,
! ~ ::~ ~~L~ ~""o.hri . ~l~ "\ ~. ~{~~l .
I L~ p, -:~ ~ / ~ Q. ~~,,'S\ ~:\ ~A...~ ~
I t j': ~~ r.- ~ ~ ~~><~' . >~~~ \\U. 2
~ ...dJ"~_ / d:) ^d'~~~ ~'\~ ;::,,~
Local Vicinity
Exhibit 2
Rawlings Reservoir Rep/aeemen/ Projee/
"
w--\>-, 0.5 0.25 0
0.5
Miles
Resolution No. ~ef"
R:\Pr<~ JJ41&lft,J.J~tLV_l01005.Pdf
; o,+�,g :� v y�` ♦,. �.t.
��.}'.[dfY�KYtvd ��y,i v9 4• � � _� r � sv,_ • .f,r �4+.. _ a � � !•• j�,�
�_�..% �:<>,•, �� .fir- g, �, A ,.:Bh: _"`x#' 4` �..: a' +W� ->•Iph m�•glxa
Y . * t+4
mP-e # p d`f
'� T' 1
Y
'+,» e„ 1 < r . A41
`;p..y +.h.e �'�.• � ;..*. r—.-mv4:. ,. w":, p.y,„ At .. �^' 47 iRt ' w' 'R r�_� ia:. z
. FL m ,ems
",`,t,^' ' ` �.T"' l�,{� J '` � ; xM` , }. �{ ! ✓' `�„ � ' f,< �„^ • }V�.,{''}H' `�"'��' '<
4N'.' s
COW=r w •k�c" ' ° �' 3rn. "�y f �f�`' a `Ba , ^ ♦. a7�, . 3
* wm " t#tv,
'1"' 4 ✓mow j�.
yC ar
?
410
.;: ^r a y rf 4 1
i � � ° � rya ';,. �r =a.c A � .A''�$a, "� n•'�» � y, tea},, - qt
4� Approximate Project Boundary
+:f
�. � i �` J�. W �A� �� fr t ,'� * * ^� . r i�+-.. � t F!I �'�' � l ''� � �'s� ' �a`r'". r �'� �' "•� ��,�•yr 1 ,...�` _ # . .f.,
_,:i ... ,s -. fA� L*, r'SI .. s s �C.e..M � g.. '><c`. .__. ..c..
4 t, azr aF r.. oo eAe a Gx ess 12004'
EXISTING'4 MG `
HOPPER BOTTOM TANK;
Existing Site Conditions Exhibit 4
%aWings Resenroir Replacement F jest
C O N 5 U( i 1 N G
ww.waawvw�n�m� ear_ioimsx
..
~
~
~
i
o
~
i
~
o
Photograph 2. View from western project site boundary
looking east toward project site.
Site Photographs
Rawlings ReselVoir Replacement Project
Exhibit Sa
~
CONSULTING
R:\Projecls\Tuslln\JOO3\Graphlcs\Ex5a SP 101105 pdt
.
~
~
~
~
~
M
o
o
~
.
~
I Photograph 4. View from eastern project site boundary
1; lookin9 north toward project site.
Site Photographs
Rawlings Reservoir Repiacement Project
Exhibit 5b
~
CONSULTING
R:\Projects\ T uSlln\J003\Gra~hics\EK5b _SP _101205.pdf
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
In 1990 an engineering study identified storage and structural deficiencies in the City's water
system reservoirs. Improvement recommendations included increasing the storage of the
Rawlings Reservoir. In 1996, an engineering analysis of the Rawlings Reservoir identified
several structural deficiencies; demolition and replacement of the existing reservoir was
recommended. The City's Public Works Department/Water Services Division evaluated the
water supplies and demand and concluded that shutting down the reservoir on a temporary
basis would not inhibit the City's ability to provide water to customers. Back-up water supply is
available at the Vandenberg Well, Columbus-Tustin Well, and Main Street Facility, each
providing approximately 2.0 MG of emergency supply. In November 2004, the City
recommended demol ition and replacement of the Rawlings Reservoir.
As part of the proposed project, the existing Rawlings Reservoir would be replaced at the same
site to increase overall system storage capacity to 13.83 MG. This represents an increase of
2.0 MG of storage compared to previous conditions and would provide adequate system-wide
operational, fire, and emergency storage. It should be noted that after the operational and fire-
flow storage is depleted, back-up water supplies for emergency purposes are provided from the
Vandenberg Well, Columbus-Tustin Well, and Main Street Facility each providing approximately
2.0 MG of emergency supply. The proposed project would provide additional emergency water
storage capacity to off-set the need to use these back-up water sources.
R:\Projects\Tustin\J003\IS-122005.doc
2-2
Environmental Setting and
Project Background
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 16 of 171
Rawlings ReseNoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The proposed project is located at 13331 Foothill Boulevard, just west of Newport Boulevard.
With the exception of a sliver of property along Foothill Boulevard, the project site is an
incorporated island within the City of Tustin surrounded by unincorporated areas of Orange
County.
The Rawlings Reservoir Replacement project involves the following components which are
described below: (1) demolition of the existing reservoir, (2) construction of two new 3 MG water
tanks on site and associated improvements, and (3) construction of off-site storm drain facilities.
3.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
3.2.1 RESERVOIR DEMOLITION
The proposed project includes demolition of the existing 3.82 MG reservoir. During the first stage
of demolition, the existing reservoir roof, roof-support columns, perimeter side walls to grade,
and the reservoir membrane liner would be removed. Asbestos containing materials have been
identified in the existing roof mastic; floor and wall mastic; and in the wall fiberboard. These
materials would be removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable procedures
established by state and local agencies. In the second phase of demolition, the remaining
portion of the existing reservoir would be removed, including the perimeter sidewall below grade
elevation, the asphalt liner, and the column bases. Demolition of the existing reservoir is
estimated to take approxi mately two months.
The existing booster pump station located in the southern portion of the site would be shut down
during the demolition and construction phases; however, it would not be removed. The City
would provide water to the upper pressure zones through its East Orange County Water District
connections.
The reservoir structure to be demolished is approximately 52,000 square feet. Equipment to be
used for demolition activities includes a crane, a scissor-lift, a backhoe/front-end loader, and a
bulldozer. Approximately four dump trucks would be required to haul demolition materials.
3.2.2 NEW RESERVOIR CONSTRUCTION AND ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
The existing reservoir would be replaced with two partially buried concrete domestic water
tanks. The preliminary design of these tanks is depicted in Exhibit 6 and cross-sections are
shown on Exhibit 7. The two new 3.0 MG concrete water tanks would be circular with a floor
elevation of 273 feet above mean sea level (amsl), seven feet lower than the existing reservoir
(280 feet amsl). The new tanks would have a water depth of 30 feet; be 142 feet in diameter;
and have an elevation of 307 feet amsl, one foot higher than the existing reservoir. The top of
the new tanks would be lower than the existing reservoir's wooden roof structure.
The new tanks would be located with one behind the other, and construction of the tanks would
be staggered (north tank and then the south tank). Shoring would be placed and the site
excavated to approximately seven feet below the existing elevation. The north tank would be
buried, with the top three feet above ground. The area behind this tank would be paved with
asphalt or concrete to provide access for City vehicles for maintenance and inspection
R-\ProJects\TustinIJOO3\lS-122005.doc
3-1
Project Description
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 17 of 171
1.3
O
A
----------------------------------------------------,
I
I
I
I
I
1
\ 1 1
1 I I
Conceptual Layout
Exhibit 6
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Pmjed
..,m. ra,.ro,, ams
C O N 5 U 1 7 I N G
nwgon.�,maw.sK.�rs_u ,o+xos.�a
320
1
mu
y
p
Ij
300
PROPOSE03 MG TANK
.a
m
�
�
300
300
a
QQ
PRLP08E030
_..PROPOSED] 'NG TANK
•/ ,
.
--
. .:..
�
/
PROPOSED30MG TANK
c�
r
Db:. 134
l va
0 100
200
0
100
MIO
�ui men
0
100 200
SECTION AA
'NOTE:
CONCEPTUAL ONLY - LIMITS OF TEMPORARY SLOPES AND LOCATION
OF TEMPORARY SHORING IS DEPENDENT ON CURRENT ON-GOING
GEOTECHNICAL AND ENGINEERING WORK. THE ACTUAL LAYBACKS,
SHORING LAYOUT AND ENCROACHMENT INTO PRIVATE PROPERTY IS
SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
it
ns
Exhibit 7
ectCO
Vllg�.R.--irReplace�nt�ject
NS ULTI NG
awy..wr,ew.,omra,er.r_� ro,mm
320
1
mu
y
p
300
PROPOSE03 MG TANK
.a
m
�
�
300
300
a
QQ
PRLP08E030
_..PROPOSED] 'NG TANK
•/ ,
.
--
. .:..
�
/
PROPOSED30MG TANK
c�
r
Db:. 134
l va
I80
2B0
200
320
1
mu
y
p
300
PROPOSE03 MG TANK
320
320
]�
�
PRLP08E030
GTANK
--
. .:..
�
/
PROPOSED30MG TANK
c�
Db:. 134
l va
mmp oar m� .m
2B0
200
�ui men
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
purposes. The steel hoop reinforcement in the concrete sidewall and the tendons from the base
to the sidewall allow the reservoir to flex, if necessary, without failing.
The southern tank would be partially buried, with approximately 26 vertical feet of the tank face
exposed on the southwest-facing side. A graded and landscaped slope would be provided
around the exposed portion of the front tank. New underground water pipelines and valves
would connect the existing booster pump station to each new tank.
The existing masonry block wall for the booster pump station would be extended across the full
front of the site, adjacent to Foothill Boulevard. On the east and west sides of the project site,
new chain-link fencing would be installed to replace the existing chain-link fence. The access
gate on the northeastern end of the site would be enlarged to improve access to the tanks. An
additional gate may be added to provide access from Foothill Boulevard on the west site of the
booster pump station. Concrete sidewalk, curb, and gutter would be constructed along the
project site's Foothill Boulevard frontage. Landscaping may consist of native and/or ornamental
plants and would be planted along the perimeter of the site. The plant material would be
selected to provide view screening of reservoir facilities. The exterior of the exposed portions of
the two new concrete replacement tanks would receive appropriate coloration treatment to
further screen and blend the facilities into and with the proposed landscaping and surrounding
area.
Based on the current project design, 20,000 cubic yards of earthwork would be removed from
the project site during construction, and 40,000 cubic yards would be used following completion
of the reservoir construction for backfill. During reservoir construction the following equipment
would be used: a crane, a scissor-lift, a backhoe/front-end loader, and a concrete pump.
Concrete and delivery truck trips as well as construction-worker vehicular trips would also occur
during construction. It is estimated that there would be 5 truck trips and 12 vehicle trips on an
average day.
Reservoir construction would take approximately 22 months: site excavation and grading -
2 months; new tank construction - 15 months; site back fill - 1 month: pipeline construction and
other appurtenances - 2 months: site paving - 1 month; and clean-up/demobilization - 1 month.
3.2.3 OFF-5ITE PROJECT FEATURES
Runoff from the project site would be collected in new on-site storm drain lines that would
connect to a new storm drain to be installed in Foothill Boulevard. There are two options under
consideration for the storm drain lines within Foothill Boulevard and both options are addressed
in this Initial StUdy (refer to Exhibit 8). Option 1 would extend to the west approximately
2,800 feet to the Orange County Flood Control District's (OCFCD) 63-inch reinforced concrete
pipe in Hewes Street (OCFCD F07-P06). Option 2 would extend to the east approximately
850 feet to the OCFCD's 6-foot by 6-foot reinforced concrete box along Newport Avenue
(OCFCD F13). For each option, the storm drain would be installed in the existing public street
right-of-way.
It should also be noted that a temporary construction easement is needed west of the project
site. The construction easement would extend approximately 60-feet onto private property and
is needed to facilitate the excavation needed for the new reservoirs. This area could be used for
grading or shoring. Additionally, this easement would be used for temporary construction
access.
R.\Projects\ TustinIJOO3\1$-122005 doc
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 20 of 171
3-2
Project Description
.IRESERVOIRS
REM HILLAIM
PROPOSED
TWO-3MG
I
EXISTING 63- REP
STORMDRAIN
(OCFCD F07- )
— — — — — — — — — — —
— — —
r___________--
��,r.7.MWAF�'
TI
GRAIN LINE
— INGS BPS
It
DRAIN LINE
Of,TIOfJ
EXISTING 6X6 RES
I
1,001HILL
STORMDRAIN
(OCFCDF13)
. ..... . .... ..
Iff Site Project Features
Exhibit 8
V?p*lings Reservoir Replacement Project
0.
�Xpelqfewl?"
CONSULT I N G
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
3.3 DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS
This IS and proposed MND is intended to serve as the primary environmental document for all
actions associated with the proposed project, including all discretionary approvals requested or
required to implement the project. In addition, this is the primary reference document in the
formulation and im plementation of a mitigation monitoring program for the proposed project.
The City of Tustin and the following responsible agencies are expected to use the information
contained in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for consideration of approvals
related to and involved in the implementation of this project.
CITY OF TUSTIN
Following are the primary discretionary actions that will be considered by the Tustin City
Council:
. Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
. Approval of the project and requi red funding
. Award of contract for construction
In addition to the primary discretionary actions listed above, subsequent approvals by the City of
Tustin may include:
. Demolition permit
. Gradi ng permit
. Building permit
. Acquisition of temporary construction easement agreement on private property to the
west
OTHER AGENCIES
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration would also provide environmental information
to responsible agencies and other public agencies that may be required to grant approvals or
coordinate with the City of Tustin as part of project implementation. These agencies include, but
are not limited to the fOllowing:
. California Department of Health Services (DOHS) - approval of amendment to City
Water Supply Permit Number PN 05-08-03P-013 required for modifications to reservoir
. County of Orange - approval of street improvement plans for Foothill Boulevard
. Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) - approval of storm drain connection
to OCFCD facility
R:\ProjectsITustin\JOO3\IS-122005.doc
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 22 of 171
3-3
Project Description
Rawlings ReselVoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
This section includes the completed environmental checklist form. The checklist form is used to
assist in evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The checklist
form identifies potential project effects as follows: (1) Potentially Significant Impact; (2) Less
Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation; (3) Less Than Significant Impact; and, (4) No
Impact. Substantiation and clarification for each checklist response is provided in Section 5
(Environmental Evaluation). Included in the discussion for each topic are standard condition!
regulations and mitigation measures, if necessary, that are recommended for implementation as
part of the proposed project.
R:\Projects\TuSlinIJOO3\IS.122005.doc
4-1
Environmental Checklist From
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 23 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 573-3100
INITIAL STUDY
A. BACKGROUND
Project Title:
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Lead Agency:
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Lead Agency Contact Person:
Scott Reekstin
Phone: (714)573-3016
Project Location:
13331 Foothill Boulevard, Tustin, CA
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of TustinJWater Services
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential and Publicllnstitutional
Zoning Designation: Not Classified
Project Description: The demolition of an existing 3.82 million gallons (MG) reservoir and the
construction of two new water tanks (3 MG each)
Surrounding Uses:
North: Residential
South: High School
East: Residential
West: Residential
Other public agencies whose appr oval is required:
o
o
o
rgJ
Orange County Fire Authority
Orange County Health Care Agency
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Other- State Department of Health Services
o
o
rgJ
rgJ
City of Irvine
City of Santa Ana
Orange County
Orange County Flood Control
District
R:\ProjectS\Tuslin\l003\IS-122005.doc
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 24 of 171
4-2
Environmental Checklist From
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below.
o Aesthetics
o Air Quality
o Cultural Resources
o Hazards & Hazardous Materials
o Land Use/Planning
o Noise
o Public Services
o TransportationlTraffic
o Mandatory Findings of Significance
o Agriculture Resources
o Biological Resources
o Geology/Soils
o Hydrology/Water Quality
o Mineral Resources
o Population/Housing
o Recreation
o Utilities/Service Systems
C. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
o I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[g] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to
by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
o I find that although the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated impact" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described in the attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be
add ressed.
o I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR OR NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR OR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, and no further documentation is required.
Preparer:
Scott Reekstin
Title Senior Planner
Date
Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director
R:\ProjectsITustinU0031IS-122005.doc
4-3
Environmental Checklist From
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 25 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Directions
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based
on project-specific factors and general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including off-site, on-site,
cumulative project level, indirect, direct, construction, and operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant
with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, and EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"
to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,
and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063 (c) (3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within
the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based
on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously
prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or
pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats: however,
lead agencies normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and,
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
R:\ProjflC!SITustin\JOO3\IS-122005.doC
Resolution NO. 06-49
Page 26 of 171
4-4
Environmental Checklist From
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
III. AIR OUALITY: Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality management
or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
4-5
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
D
D
o
D
o
D
D
o
i:?!J
i:?!J
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impacl
No Impact
i:?!J
D
D
i:?!J
i:?!J
D
i:?!J
o
D
i:?!J
D
i:?!J
o
i:?!J
o
i:?!J
D
D
D
o
i:?!J
D
i:?!J
D
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 27 of 171
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans. policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in S 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to S 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 28 of 171
4-6
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
o
~
o
~
o
~
o
~
o
~
o
~
o
~
~
o
~
o
~
o
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 oftopsoi1?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994). creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
t) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area?
Potentially
Significant
~5ct
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
~
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
~
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
4-7
Less Than
Significant
Im5ct
NO;~
~
~
D
~
D
D
D
~
D
D
~
D
D
~
~
D
D
D
~
D
o
~
D
~
o
~
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 29 of 171
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY: - Would
the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stonnwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a IOO-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a IOO-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudtlow?
k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction
activities?
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 30 of 171
4-8
Potentially
Significant
Im5ct
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Imtjct
No Impact
~
o
~
~
o
o
~
o
~
o
~
~
o
~
o
o
~
o
~
~
o
o
~
~
o
1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-
construction activities?
m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater
pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment
fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including
washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or
storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work
areas?
n) Result in a potential for discharge of stonnwater to affect
the beneficial uses of the receiving waters?
0) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow
velocity or volume of storrnwater runoff to cause
environmental harm?
p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site
or surrounding areas?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the residents
of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XI. NOISE-
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance. or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne nOlse levels?
4-9
Potentially
Significant
Im5ct
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Im~ct
NOd~
D
t:2l
D
t:2l
D
t:2l
D
t:2l
D
D
t:2l
t:2l
D
t:2l
D
t:2l
D
t:2l
t:2l
D
D
t:2l
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 31 of 171
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excess noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a} Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 32 of 171
4-10
Potentially
Significant
I'tJct
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
D
Less Than
Significant
Im5ct
NO~
D
~
D
D
D
~
D
D
~
D
D
~
D
D
~
D
D
~
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
~
~
~
~
~
XIV. RECREATlON-
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATlONffRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system
(i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capac1ty ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
4-11
Potentially
Significanl
Im6ct
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incarnation
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
~
Less Than
Significant
ImCjct
No Impact
~
D
~
~
D
D
~
D
~
D
~
~
D
D
D
~
~
D
~
D
~
D
D
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 33 of 171
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
1) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
h) Would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water
treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g.
water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands),
the operation of which could result In significant
environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 34 of 171
4-12
Potenlially
Significant
ImDct
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incoroation
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less Than
Significant
Im6ct
o
IZI
IZI
o
IZI
IZI
IZI
No Impact
IZI
IZI
o
o
IZI
o
o
o
Rawlings ReseNoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
SECTION 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. AESTHETICS
Would the project;
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed site is surrounded by residential uses to the east,
west, and north, and by Foothill Boulevard and Foothill High School to the south. Views of the
site looking north from Foothill Boulevard are shown in Photograph 1 in Exhibit 5a. As shown in
this photograph, views of the reservoir are obstructed by the booster pump station structure, an
existing block wall, and mature site vegetation.
Residential uses to the west and north are situated at a higher elevation than the Reservoir. The
top of the existing reservoir is at an elevation of 306 feet, while the elevation of property to the
west is 320 feet amsl and the property to the north is 330 feet amsl. Because these residences
are located at a higher elevation, the primary visual focal point from these residences is of the
distant background. The reservoir does not obscure the distant views from these residences.
The project site is separated from the residential uses to the east by an unnamed private road.
Views of the project site from residential uses to the east are obstructed by existing walls and
vegetation on both sides of the unnam ed private road, as shown on Photograph 2 on Exhibit 5a.
As shown on Exhibit 7, the proposed water tanks would be partially buried and the height of the
structures would be similar to the existing reservoir structure. The new water tanks would not
obstruct views from existing vantage points surrounding the project site.
The City of Tustin General Plan (Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element, page 8) does
not identify any scenic vistas in the vicinity of the project site.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. The project site is developed with the existing reservoir and associated facilities
including a booster pump station. There are no scenic resources located within the project site,
nor is the project site located within proximity to a designated State Scenic Highway. Therefore,
no impacts to scenic vistas are expected.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
Less Than Significant Impact. The visual character of the project site and surrounding areas
is shown on the photographs provided in Exhibits 5a and 5b. The proposed project includes the
demolition of the existing reservoir and the construction of two new water reservoir tanks on the
same site. Most of the rear tank and a portion of the front tank would be buried. Additionally, the
exposed face of the front tank as well as non-paved areas throughout the site would be
landscaped, which would shield views of the site. The exterior of the exposed portions of the
two new concrete replacement tanks would receive appropriate coloration treatment to further
screen and blend the facilities into and with the proposed landscaping and surrounding area.
The visual character of the site as viewed from Foothill Boulevard would not be substantially
altered since the concrete wall and the structure housing the booster pump station would remain
in place. The roadway improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk) on the north side of Foothill
R:\ProjectsITustin\JOO3\lS-122005 doc
5-1
Environmental Evaluation
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 35 of 171
Rawlings ReseNoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
Boulevard as well as the additional landscaping would be consistent with similar improvements
that existing east of the project site. The views of the site from the west, north, and east are not
the primary focus of the viewsheds from these areas and the visual character of the site would
not be not be substantially degraded or otherwise substantially altered.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. Security lighting currently exists within the southern portion of
the project site on the booster pump station. In addition to this lighting, the proposed project
would include security lighting at the tank hatches, in the event that emergency night work is
required. The lights would be manually controlled, directed downward, and would be on during
emergency night work only. No other additional site lighting is proposed. The roofs of the
reservoirs where the lights would be located would have an asphalt and gravel coating over the
concrete finish. The sides of the reservoirs would have a sprayed gunite-concrete finish. These
exterior finishes would not generate any glare effects. It should also be noted that the reservoirs
would be partially buried further reducing the potential for glare. Therefore, impacts associated
with light or glare would be less than signifi cant.
Mitigation Program
No significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation is required.
Sources
. City of Tustin General Plan, Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element, Figure
COSR-4 and pages 8 and 36, Janu ary 16, 2001.
. Field Reconnaissance on September 20,2005.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
No Impact. The project site is developed with the existing reservoir and associated facilities
including the booster pump station, and is located within an existing developed urban area.
Furthermore, the City of Tustin General Plan (Figure COSR-2) and the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program (State Department of Conservation, 2002) do not identify any designated
farmland on the project site. Therefore, the project will not convert any farmland to non-
agricultural use and no impacts would be expected.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. The project site is not zoned for agricultural use or protected by a Williamson Act
Contact. No impact would result.
R:\Proi,ects\ Tuslin\J003\IS.122005.doc
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 36 of 171
5-2
Environmental Evaluation
Rawlings ReseIVoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. The project includes the demolition of the existing Reservoir and the construction of
two new water tanks on the same site. The project would not involve any changes in the existi ng
land use and could not result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. No impacts to
agricultural resources are anticipated and no impacts would be expected.
Mitigation Program
No standard conditions and regulations are applicable and no mitigation measures are required.
Sources
. City of Tustin General Plan, Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element, Figure
COSR-2, January 16, 2001
. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, State Department of Conservation, 2002
III. AIR QUALITY
Regulatory Setting
The proposed project is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and is within the
jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California
Air Resources Board (CARB). Other important air quality management agencies for the basin
include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG). The EPA implements the provisions of the Federal Cloan
Air Act. This Act establishes ambient air quality standards that are applicable nationwide. In
areas that are not achieving the standards, the Clean Air Act requires that plans be developed
and implemented to meet the standards. The EPA oversees the efforts in the SCAB and
ensures that appropriate plans are being developed and im plemented.
SCAQMD and SCAG, in coordination with local governments and the private sector, have
developed the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SCAB. The AQMP provides the
blueprint for meeting state and federal ambient air quality standards. The 2003 AQMP is the
current approved applicable air plan. The plan was adopted locally on August 1, 2003, by Ihe
governing board of the SCAQMD. CARB adopted the plan as part of the California State
Implementation Plan on October 23, 2003. The 2003 AQMP was adopted by the E PA on April 9.
2004.
State law mandates the revision of the AQMP at least every three years, and federal law
specifies dates certain for attaining criteria pollutant standards and preparing plans to meet
them. Under federal law, the SCAB has been designated by the EPA as a non-attainment area
for ozone, carbon monoxide, and suspended particulates. The SCAB has met the federal
nitrogen dioxide standards for the third year in a row, and, therefore, is qualified for
redesignation to attainment. A maintenance plan for nitrogen dioxide is included in the 2003
AQMP. Under California state law. the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) mandates the
implementation of a program that will achieve the California Ambient Air Quality Standards
(CAAQS), and the Clean Air Act (CAA) mandates the implementation of new air quality
performance standards.
R:\ProjectsITustin\JOO3\1S-122005,doc
5-3
Environmental Evaluation
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 37 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
The overall control strategy for the 2003 AQMP is to meet applicable state and federal
requirements and to demonstrate attainment with ambient air quality standards. The 2003
AQMP contains short- and long-term measures included in Appendix IV -B of the AQMP.
Monitored Air Quality
Air quality at any site is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources.
Regional air quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the air basin.
Estimates for the SCAB have been made for existing emissions. The data indicate that mobile
sources are the major source of regional emissions. Motor vehicles (i.e., on-road mobile
sources) account for approximately 45 percent of volatile organic compounds (VOC), 63 percent
of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, and approximately 76 percent of carbon monoxide (CO)
emissions.
The SCAQMD has divided the SCAB into 38 air-monitoring areas with a designated ambient air
monitoring station representative of each area. The project site is located in the area
represented by air quality data measured at the Anaheim Monitoring Station, which is near the
intersection of Euclid Street and Lincoln Avenue in the City of Anaheim. Ozone, CO, nitrogen
dioxide, PM1O, and PM,.5 conditions measured at the Anaheim Station are representative of the
project site.
The monitoring data show that ozone and particulate matter (PM1O and PM,.5) are the air
pollutants of primary concern in the project area. The State 24-hour concentration standards for
PM10 have been exceeded between 8 and 20 days each year over the past four years at the
Anaheim Monitoring Station: however, during the same four-year period, the Federal standards
for PM10 were not exceeded at the Anaheim station. The federal 24-hour standard for PM,.5 was
exceeded one day in both 2001 and 2002, three days in 2003, and was not exceeded at all in
2004 at the Anaheim Monitoring Station. There does not appear to be a noticeable trend in
either maximum particulate concentrations or days in the area that exceed the particulate
standards.
The State 1-hour ozone standard was exceeded between two and fourteen days each year over
the past four years at the Anaheim station. The Federal 1-hour ozone standard was exceeded
one day and the Federal 8-hour ozone standard was exceeded up to six days over the past four
years at the Anaheim Monitoring Station. There does not appear to be a noticeable trend in
either maximum ozone concentrations or days in the area that exceed the ozone standards.
CO is another important pollutant that is caused mainly by motor vehicles. Currently, CO levels
in the project region are in compliance with the State and Federal 1-hour and 8-hour standards.
High levels of CO commonly occur near major roadways and freeways. CO may potentially be a
continual problem in the future for areas next to freeways and other major roadways.
The monitored data indicate that no State or Federal standards were exceeded for CO or NO, at
the Anaheim station.
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact. The South Coast AQMP discussed above is the air quality plan applicable to the
proposed project. This section addresses consistency of the project with the AQMP, and
specifically whether the project would interfere with the region's ability to comply with Federal
and State air quality standards. A proposed project is considered to be consistent with the plan
if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The Handbook identifies
two key indicators of consistency:
5.4
Environmental Evaluation
R ",\Prol"'"\T""qocoo~~I,l.OO5do'
esolu Ion NO. Uti-4l!
Page 38 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
(1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air
quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air
quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP (except as
provided for CO in Section 9.4 for relocating CO hot spots).
(2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2010 or increments
based on the year of project buildout and phase.
Following is an evaluation of the project with respect to these criteria:
. Criterion 1 - Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations: Based on the air
quality modeling analysis provided under Checklist Item IIl.b below and the SCAQMD
thresholds of significance, short-term construction and long-term operation would not
result in significant impacts. Short-term construction activities would not increase the
frequency or severity of existing air quality violations due to required compliance with
SCAQMD Rules and Regulations. Similarly, the emissions from the project are projected
to be a fraction of a percentage of the basin-wide emissions. Given that the project
involves the replacement of an existing reservoir, there would be negligible long-tf,rm
increases in operational emissions resulting from the periodic maintenance of the
reservoir and the associated pump station and pipelines. The proposed project would
not contribute to the exceedance of any air pollutant concentration standards; thus, the
project is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the first criterion.
. Criterion 2 - Exceed the Assumptions in the AQMP: SCAG and the SCAQMD jointly
prepare the South Coast AQM P. Through this partnershi p, SCAG provides housing and
population growth projections, and SCAQMD estimates regional emissions based on the
growth forecasts provided by SCAG. The project involves the replacement of an existing
reservoir and would provide water supply to existing and planned land uses in the City of
Tustin. The project would not represent an expansion of services to meet the demand of
land uses not already considered in SCAG local and regional growth forecasts.
Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed the assum ptions of the AQMP.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation. Air quality impacts are usually divided
into short-term construction and long-term operational impacts. Short-term impacts are the
result of demolition, grading, and/or construction operations. Long-term impacts are associated
with the long-term operations of the proposed project. In the CEQA Handbook, the SCAQMD
has established significance thresholds to assess the regional impact of project-related air
pollutant emissions. Table 1 presents these significance thresholds. There are separate
thresholds for short-term construction and long-term operational emissions. A project with daily
emission rates below these thresholds are considered to have a "less than significant" effect on
regional air quality throughout the SCAB. Because the project involves the replacement of an
existing reservoir with the same use and would result in negligible changes in long-term
emissions from reservoir and related infrastructure maintenance, this analysis focuses on short-
term emissions.
R\ProJects\T usllnIJ003\1$-122005.doc
5-5
Environmental Evaluation
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 39 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
TABLE 1
SCAQMD REGIONAL POLLUTANT EMISSION THRESHOLDS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Pollutant Emissions (Ibs/day)
CO ROG NOx PM" SOx
Construction 550 75 100 150 150
Operation 550 55 55 150 150
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, CECA Air Quality Handbook, 1993.
Short-Term Construction-Related Impacts
Temporary air quality impacts would result from project construction activities. Air pollutants
would be emitted by construction equipment and fugitive dust would be generated during
demolition of the existing facilities and grading of the site. The air quality analysis assumes
various types of equipment would be used during respective phases that will occur sequentially.
The estimated type and amount of construction equipment to be used during construction is
summarized in Section 3, Project Description. Specific equipment assumed for each phase of
construction (Phase I - Demolition, Phase II - Grading, and Phase III - Construction) is
identified in the calculation worksheets provided in Appendix A. Asphalt and paving are
considered sub-phases under Phase III. Approximately 30 construction workers were assumed
to commute to the project site for all three phases based on generation factors within the
URBEMIS air quality modeling program (version 2.2) developed by the SCAQMD. Emissions
from on-road hauling vehicles disposing of demolition materials and importing/exporting soils
during grading were calculated by URBEMIS using the square footage of the existing reservoir
to be demolished and cubic yards of soil imported/exported.
Demolition
The existing reservoir has a volume of 52,000 cubic feet. Demolition of the existing reservoir is
projected to occur over a two-month period. Based on the assumptions for equipment and
construction workers, and the square footage of structure to be demolished, the peak daily air
pollutant emissions during demolition were calculated using URBEMIS. The results are provided
in Appendix A and summarized below in Table 2.
The datum presented in Table 2 show that the estimated pollutant emissions associated with
the demolition of the existing reservoir would not be greater than the significance thresholds
established by the SCAQMD in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook and no significant impacts
would result.
R\ProjeclsITustinUOO3\IS-122005.doc
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 40 of 171
5-6
Environmental Evaluation
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
TABLE 2
DEMOLITION AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
Maximum Pollutant Emissions (Ibs/day)
Activity CO ROG NO. PM"
Demolition 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0
Off-Road Demolition Equipment 57.7 7.8 59.9 2.7
Debris Haul Trucks 5.0 1.4 24.5 0.7
Employee Travel 2.2 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Emissions 64.9 9.3 84.5 15.5
SCQAMD Thresholds 550 75 100 150
Source: URBEMIS v.2.2
Gradinq
Grading on the project site would be minimal considering the small size of the area to be graded
(i.e., 1.7 acres). Cut and fill required for the project is expected to involve export of
approximately 20,000 cubic yards and import of approximately 40,000 cubic yards of soil. Ba!ied
on the assumptions for equipment and construction workers, and the anticipated amount of
cut/fill and soil export/import, the peak daily air pollutant emissions during grading were
calculated using URBEMIS. The results are provided in Appendix A and summarized below in
Table 3.
TABLE 3
GRADING AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
Maximum Pollutant Emissions (Ibs/day)
Activity CO ROO NO. PM"
Fugitive Dust 0.0 0.0 0.0 307.8
Off-Road Grading Equipment 65.2 8.7 65.3 2.9
Soil Haul Trucks 6.5 1.7 31.6 0.9
Employee Travel 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Emissions 72.1 10.5 96.9 311.6
Mitigation Measure 1 nla nla nla -231.2
Total Emissions After Mitigation 72.1 10.5 96.9 80.4
SCQAMD Thresholds 550 75 100 150
Source: URBEMIS v.2.2
The data presented in Table 3 show that the pollutant emissions associated with the grading of
the project site would exceed the significance threshold for PM10 emissions established by the
SCAQMD in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The significant impact associated with PM10
emissions is primarily the result of release of dust during grading and transport of soil during
export/import. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3-1 (MM 3-1) would reduce impacts to a
level considered less than significant.
Construction
Construction is the longest phase of the proposed project with duration of approximately
20 months, which includes the architectural coatings and asphalt paving sub-phases during ',he
last 2 months. Based on the assumptions for equipment and construction workers, and the
R:\Prujects\Tustin\J003\1$-122005.doc
5-7
Environmental Evaluation
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 41 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
anticipated square footage to be painted or paved, the peak daily air pollutant emissions during
construction were calculated using URBEMIS. The results are provided in Appendix A and
summarized in Table 4.
Delivery of concrete and other construction supplies to the project site would result in emissions
that are not accounted for in the URBEMIS model. However, URBEMIS assumes that a single
on-road diesel truck round-trip of 20 miles would result in emissions of 0.1 pound (Ib) of CO, 0.1
Ib of ROG, 0.6 Ib of NOx, and 0.1 Ib of PMlO. It was estimated that the proposed project would
result in a maximum feasible number of diesel truck round-trip deliveries of 45 during a 10-hour
work day (i.e., one delivery every 13 minutes). Delivery or "on-road diesel" emissions have been
calculated using the URBEMIS assumptions and are included in Table 4.
TABLE 4
CONSTRUCTION AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
Maximum Pollutant Emiaaions (Ibs/day)
Activity CO ROG NOx PM"
Off-Road Diesel Equipment 53.8 6.8 48.7 2.0
On-Road Diesel Equipment 4.5 4.5 27.0 4.5
Architectural Coatings 0.0 62.2 0.0 0.0
Asphalt 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Employee Travel 2.2 0.2 0.1 0.0
Total Emissions 53.8 73.8 75.8 6.5
SCQAMD Thresholds 550 75 100 150
Source: URBEMIS v.2.2
The data presented in Table 4 show that the estimated pollutant emissions associated with the
construction of the proposed project would not be greater than the significance thresholds
established by the SCAQMD in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the EPA, some people are much more sensitive
than others to air pollutants. Sensitive receptors include children, the elderly, and people with
health problems. People with influenza, chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and
the elderly may suffer worsening illness and premature death due to breathing airborne
particulate matter. Children may also experience a decline in lung function due to breathing in
particulate emissions.
Land uses with a high concentration of people with a high sensitivity to airborne particles or
other pollutants are considered sensitive receptor locatio!]s. Sensitive receptor locations include
primary and secondary schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes. As discussed in
Section 2.0, Environmental Setting and Project Background, the project site is surrounded to the
north and east by single-family residential land uses, to the south by Foothill Boulevard and
Foothill High School, and to the west by a landscaped slope and single-family residential uses.
Foothill High School would be considered a sensitive receptor in the immediate project vicinity.
The proposed project involves the replacement of an existing water reservoir and would not
include uses that would generate substantial long-term pollutant concentrations or expose
existing sensitive receptors in the area to such pollutants. Although surrounding uses would
experience a temporary increase in some airborne pollutants as a result of the project, this
R\ProjectsITuslin\JOO3\IS.122005.doc
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 42 of 171
5-8
Environmental Evaluation
Rawlings Rese/voir Replacement Project
Initial Study
increase is not significant per the SCAQMD thresholds and would result in a less than
significant impact.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would result in a short-
term source of odor associated with construction activities (e.g., diesel exhaust and paint
fumes). However, these potential odors are temporary and would not affect a substantial
number of people. The proposed project does not involve a change in land uses or operations
on site and would not result in long-term odor impacts on surrounding land uses or people.
Although surrounding uses could potentially experience construction-related odors as a result of
the project, this increase would not affect substantial numbers of people and would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Program
Mitiaation Measures
MM 3-1 The contractor shall comply with all applicable SCAQMD Rules and Regulati<lns
including Rule 403. This requirement shall be included on the contractor
specifications. A plan to control fugitive dust during the project grading phase
through implementation of reasonable available dust control measures shall be
prepared and submitted to the City of Tustin Public Works Department. The plan
shall specify the fugitive dust control measures to be employed. The plan may
include, but shall not be limited to, the following fugitive dust control techniques:
. Application of sufficient water prior to initiating any earth movement;
. Suspension of grading operations during first and second stage ozone episodes
or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour;
. Watering portions of the project site undergoing earth moving operations a
minimum of three times a day;
. Sweeping and/or street cleaning where vehicles exit construction sites;
. Installation of bedliners in fill import and export vehicles;
. Covering of fill import and export vehicles when carrying bulk material;
. Installation of wheel washers where vehicles exit disturbed surface areas onto
paved roads.
Sources
. AQMD Historical Air Quality Data by Year: http://www.aqmd.gov/smog/historicaldata.t.tm
(accessed on October 10, 2005)
. Quality Assurance Air Monitoring Information: http://www.arb.ca.gov/qaweb
/countyselect.php?c_arb_code=30 (accessed on October 10, 2005)
. South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April 1993
(with updates at www.aqmd.gov/cequa/index.htmlaccessed on October 10, 2005)
R:\Profe<:tS\Tustin\J003\1$..122005.doc
5-9
Environmental Evaluation
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 43 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. A large portion of the site contains landscape vegetation, with various ornamental
trees and shrubs. The understory and open areas on the property are dominated by invasive
non-native grass species and barren ground. The most abundant ornamental tree and scrub
genus on the project site include oleander (Nerium oleander), acacia (Acacia sp.), Russian
thistle (Salsola tragus), fig, (Ficus sp.), pine (Pinus sp.), pepper tree (Schinus sp.), rhus (Rhus
sp.), and gum (Eucalyptus sp.).
The project site provides marginal habitat for wildlife other than those animals typically found in
a disturbed urban environment. The relative small size of the project site, its proximity to
residential land uses, and its isolation from natural open space areas limits the potential for a
substantial number of native wildlife species to occur on the project site. The potential for
special status plant and wildlife species to occur on the project site is limited by the ornamental
vegetation and lack of native habitat present. Therefore, no impacts to candidate, sensitive, or
special status species would occur.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The project site primarily contains upland ornamental vegetation; there are no areas
within the project site that meet the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdiction
pursuant to Section 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code. CDFG uses Section 1603 to
regulate activities that substantially affect the bed or bank of streams or lakes. As there is no
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community on site, no impacts would occur.
Additionally, based on review of the City's General Plan (Figure COSR-2), the site has not been
identified as being in an area with important natural resources (i.e., a sensitive natural
community).
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
No Impact. The project site does not meet the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) criteria for
wetlands and waters of the U.S., and would not be regulated as a wetlands or waters of the U.S.
There is no wetland habitat on the project site; therefore, project implementation would not
impact federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the
1987 Corps Manual.
5.10
Environmental Evaluation
R.\Proj~s\Tu~ti[1\JOO~\!ii-1n.OO5_doc
Resolution NO. Utj-4~
Page 44 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact. The project site provides little habitat for wildlife other than those animals typically
found in a disturbed urban environment. The project site is located in a developed urban area
and has not been identified as a crucial portion of the migratory path of any animal species.
Additionally, there are no natural water sources or habitat for migratory species. No impacts
would occur.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. Two tree groups that are identified in the Tustin General Plan as important to the
City are eucalyptus windrow and redwood grove. The proposed project would not result in the
removal of, or otherwise adversely impact, these tree communities. The proposed project would
not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natmal
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
No Impact. The project site is within the County of Orange Central and Coastal Natural
Communities Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). The NCCP/HCP
was adopted by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), and participating agencies (including the City of Tustin) in 1996 to addmss
protection and management of coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat and CSS-obligate species, Hnd
other covered habitats and species. The NCCP/HCP mitigates anticipated impacts to those
habitats and species, on a programmatic, sub-regional level, rather than on a project-by-project,
single species basis. The NCCP/HCP involved the establishment of an approximate
37,000-acre Reserve for the protection of CSS, other upland habitats, the coastal California
gnatcatcher, and other species identified in the NCCP/HCP. The project site is not within the
NCCP/HCP Reserve, rather it is within a development area identified in the NCCP/HCP. The
proposed project would not conflict with the NCCP/HCP.
Mitigation Program
No significant impacts have been identifi ed and no mitigation is required.
Sources
. City of Tustin General Plan, Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element, Figure
COSR-2 (January 16. 2001).
. Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan, County of
Orange, Central and Coastal Subregion, July 17, 1996. Prepared for County of Orange,
Environmental Management Agency and United States Fish and Wildlife Servicel
Califomia Department of Fish and Game.
. Field Reconnaissance 0 n September 20, 2005.
R:\Protects\Tuslin\JOO3\I$-122005.doC
5-11
Environmental Evaluation
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 45 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in ~ 15064.5?
No Impact. Cultural resources are places, structures, or objects that are important for scientific,
historic, and/or religious reasons to cultures, communities, groups, or individuals. Cultural
resources include historic and prehistoric archaeological sites, architectural remains,
engineering structures, and artifacts that provide evidence of past human activity. They also
include places, resources, or items of importance in the traditions of societies and religions.
CEQA Guidel ines Section 15064.5 defines historic resources as any object, building, structure,
site, area, place, record, manuscript, or other resource listed or determined to be eligible for
listing by the State Historical Resources Commission, a local register of historic resources, or
the Lead Agency. Generally, a resource is considered to be "historically significant" if it meets
one of the followi ng criteria:
. is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of California's history and cultural heritage.
. is associated with the I ives of important persons in the past.
. embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses
high artistic values; or has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in
prehistory or history.
The project site is not located within the City's Cultural Resources Overlay District and is not the
site of any historic resources as noted in Figure COSR-3 in the Tustin General Plan. The
Reservoir is not associated in a significant way with important historic events or persons and is
not likely to yield important historic information, and therefore, is not considered a historical
resource per CEQA guidelines. The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of any historical resource.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to ~ 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is developed with an existing reservoir and is
located within an existing developed urban area. Because the site is already developed and has
been disturbed previously, there is little potential that project excavation and grading would
encounter buried and undiscovered archaeological resources. The excavation and grading
activities associated with the improvements would be conducted in accordance with the City's
grading requirements. Although it is not expected that archaeological resources would be
encountered, if archaeological resources are discovered during excavation, they are to be handled
in accordance with Standard Condition 5-1 (SC 5-1) below.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is developed with an existing reservoir and is
located within an existing developed urban area. Because the site is already developed and has
R\ProjectsITustlnIJOO3\IS-122005.doc
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 46 of 171
5-12
Environmental Evaluation
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
been disturbed previously, there is little potential that project excavation and grading would
encounter undiscovered paleontological resources. Furthermore, the excavation and grading
activities associated with the improvements would be in accordance with the City's grading
requirements. Although it is not expected that paleontological resources would be encountered, if
paleontological resources are discovered during excavation, they are to be handled in accordance
with SC 5-1 below.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is developed with an existing reservoir and is
located within an existing developed urban area. Because the site is already developed and has
been disturbed previously, there is little potential that project excavation and grading would
uncover any human remains. Furthermore, the excavation and grading activities associated ~~ith
the improvements would be in accordance with the City's Grading Manual requirements. It is highly
unlikely that human remains would be encountered. However, if human remains are discovered
during excavation, they are to be handled in accordance with SC 5-1, below.
Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Reaulations
SC 5-1
Should any archaeological or paleontological resources be uncovered during gradi ng
or excavation activities, these activities shall be diverted to a part of the site away
from the find, and an Orange County-certified archaeologist andlor paleontologist
shall be contacted by the contractor to: (1) ascertain the significance of the resource,
(2) establish protocol with the contractor to protect such resources, (3) ascertain the
presence of additional resources, and (4) provide additional monitoring of the site, if
deemed appropriate. If human remains are discovered on the site, the Orange
County Coroner shall be contacted to examine the remains, and the provisions of
Section 15064.5(3) of the CEQA Guidelines shall be followed. These requirements
shall be included as notes on the contractor specifications and verified by the Publ ic
Works Department prior to issuance of grading permits.
Sources
. City of Tustin General Plan, Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element, Figure
COSR-3, January 16, 2001.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOilS
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
I) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
No Impact. The Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act was signed into law in 1972. In 1994,
it was renamed the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (A-P Act). The primary purpose
R:\ProjectsITustinUOO3\1S-122005.doc
5-13
Environmental Evaluation
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 47 of 171
Rawlings ReseNoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
of the Act is to mitigate the hazard of fault rupture by prohibiting the location of structures for
human occupancy across the trace of an active fault. The A-P Act requires the State Geologist
(Chief of the California Geology Survey) to delineate "Earthquake Fault Zones" along faults that
are "sufficiently active" and "well-defined." The boundary of an "Earthquake Fault Zone" is
generally about 500 feet from major active faults and 200 to 300 feet from well-defined minor
faults. The A-P Act dictates that cities and counties withhold development permits for sites
within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone until geologic investigations demonstrate that the
sites are not threatened by surface displacements from future faulting. The project site is not
located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and there are no
currently known active or potentially active surface faults at or locally trending toward this site.
Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to adverse effects involving the
rupture of a known earthquake fault.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site, as with all of Southern California, could be
subject to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. The closest active fault, the
Elsinore-Whittier fault, is located approximately 8.5 miles (14 kilometers) southwest of the
project site. However, the project does not propose construction of any structures that would
encourage frequent use of the site by people for any reason. Ground shaking impacts would be
mitigated through compliance with the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Standard
D110-95, American Concrete Institute (ACI) Standard 350, and the most current version of the
Uniform Building Code. This would safeguard against major structural failures due to a seismic
event. Seismic ground shaking impacts are considered less than significant when current
standards and standard engi neering practices are used. The proposed project would not expos e
people or structures to substantial adverse effects associated with strong seismic ground
shaking.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction occurs when groundwater is forced out of the soil
as it subsides. This excess water momentarily liquefies the soil, causing an almost complete
loss of strength. If this layer is at the surface, its effect is much like that of quicksand for any
structure located on it. If the liquefied layer is in the subsurface, the material above it may slide
laterally depending on the confinement of the unstable mass. According to the California
Division of Mines and Geology, April 15, 1998, Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Orange 7S
Quadrangle, this site is not located inside a potential liquefaction-hazard zone. Project site earth
materials consist of primarily clayey soils underlain by Miocene age sedimentary bedrock, which
is not expected to liquefy. The liquefaction potential on-site is remote.
In addition to liquefaction, during a strong seismic event, seismically induced settlement can
occur within loose to moderately dense, unsaturated granular soils. Settlement caused by
ground shaking is often non-uniformly distributed, which can result in differential settlement. The
proposed reservoirs would be located on sedimentary bedrock. Therefore, seismically induced
settlement under the tank would be less than Y<-inch to negligible. Seismically-induced
differential settlement could be up to half of the total seis mic settlement.
Construction of the proposed project would occur in accordance with the current standards and
standard engineering practices and impacts would be less than significant.
R:\ProjectsITusllnIJOO3\1S-122005.doc
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 48 of 171
5-14
Environmental Evaluation
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
iv) Landslides?
No Impact. According to the California Division of Mines and Geology, April 15, 1998, Seismic
Hazard Zones Map, Orange 7.5' Quadrangle, this site is not located inside an earthquake-
induced landslide hazard zone. Additionally, no landslides were identified during site
investigations by the engineering geologist. The proposed project would be designed and
constructed in accordance with the recommendations found in the project site's geotechnical
investigation and with the most current safety standards of the Uniform Building Code and other
related codes. With application of these codes and recommendations, construction of the
proposed project woul d not impact slope stability. No impacts are expected.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would require excavation, grading, and
other earthmoving activities, which would expose soils and thereby increase the potential for the
erosion or loss of topsoil during construction. Refer to Section VIII, Hydrology and Water
Quality, for an evaluation of the proposed project's potential impact on soil erosion. Following
construction, the amount of impervious surface on site would be increased, reducing the
potential for on-site erosion compared to existing conditions. The project would have a less than
significant impact related to soil erosion.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Settlement, liquefaction and landslide potential were
addressed in Items Vl.a.iii and Vl.a.iv. Lateral spreading is a function of groundshaking and may
occur during an earthquake. Seismic ground-shaking impacts, including lateral spreading, are
considered less than significant when current Uniform Building Code standards and standard
engineering practices are used.
It should also be noted that temporary cut slopes are required for the northern reservoir. During
construction these slopes would be stabilized with temporary shoring. After the reservoirs are
constructed this area would be backfilled to gentle slopes and the tank walls would support the
backfill. The backfill would also buttress the existing retaining wall for the off-site slope which
ascends to the residence north of the project site. Mitigation Measures 6-1 and 6-2 require that
recommendations outlined in the project geotechnical report be incorporated into the grading
plans and would reduce impacts to a level considered less than significant.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less Than Significant Impact. The existing reservoir is underlain by sedimentary bedrock of
the Miocene age Puente formation that is highly expansive. In accordance with the
recommendations found in the project site's geotechnical investigation, the new water tanks
would be founded solely on sedimentary bedrock. Although the proposed project would be
located on expansive soils, construction of the proposed project would occur in accordance with
current standard engineering practices. Impacts would be less than significant and would not
create substantial risks to life or property.
R\Projects\Tustin\JOO3\IS.122005.doc
5-15
Environmental Evaluation
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 49 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
No Impact. The proposed project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems.
Mitigation Program
Mitiqation Measures
MM 6-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the contractor shall submit grading plans that
incorporate recommendations of the geologic and soils engineer reports. Compliance
with this requirement shall be verified by the Public Works Department.
MM 6-2 During construction, geotechnical observation and testing shall be provided by the
geotechnical engineer/engineering geologist. Specifically, observation and testing
shall occur during shoring installation, overexcavation, compaction of all backfill
and/or when unusual geotechnical conditions are encountered. This requirement
shall be included on the contractor's specification and verified by the Public Works
Department.
Sources
. Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Two 3.5 mg
Prestressed-Concrete Water Tanks, Leighton Consulting, Inc., July 8, 2005.
. California Division of Mines and Geology, April 15, 1998, Seismic Hazard Zones Map,
Orange 7.50 Quadrangle.
VII. HAZARD AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact. During the construction phase of the project, there is a limited
risk of accidental release of hazardous materials such as gasoline, oil, or other fluids in the
operation and maintenance of construction equipment. Compliance with standard State and
local construction requirements would reduce the risk of any damage or injury from these
potential hazards to a less than significant level.
The project, which involves the replacement of a water storage reservoir with two new
reservoirs does not include the construction of any uses that would involve the use, storage, or
transport of hazardous materials resulting in the risk of release or emission of hazardous
emissions.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. An asbestos and lead survey was conducted for the
proposed project. The asbestos survey was conducted and recommendations were made in
R:\Proj!'!;Cts\Tu~tin\JOOllJ,t).1noo5.doc
Resolution NO. uo-4!J
Page 50 of 171
5-16
Environmental Evaluation
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
compliance with all regulatory agency requirements including SCAQMD Rule 1403. Based on
the results of the survey, there was no presence of materials with lead levels at or above the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Guidelines.
Asbestos containing materials (ACMs) were commonly used in a wide variety of building
products such as roofing shingles; composite siding; linoleum flooring; acoustic ceiling tiles;
furnace and water heater exhaust piping and insulation; glues and mastics; stucco; joint
compounds; and composite wallboards prior to 1980. ACMs can be divided into material
considered friable (Le., easily crumbled or reduced to powder) and nonfriable. Friable ACMs are
regulated as hazardous materials due to the elevated long-term risk of developing lung cancer
upon respiratory exposure and must be properly removed prior to renovation or demolition of
any structure containing these materials.
Asbestos is present in the reservoir's roof mastic, floor and wall mastic, and fiberboard. The
ACMs in these compounds are in good to fair condition and are considered nonfriaiJle.
However, these materials could become friable if damaged or disturbed. Because exposure to
such materials can result in adverse health effects in uncontrolled situations, several regulations
and guidelines pertaining to abatement of and protection from exposure to asbestos have been
developed for demolition activities. Prior to demolition of the existing reservoir, ACMs would be
removed and disposed of by qualified contractors. With implementation of SC 7-1, potential
hazards resulting from the removal and disposal of these materials would be reduced to a level
considered less than significant. These materials would be removed in accordance with the
recommendations of the project's asbestos survey report and the remediation and mitigation
procedures established by all federal, state, and local standards. With the application of these
recommendations and standards, impacts associated with the release of hazardous materials
would be reduced to less than significant.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less Than Significant Impact. Foothill High School is located south of the project site on the
south side of Foothill Boulevard. As discussed under 7.b, during demolition of the existing
Reservoir, ACMs found on-site would be removed in accordance with applicable standards.
Impacts associated with the release of ACMs would be reduced to less than significant.
However, the project does not include the construction of any uses that would involve the use,
storage, or transport of hazardous materials resulting in the risk of release or emission of
hazardous emissions.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. The project is not located on site which is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The proposed project is located approximately five miles from John Wayne Airport
and is not located within the John Wayne Airport land use plan. The landing flight path of
aircraft, however, is near or over the project site location. Generally, if a site is greater than two
miles away from an airport and it is not under a direct flight path, then the impact and safety
R\Projects\Tuslin\JOO3\1S.1220Q5.doc
5.17
Environmental Evaluation
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 51 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
threat from the airport is negligible. Safety hazards related to this issue would be less than
significant.
If) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. There are no private airstrips identified in close proximity to the proposed project
location. The proposed project would not affect nor be affected by private airstrips.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The proposed project involves the continuation of an existing use and would not
impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
No Impact. The project site is located in an urban area with no wildlands in close proximity.
Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death from wildfires.
Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Reoulations
SC 7-1
Prior to demolition of the existing reservoir, the contractor shall comply with
notification and asbestos removal procedures outlined in SCAQMD Rule 1403 to
reduce asbestos-related health risks. SCAQMD Rule 1403 applies to any
demolition or renovation activity and the associated disturbance of asbestos-
containing material. This requirement shall be included on the contractors'
specifications and verified by the Department of Public Works.
Mitioation Measures
MM7-1
Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the contractor shall submit an Asbestos
Management Program (AMP) to the Public Works Department. The AMP set
forth operational and maintenance guidelines to minimize fiber release which
may be caused by the proposed project during demolition activities. The AMP
shall incorporate recommendations from the Asbestos and Lead Survey report
prepared for the project (National Econ, February 2005) and compliance with the
this program shall be a requirement included on the contract specifications.
Inclusion of these requirements on the specifications shall be verified by the
Public Works Department.
Sources
. Asbestos and Lead Survey, 13331 Foothill Boulevard, Orange County, City of Tustin,
State of California. National Econ Corporation, February 8,2005.
. City of Tustin General Plan, Public Safety Element, January 16, 2001.
R:\ProjectsITustinIJOO3\lS-122005.doc
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 52 of 171
5-18
Environmental Evaluation
Rawfings ReselVoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
f} Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Tustin, including the project site is, within the
jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). In addition to the
requirements of the RWQCB, the project is subject to requirements of the 1972 Federal W"ter
Pollution Control Act, subsequently known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). In 1972, the CWA
was amended to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for
the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States from any point source. In 1987, the
CWA was amended to require that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
establish regulations for permitting under the NPDES permit program of municipal and industrial
stormwater discharges. The regulations require that municipal separate storm sewer system
(MS4) discharges to surface waters be regulated by an NPDES permit. The MS4s are
designated or used for collecting or conveying stormwater as opposed to wastewater or
combined sewage.
In January 2002, the RWQCB issued an NPDES permit (Order No. R8-2002-0010) applicable to
northern Orange County cities (co-permittees). This permit will regulate storm water and urban
runoff discharges from the project site to constructed storm drain systems in the project area.
The co-permittees have developed a 2003 Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP).
Pursuant to the CWA Section 402(p), requiring regulations for permitting of certain stormwciter
discharges, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has issued a statewide genE,ral
NPDES Permit for stormwater discharges from construction sites (NPDES No. CAS000002).
Under this Construction General Permit (effective March 2003), discharges of stormwater from
construction sites with a disturbed area of one or more acres are required to either obtain
individual NPDES permits for stormwater discharges or be covered by the Construction General
Permit. Coverage under the Construction General Permit is accomplished by completing and
filing a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB. Each applicant under the Construction General Permit
must ensure that a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is prepared prior to grading
and implemented during construction. The primary objective of the SWPPP is to identify,
construct, implement, and maintain best management practices (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate
pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges from the
construction site during construction.
In compliance with the NPDES program and DAMP, the proposed project would be required to
incorporate post-construction BMPs to reduce the amount of pollutants introduced into the
stormwater drainage system on a long-term basis. It is anticipated that the proposed project
would implement structural BMPs including catch basin inserts/fossil filters and trash racks to
remove paper, debris, and sediments before the runoff is discharged to the storm-drain system.
A Water Quality Management Plan would be prepared for the project. Implementation of BMPs
and compliance with local, state and federal water quality regulations would reduce potential
long-term water quality impacts to a level considered less than significant.
LonQ-Term Qoerational Water Qualitv Imoacts
The quality of the water runoff from the project site would be improved as compared to existing
conditions. Currently, all surface runoff sheet flows from the site onto Foothill Boulevard and
R:\Projects\TuslinIJOO3\IS-122005.doc
5.19
Environmental Evaluation
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 53 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
gravity flows to a catch basin in Hewes Avenue. There is currently no treatment of the water
prior to its discharge to the public storm drain system. However, the amount of surface runoff
would not substantially increase as a result of project implementation. Surface water from the
project site would be captured in on-site storm drain facilities and conveyed to new storm drain
pipes which would discharge to an existing storm drain pipeline as shown in Exhibit 8.
Construction of the project would require an amendment to the City's Water Supply Permit
Number 04-89-001 issued by the California Department of Health Services. The proposed
project would not result in violations of any water quality standards or substantially degrade
water quality.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
No Impact. Free groundwater was not encountered during geotechnical borings drilled to a
maximum depth of 41 feet. Seepage was encountered in hand-auger borings at depths ranging
from 2.5 to 6 feet. However, since the Puente formation underlying the site is primarily
impermeable, it is expected that the seepage was from perched groundwater and this may also
be encountered during grading, particularly at the fill/bedrock contact, and trapped immediately
under the existing reservoir. The amount of permeable surface on site is very small and would
not change substanti ally with project implementation. The proposed project would not cause any
long-term interference with groundwater recharge or affect existing aquifer volumes, and would
not involve the depletion of groundwater supplies. No impacts would occur.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site?
No Impact. Stormwater runoff from the project site currently sheetfiows to the south and then
drains to Foothill Boulevard and ultimately to existing stormdrains. The project site is not in
close proximity to a stream or river, nor would runoff from the site enter a stream or river and
alter its course. Implementation of the proposed project would slightly increase the amount of
impervious surface on-site; however, this increase would not result in substantial increase in the
rate or amount of runoff from the site that would cause an increase in erosion or flooding.
Additionally, the proposed project involves the construction of new stormdrains to capture site
runoff which would reduce the amount of erosion that currently occurs with the sheetfiow
condition. No significant impacts would occur.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources
of polluted runoff?
Less Than Significant Impact. The amount of surface runoff would not substantially increase
as a result of project implementation since the on-site uses would be similar to existing
conditions and only a small amount of additional impervious surface would be added.
Additionally, runoff from the project site already drains to the existing storm-drain facility in
R:\Projecls\T ustinIJOO3\lS-122005.ooc
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 54 of 171
5-20
Environmental Evaluation
Rawlings ReseiVoir Repfacement Project
Initial Study
Hewes Street via gutters in Foothill Boulevard. As part of the proposed project, a new storm
drain line would be installed in Foothill Boulevard to convey water to an existing OCFCD facility.
As discussed in Section 3.2.3, Off-site Project Features, two options are under consideration for
storm-drain line connections. The OCFCD facility along Newport Avenue has sufficient capacity
to accommodate the drainage from the project site. There would be a negligible increase in the
amount of water entering the facility in Hewes Street as this is where the site runoff currently
flows. The proposed project would not involve the construction of any uses that would alter the
type or amount of pollutants in the runoff from the project site. Less than significant impacts
relative to stormwater runoff would result from the project.
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
No Impact. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the project site
is not located in a special flood hazard area (100-year or less floodplain). Additionally, the
proposed project does not include the development of new housing. Therefore, the proposed
project would have no im pacts associated with flood hazards to housing or other structures.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Less Than Significant Impact. Although the proposed project is not in proximity to any existing
levee or dam, it would involve the construction of two new 3.0 MG concrete water storage tanks.
The hoop reinforcing in the sidewall and the tendons from the base to the sidewall allow the
reservoir to flex, if necessary, without failing. The proposed project would be designed and
constructed in accordance with the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Standard
D110-95, American Concrete Institute (ACI) Standard 350, and the most current version of the
Uniform Building Code. This would safeguard against major structural failures. Adherence to
these standards would reduce potential impacts associated with new construction to a less than
significant level.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact. A seiche is an oscillation of a landlocked body of water that can cause water
damage to buildings, roads, and infrastructure that surround the body of water. There is no sllch
body of water located in the City of Tustin. Therefore, impacts to the project study area
associated with seiches would not occur. Additionally, the project site is approximately 9.6 miles
from the Pacific Ocean or any body of water that could cause tsunami, also know as tidal
waves, to the area. There is no risk of tsunami associated with the project. By definition,
mudflows are considered a type of landsl ide and the site is not located in an earthquake-
induced landslide seismic hazard zone according to the April 15, 1998, Seismic Hazard Zones
Map for the Orange Quadrangle. No impacts are expected.
k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities?
Less Than Significant. Refer to Checklist Item VlIl.a which discusses the regulatory setting for
water quality. The proposed project could result in short-term construction impacts to surface
water quality from grading and other construction-related activities. Construction activities WOJld
result in the disturbance of soils on the project site and would result in increased erosion. Storm
R:\ProjectsITustinUOO3\1S-122005.doc
5-21
Environmental Evaluation
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 55 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
water runoff from the project site during construction could contain soils and sediments from
these activities. Spills or leaks from heavy equipment and machinery: construction staging
areas, which typically include petroleum products such as fuel, oil and grease; and heavy
metals can also enter runoff. Compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit and the
preparation and implementation of a SWPPP would ensure that any impacts to down stream
waters resulting from construction activities associated with the project site would be less than
significant. Erosion control and treatment BMPs would be implemented per NPDES
requirements.
In addition to the requirements of the NPDES General Construction Permit, provisions of the
Uniform Building Code and grading permit requirements include elements that also require
reduction of erosion and sedimentation impacts during construction. Full compliance with
applicable local, state, and federal regulations would reduce water quality impacts associated
with construction to a less than significant level.
I) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-construction activities?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to the discussion under Checklist Items VlIl.a. and VlIl.e.
m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material
storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance
(including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage,
delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas?
No Impact. As with existing conditions, the project does not include areas of material storage,
vehicle or equipment fueling; vehicle or equipment maintenance; waste handling; hazardous
materials handling or storage: delivery areas; loading docks; or other outdoor work areas.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a potential for discharge of storm water
pollutants as a result of these uses.
n) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of
the receiving waters?
No Impact. As discussed above, the amount and quality of surface runoff from the project site
would not substantially change compared to existing conditions. The proposed would not
involve any activities that would result in impacts to the quality of the stormwater runoff.
Therefore, the proposed project would not affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters.
0) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of
stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm?
No Impact. The amount of surface runoff would not substantially increase as a result of project
implementation. There would be no significant change to existing stormwater flow velocity or
volume as a result of the project. No impacts would result.
p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas?
No Impact. Refer to the discussion for Checklist Item VlIl.c. As noted, the proposed project
would not result in a significant increase in erosion.
R:\Projects\Tuslin\JOO3\IS-122005.cloc
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 56 of 171
5-22
Environmental Evaluation
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Reaulations
SC8-1
Prior to the approval of grading plans, the contractor shall provide written evidence
to the Public Works Department that a Notice of Intent has been filed with the
SWRCB in order to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit (CGP)
(NPDES No. CAS000002, Resolution No. 2001-046, or the latest approved CGP).
Pursuant to the permit requirements. the contractor shall develop an SWPPP that
incorporates BMPs for reducing or eliminating construction-related pollutants in the
site runoff.
SC8-2
Prior to approval of grading plans, the contractor shall submit a project water
quality management plan (WQMP) to the Public Works Department for review and
approval. The WQMP shall demonstrate compliance with the implementation plans
under the MS4 Permit, namely the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP).
Sources
. Federal Emergency Management Agency Q3 Flood Data, Orange County, 1996.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project;
a) Physically divide an established community?
No impact. The project site is bounded by Foothill Boulevard and Foothill High School to the
south, an unnamed private road and single family residences to the east, an undeveloped slope
and a single family residence to the west, and a single family residence to the north. The
existing reservoir was constructed in 1971, and there is also a booster pump station on site. The
use of the site for water storage purposes would remain the same with the proposed project and
would not physically divide an established com munity.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No Impact. With the exception of a sliver of property along Foothill Boulevard within
unincorporated Orange County, the property is an incorporated island in the City of Tustin
surrounded by unincorporated area within Orange County, and has General Plan Land Use
Designations of Low Density Residential and Public/Institutional. The proposed project would be
designated as Public/Institutional use and therefore would not conflict with the Tustin General
Plan, zoning ordinance, other policies, or regulations applicable to the area.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
No Impact. Refer to the discussion under Checklist Item IV.f (Section IV, Biological Resources). As
noted, the project site is within the County of Orange Central and Coastal NCCP/HCP. However,
it would not conflict with the implementation of this program. The project site is within a
development area.
RIProjects\Tustin\JOO3\IS-122005.doc
5-23
Environmental Evaluation
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 57 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
Mitigation Program
No significant impacts have been identified and no mitigation is required.
Sources
. City of Tustin General Plan. Land Use Element, January 16, 2001.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. The California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) is the state agency with the
responsibility to oversee the management of mineral resources in California. The CDMG
considers a site to be significant with regard to mineral commodities if the site can be mined
commercially and there is enough of the resource to be economically viable. There are no such
resources on-site. The Tustin General Plan does not identify any mineral resources in the City.
Therefore. the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. The Tustin General Plan does not identify any mineral resources in the City.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource.
Mitigation Program
No significant impacts have been identifi ed and no mitigation is required.
Sources
. City of Tustin General Plan, Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element, January 16,
2001.
XI. NOISE
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less Than Significant. The maximum allowable noise level for residential districts in Tustin is
55 dB from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 50 dB from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Exceptions are
made for noise sources associated with construction activities between the hours of 7:00 a.m.
R:\Pro~ects\Tustjn\JOO3\IS-122005,doc
Resoiulion No. 06-49
Page 58 of 171
5-24
Environmental Evaluation
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on
Saturdays, excluding City-observed federal holidays.
Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by
construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable
generators, can reach high levels. The greatest construction noise levels are typically generated
by heavy grading equipment. As noted in Section 3, Project Description, site excavation and
grading activities would last only two months. Exhibit 9 depicts typical noise levels generated by
construction equipment. Pile driving would not be required for the proposed project.
Construction noise levels generated by commonly-used grading equipment (i.e. loaders,
graders, and trucks) generate noise levels that typically do not exceed the middle of the ranges
shown on Exhibit 9. For the purposes of this analysis, an overall grading noise level of 89 dBA
at 50 feet is used as the worst-case maximum exterior noise level. Using a drop-off rate of
6 dBA per doubling of distance, noise levels at 100 feet and 200 feet are estimated at 83 dBA
and 77 dBA, respectively. The nearest homes are located across the private access road,
approximately 30 feet to the east.
Construction of the project would result in noise levels at surrounding residential areas in
excess of the limits presented in the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance. However, the City's Noise
Ordinance excludes noise control generated by construction activities during specific time
periods, as stated previously. In accordance with this ordinance, construction of the project
would not occur outside of these hours nor on Sundays or City-observed federal holidays.
Therefore, noise generated by the construction of the project would comply with the City's Noise
Ordinance and construction of the project would not result in a significant noise impact. It should
be noted that although a significant noise impact would not result from construction of the
project due to the temporary nature of the activity and the time constraints of the City's Noise
Ordinance, the City retained Mestre-Greve Associates (MGA) to evaluate methods to further
reduce construction noise levels. MGA's recommendations are listed as special conditions
(Noise-1 through Noise-3) and are provided below. The special conditions would be
incorporated into the project during construction.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
No Impact. The proposed project would involve typical construction activities and equipment.
There would be no construction or operational activities that would generate excessive
groundbourne vi brations or noise. No impacts would result.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels exist ing without the project?
No Impact. Operations at the project site for the new water reservoirs would be similar to
existing conditions. The existing booster pump station would remain. The proposed project
would not generate operational noise above existing noise levels and no impacts would occur.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
No Impact. The project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an
airport.
R\Projects\TuslinIJ003\IS.122005.dOC
5-25
Environmental Evaluation
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 59 of 171
A-Weighted Sound level (dBA) At 50 Feet
Equipment 60 70 80 90 100 110
Compacter (Rollers)
Front Loader
Backhoe
Tractor
Scraper, Grader
Paver
Truck
._~~_..--
Concrete Mixer
Concrete Pump
Crane (Movable)
Crane (Derrick)
Pump
Generator
Compressor
. ...-.-.-..-....-..-.-----. -.-.-.....-.-..---.....-...-.-..
Pneumatic Wrench
. ...'__________._____, __ ..u.______._
Jackhammer and Drill
Pile Drivers (Peak Levels)
-- --. .----
Vibrator
Saw
60
80
70
90
100
110
..
~
~
"
3
o
~
~ Source: "Handbook of' Noise control,"
~ by Cyril Harris, 1979
.
'e
,
"
Typical Construction Noise Levels
Rawlings ReselVoir Replacement Project
Exhibit 9
~~
CONSULTING
R\ProjectsITusUn\J003\GraphlcsIElC9_NoiseLevels_1 011 05. pdt
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels?
No Impact. The project is not located withi n the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Reaulations
SC 11-1 All construction documents and contracts shall require that all construction activities
meet the requirements of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance. In order to comply with
the City's Noise Ordinance, noise-generati ng activities must only occur during the
hours when construction noise is exempted from the Noise Ordinance standards.
The contractor shall ensure that all construction activities shall be subject to the City
of Tustin Noise Ordinance and shall only occur between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on
Saturdays excluding City-observed federal holidays.
Special Conditions
In addition to the standard condition identified above, the City will implement the following
special conditions during project construction:
Noise-1 The contractor shall install a 24-foot temporary noise barrier at the east and north
property lines to provide noise reduction at adjacent residences during construction.
The requirement for installation of this noise barrier shall be included on the
contractor specifications and verified by the Publi c Works Department.
Noise-2 The contractor shall utilize residential grade mufflers on all construction equipment.
This requirement shall be included on the contractor specifications and verified by
the Public Works Department.
Noise-3 The contractor shall clearly post construction hours on the project site to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Department. This requirement shall be included on
the contractor specifications and verified by the Public Works Department.
Sources
. City of Tustin Noise Ordinance, Chapter 6, Noise Control, Municipal Code.
. Memorandum from F. Greve, Mestre-Greve Associates to T. Andersen, BonTerra
Consulting, dated November 23,2005.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact. The purpose of the proposed project is to provide improved water storage capacity
for existing customers, and to replace an aging reservoir that has structural deficiencies. The
R\Projects\Tustln\JOO3\1S-122005.doc
5-26
Environmental Evaluation
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 61 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
proposed project does not have the potential to induce population growth in the area. No
impacts would result.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. There is no housing on the project site and implementation of the project would not
displace any existing housing people. No impacts to population or housing would occur.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
No Impact. Construction of two water tanks and underground storm drains would not create
significant additional demand for, or alteration of. government facilities or services (fire and
police protection, schools. parks. etc.). The project would facilitate the provision of water and fire
protection in the water service area by improving City water facilities. The proposed project
would not result in an increase in the City's population and the site would be used for the
purposes as existing conditions. Therefore. there would be no impacts to police services,
schools. or parks and no need for new facilities that could cause environmental impacts. No
impacts would occur.
It should also be noted that the City's Capital Improvement Project fund includes funding
resources for the proposed project and the City's Water Division Operating Budget includes
funding for the operation and maintenance of the facility.
Mitigation Program
No significant impacts have been identifi ed and no mitigation is required.
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
No Impact. The proposed project would not increase population and housing in the area. and
the demand for recreational facilities would not increase since the site would be used for the
same purpose as it is currently. Therefore, there would not be an increased demand for
R:\Pmjepts\Tu~lin\JOO.1l~-1?~OO5.doC
Resolution NO. Ub-411
Page 62 of 171
5-27
Environmental Evaluation
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
recreational facilities and no physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities in the area
would occur.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
No Impact. The project site is not located in or adjacent to a City or County recreational facility
and would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities on-site or off-site.
Therefore, implementation of the project would not have a physical environmental impact
relating to recreational facilities.
Mitigation Program
No significant impacts have been identifi ed and no mitigation is required.
Sources
. City of Tustin General Plan, Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element, January 16,
2001.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project;
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial Increase in either
the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion
at intersections)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not increase vehicle trips or traffic
congestion beyond adopted policies and/or forecasts. Once the project is constructed, the only
trips associated with the facility would be trips by City employees for maintenance and
inspection consistent with existing conditions. There would be a short-term increase in traffic
generated during the construction period. Vehicle trips would be associated with trucks hauling
materials and supplies to the site and workers commuting to and from the site (refer to the
project description provided in Section 3). There would be an average of 17 daily trips. The
additional trips would be temporary in nature and would not cause any impacts to existing
roadway operating conditions. No short-term or long-term significant traffic impacts would result
from the project.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established
by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
No Impact. The increase in traffic to the project site during construction would be negligible and
short-term. After construction, the proposed project would not generate traffic above existing
conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed any level of service standards.
The Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH), which is maintained by the
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTAl and forms the basis of Orange County's
Congestion Management Program (CMP), designates Newport Avenue as a primary arterial. By
definition, a primary arterial is a four lane divided roadway designed to accommodate between
20,000 and 30,000 average daily trips (ADT). However, there are no roadways identified in the
CMP that are adjacent to the project site, and the trips generated by the project would be
R:\Projects\Tuslln\JOO3\1S-122005.doc
5-28
Environmental Evaluation
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 63 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
"immeasurable" as they only relate to an occasional trip made for maintenance purposes. No
impacts would occur.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. The proposed project is not near any airports and would have no impact on air
traffic patterns.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No Impact. The project site would be used for the same purpose as existing conditions and the
proposed project would not increase hazards. It should be noted that the access into the site
from Foothill Boulevard would be improved with a new access point to the west of the booster
pump station.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact. During construction activities, the existing private street east of
the project site would be closed temporarily. This street serves residences to the north of the
project site; however, a secondary access is also available from the north ensuring continuous
emergency access. Following construction of the proposed project, current emergency access
and evacuation conditions would be the same. No significant impacts to emergency access
would result.
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact. The proposed project would not involve an increased demand for parking or the
removal of existing parking. No impacts would result.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
No Impact. The proposed reservoir replacement project does not require the incorporation of
alternative transportation facilities and would not conflict with any alternative transportation
policies, plans, or programs. The proposed project would improve the north side of Foothill
Boulevard including the provision of a sidewal k. No impacts would result.
Mitigation Program
No standard conditions and regulations are applicable and no mitigation is required.
Sources
. City of Tustin General Plan, Circulation Element, January 16, 2001.
. Master Plan of Arterial Highways, Orange County Transportation Authority, 2002.
R:\ProLeclsl Tustin\JOO3\15-122005.doc
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 64 of 171
5-29
Environmental Evaluation
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board?
No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not generate wastewater. Therefore,
no wastewater treatment requirements would be exceeded.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
No Impact. The proposed project involves replacement of an existing water reservoir to
increase the City's water storage/supply capacity. The potential environmental impacts
associated with implementation of the project have been evaluated throughout this Initial Study.
With implementation of the standard conditions and mitigation measures identified, no
significant impacts would result. The proposed project would not generate wastewater and no
new wastewater facilities would be required.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The proposed project would involve construction of a
new storm drain line from the project site, within Foothill Boulevard to an existing OCFCD along
Hewes Street or Newport Avenue. Each of these off-site storm drain connection options would
require installation of a new storm drain in Foothill Boulevard. This construction would occur
within the existing street right-of-way and would result in short-term, construction-related
impacts, including traffic disruption. This impact would be mitigated to a level considered less
than significant with implementation of traffic management plans.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
No Impact. The proposed project would improve the City's water supply system. No water
supply is necessary to serve the project because the project would not involve the increase of
population or consumption of water.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
No Impact. As with existing conditions, the proposed reservoirs would not generate wastewater
and would not dem and any wastewater treatment capacity.
R:\ProjectsITustlnIJOO3\1S-122005.doc
5-30
Environmental Evaluation
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 65 of 171
Rawlings ReseNoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. Demolition of the existing reservoir, site preparation (vegetation
removal and grading activities), and construction activities would generate typical construction
debris, including wood, paper, glass, plastic, metals, cardboard, and green wastes. Solid waste
generated from the proposed project site would most likely be disposed at the Frank R.
Bowerman Landfill (closest landfill to the site) which is part of the Orange County landfill system
operated by the County's Integrated Waste Management Department (IWMD). This landfill has
a projected closure date of 2022 with a remaining disposal capacity of 75.5 million cubic yard
(cy) as of June 20, 2005. The construction-related solid waste generated by the project would
be negligible, and could be accommodated within the permitted capacity of the County's landfill
system. Similar to existing conditions, operation of the new reservoirs would not generate solid
waste. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation is required.
h) Would the project Include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best
Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, constructed
treatment wetlands), the operation of which could result in significant
environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)?
No Impact. The proposed project would involve the construction of a new storm drain line that
would connect to an existing structural OCFCD facility. The proposed project does not involve
the implementation of any new or retrofitted storm water treatment control BMPs. Therefore, no
environmental impacts would result.
Mitigation Program
Mitiqation Measures
MM 16-1 Prior to approval of street improvement plans, the contractor shall submit Traffic
Management Plans to the County of Orange for review and approval. The Traffic
Management Plans shall describe traffic control measures that shall be implemented
to maintain traffic flow in all directions where utility improvements are being
implemented in existing roadways. Said traffic management measures shall be
implemented on-going during road construction.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes the replacement of an existing reservoir
on the same site. There are no sensitive biological resources, habitat, or species located on the
project site that would be affected by the proposed project. Additionally, the proposed project
would not impact any archaeological or historical resources as construction activities would
occur in previously disturbed areas and no historical resources are located on-site.
R:\ProjecIsITustinIJOO3\I$-122005.doc
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 66 of 171
5-31
Environmental Evaluation
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of
a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects).
Less Than Significant Impact. The potential environmental impacts resulting from
implementation of the proposed project have been evaluated in this Initial Study and have been
determined to be less than significant or mitigated to a level considered less than significant.
The project involves the replacement of an existing water reservoir with two new reservoirs on
the same site. The project site is already developed and is located in an urbanized area. The
proposed project would not result in impacts that are cumulatively considerable.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed water reservoir replacement project would not
alter the use or operation of the project site compared to existing conditions and would not result
in substantial adverse effects on human bei ngs.
R\Protects\ TustinIJOO3\IS-122005.doc
5-32
Environmental Evaluation
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 67 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study
SECTION 6.0 DOCUMENT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
City of Tustin
Community Development Department
Community Development Director .................................................... Elizabeth A. Binsack
Senior Planner .......... ................................................................................... Scott Reekstin
Public Works Department
Director of Public Works/City Engineer ...............................................................Tim Serlet
Water Services Manager............................................................................Fred J. Adjarian
Water Treatment Supervisor, Water Service Division ..................................Art Valenzuela
Associate Engineer, Water Service Division ............................................... Victor Sag redo
Consultants
Bon Terra Consulting (Preparation of Environmental Document)
Principal/Project Manager ................................................................ Christina L. Andersen
Environmental Planner .......................................................................... ...... Jennifer Marks
Environmental Planner ........................... ........................ ...................................... Julie Cho
Environmental Planner. ....................................................................................... Paula Fell
Environmental Planner/Air Quality ................................................................. Sam Stewart
G I S/Graphi cs............................................................................................ .Jennifer Harding
Word Processing ......................................................................................... Kathy Linklater
Word Processing .......................................................................................... Heidi Hollstein
Tetra Tech, Inc. (Project Engineer)
Senior Project Manager .................................................................. Steve R. Conklin, P.E.
Project Engineer ........................................................................................ Mark Bush, P .E.
Leighton Consulting, Inc. (Geotechnical Engineel')
Director of Geology ..............................................................................Ed Burrows, C.E.G.
National Econ Corporation
Asbestos and Lead Survey ...................................................................Danny De La Rosa
R:\ProjectsITustin\JOO3\1S-122005.doc
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 68 of 171
6-1
Document Preparers
APPENDIX A
AIR QUALITY CALCULATIONS
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 69 of 171
Page: 1
URBEMIS 2002 For Windows
File Name:
Project Name:
Project Location:
On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions
7.5.0
P:\Rawling Reservoir.urb
Rawling Reservoir
South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area)
Based on EMFAC2D02 version 2.2
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
SUMMARY REPORT
(Pounds/Day - Summer)
*** 2006 ***
TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated)
TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated)
*** 2007 ***
TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated)
TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated)
... 2008 ...
TOTALS (Ibs/day,unmitigated)
TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated)
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
PMID PMlD PMIO
RaG NOx co S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST
10.06 89.05 70.51 0.44 240.41 3.47 236.94
10.06 89.05 70.51 0.44 62.53 3.47 59.06
PM10 PM10 PM10
RaG NOx co S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST
6.99 48.68 54.76 0.00 2.06 2.03 0.03
6.99 48.68 54.76 0.00 2.06 2.03 0.03
PM10 PM10 PM10
RaG NOx co S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST
68.17 46.72 55.91 0.00 1.88 1.85 0.03
68.17 46,7;1 55.91 0.00 1. 88 1.85 0.03
RaG
TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.00
co
0.00
NOx
0.00
S02 PM10
0.00 0.00
S02 PM10
0.03 5.29
S02 PMID
0.03 5.29
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE; EMISSION ESTIMATES
RaG
TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 5.29
NOx
5.41
co
58.23
SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx
TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 5.29 5.41
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 70 of 171
CO
58.2.1
Page: 2
URBEMIS 2002 For Windows
File Name:
Project Name:
Project Location:
On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions
7.5.0
P:\Rawling Reservoir.urb
Rawling Reservoir
South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles
Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2
area)
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
SUMMARY REPORT
(pounds/Day - Winter)
*.... 2006 ..**
TOTALS Clbs/day, unmitigated)
TOTALS Clbs/day, mitigated)
*..* 2007 ..**
TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated)
TOTALS Clbs/day, mitigated)
..** 200B ***
TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated)
TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated)
AREA SOURCE: EMISSION ESTIMATES
PMIO PMI0 PMI0
ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST
10.06 89.05 70.51 0.44 240.41 3.47 236.94
10.06 89.05 70.51 0.44 62.53 3.47 59.06
PMIO PMI0 PMIO
ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST
6.99 48.68 54.76 0.00 2.06 2.03 0.03
6.99 48.68 54.76 0.00 2.06 2.03 0.03
PMIO PMIO PMIO
ROO NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST
68.17 46.72 55.91 0.00 1.88 1.85 0.03
68.17 46.72 55.91 0.00 1. 88 1.85 0.03
ROG
TOTALS (~bs/day,unmitigated) 0.00
CO
0.00
NOx
0.00
S02 PM10
0.00 0.00
S02 PMIO
0.03 5.29
S02 PMI0
0.03 5.29
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG
TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 4.65
NOx
7.82
CO
56.10
SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx
TOTALS {lbs/day,unmitigatedl 4.65 7.82
co
56.10
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 71 of 171
Page: ,
LlRBEMIS 2002 eor Windows 7.5.0
File Name: P:\Rawling Reservoir.urb
Project Name: Rawling Reservoir
Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area)
On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on 8MFAC2002 version 2.2
SUMMARY REPORT
(Tons/Year)
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
PM10 PM10 PM10
... 2006 ... ROO NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST
TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 0.77 6.62 5.89 0.00 5,74 0.26 5.48
TOTALS ltpy, mitigated) 0.77 6.62 5.89 0.00 1. 82 0.26 1.56
PM10 PM10 PM10
... 2007 ... ROG NOx CO 502 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST
TOTALS ltpy, unmitigated) 0.84 6.36 7.20 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00
TOTALS (tpy, mitigated) 0.84 6.36 7.20 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00
PMIO PMIO PMIO
... 2008 ... ROO NOx CO 502 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST
TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) loSS 1."39 1.63 0.00 0.06 0,06 0.00
TOTALS (tpy, mitigated) 1.55 1.39 1.63 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROO NOx co 502 PM10
TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO SO. PHIO
TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) O.9J 1.13 10,50 0.01 0.97
SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO 502 PMlO
TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 0.93 1.13 10.50 0.01 0.97
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 72 of 171
Page: 4
URBEMIS 2002 For Windows
File Name:
Project Name:
Project Location:
On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions
7.5.0
P:\Rawling Reservoir.urb
Rawling Reservoir
South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area)
Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2
DETAIL REPORT
(Pounds/Day - Winter)
Construction Start Month and Year: April. 2006
Construction Duration: 24
Total Land Use Area to be Developed: 2 acres
Maximum Acreage Disturbed Per Day: 2 acres
Single Family Units: 0 Multi-Family Units: 0
Retail/Office/Institutional/Industrial Square Footage: 74000
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES UNMITIGATED (lbs/day)
Source
*** 2006***
Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions
Fugitive Dust
Off-Road Diesel
On-Road Diesel
Worker Trips
Maximum lbs/day
Phase 2 ~ Site Grading
Fugitive Dust
Off-Road Diesel
On-Road Diesel
Worker Trips
Maximum lbe/day
Emissions
Phase 3 - Building Construction
Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel
Bldg Const Worker Trips
Arch Coatings Off-Gas
Arch Coat~ngs Worker Trips
Asphalt Off-Gas
Asphalt Off-Road Diesel
Asphalt On-Road Diesel
Asphalt Worker Trips
Maximum lbe/day
Max Ibe/day all phases
*** 2007***
Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions
Fugitive Dust
Off-Road Diesel
On-Road Diesel
Worker Trips
Maximum Ibs/day
Phase 2 - Site Grading
Fugitive Dust
Off~Road Diesel
On-Road Diesel
Worker Trips
Maximum Ibs/day
Emissions
Phase 3 - Building Construction
Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel
Bldg Const Worker Trips
Arch Coatings Off-Gas
Arch Coatings Worker Trips
Asphalt Off-Gas
Asphalt Off-Road Diesel
Asphalt On-Road Diesel
Asphalt Worker Trips
Maximum Ibs/day
Max lbs/day all phases
.,.. 2008***
ROO
7.62
1. 35
0.09
9.26
8.71
1.31
0.04
10.06
6.80
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.00
10.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.80
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.99
6.99
59.94
24.46
0.11
84.51
65.33
23.70
0.02
89.05
50.54
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.65
89.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
48.57
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
48.68
48.68
NOx
co
57.68
5.02
2.20
64..90
65.21
4.87
0.43
70.51
51.19
2.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
53.56
70.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
52.53
2.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
54.76
54.76
0.44
0.00
0.44
0.42
0.00
0.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
S02
PM10
TOTAL
11.97
2.71
0.69
0.01
15.38
236.82
2.91
0.67
0.01
240.41
2.21
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.24
240.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.02
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.06
2.06
PMI0
EXHAUST
2.71
0.58
0.00
3.29
2.91
0.56
0.00
3.47
2.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.21
3.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.03
2.03
PM10
DUST
11.97
0.00
0.11
0.01
12.09
236.82
0.00
0.11
0.01
236.94
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
236.94
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 73 of 171
Page ~ 5
Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions
Fugitive Dust: 0.00 0.00
Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker Tripe 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maximum Ibs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions
Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00
Off-Road Diegel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Phase 3 - Building Construction
Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 6.80 46.63 53.83 1. 85 1.85 0.00
Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.17 0.10 2.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03
Arch Coatings Off~Gas 62.23
Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.17 0.10 2.08 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03
Asphalt Off-Gas 0.06
Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 5.67 39.93 44.23 1.63 1.63 0.00
Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.01 0.22 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Asphalt Worker Trips 0.02 0.01 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maximum Ibs/day 68.17 46.72 5S .91 0.00 1.88 1.85 0.03
Max lbs/day all phases 68.17 46.72 55.91 0.00 1.88 1.85 0.03
Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions
Start Month/Year for Phase 1: Apr '06
Phase 1 Duration: 2.0 months
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 1254000
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): Z8500
On-Road Truck Travel {VMT): 1056
Off-Road Equipmene
No. Type
1 Cranes
1 Other Equipment
1 Rubber Tired Dozers
1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes
Horsepower
1'0
1'0
352
"
Phase 2 Site Grading Assumptions
Start Month/Year for phase 2: Jun '06
Phase 2 Duration: 2.0 months
On~Road Truck Travel \VMT): 1022
Off-Road Equipment
No. Type
1 Graders
1 Other Equipment
1 Rubber Tired Dozers
1 Skid Steer Loaders
1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes
Horsepower
174
1'0
352
62
7'
Phase 3 Building Construction Assumptions
Start Month/Year for phase 3: Aug '06
Phase 3 Duration: 20.0 months
Start Month/Year for Subphase Building: Aug '06
SubPbase Building Duration: 18.0 months
off-Road Equipment
No. Type Horsepower
1 Cranes 19Q
2 Other Equipment 190
1 Skid Steer Loaders 62
1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes i9
Start Month/Year for Subphase Architectural Coatings:
SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 2 months
Start Month/~ear for Subphase Asphalt: Feb '08
SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 2 months
Acres to be Paved: 1
off.Road Equipment
No. Type
1 Paving Equipment
1 Rollers
1 Surfacing Equipment
Horsepower
111
114
437
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES MITIGATED (lbs/day)
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 74 of 171
Load Factor
0.430
0.620
Q .590
0.465
Load Factor
0.575
0.620
0.590
0.515
0.465
Load Factor
0.4.30
0.620
0.515
0.465
Feb '08
Load Factor
0.530
o 4]0
0.490
Hours/Day
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
Hours/Day
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
Hours/Day
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
Hours/Day
8.0
8.0
8.0
Page: 6
Source
-** 2006***
Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions
Fugitive Dust
Off-Road Diesel
On-Road Diesel
Worker Trips
Maximum lbs/day
Phase 2 - Site Grading
Fugitive Dust
Off-Road Diesel
On-Road Diesel
Worker Trips
Maximum Ibs/day
Emissions
Phase 3 - Building Construction
Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel
Bldg Const Worker Trips
Arch Coatings Off-Gas
Arch Coatings Worker Trips
Asphalt Off-Gas
Asphalt Off-Road Diesel
Asphalt On-Road Diesel
Asphalt Worker Trips
Maximum lbs/day
Max lbs/day all phases
*** 2007***
Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions
Fugitive Dust
Off-Road Diesel
On-Road Diesel
Worker Trips
Maximum Ibsjday
Phase 2 - Site Grading
Fugitive Dust
Off-Road Diesel
On-Road Diesel
Worker Trips
Maximum Ibs/day
Emissions
Phase 3 - Building Construction
BIdg Const Off-Road Diesel
Bldg Const Worker Trips
Arch Coatings Off-Gas
Arch Coatings Worker Trips
Asphalt Off-Gas
Asphalt Off-Road Diesel
Asphalt On-Road Diesel
Asphalt Worker Trips
Maximum Ibs/day
Max lbs/day all phases
*** 200a***
Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions
Fugitive Dust
Off-Road Diesel
On-Road Diesel
Worker Trips
Maximum Ibsjday
Phase 2 - Site Grading
Fugitive Dust
Off-Road Diesel
On-Road Diesel
Worker Trips
Maximum Ibs/day
Emissions
Phase 3 - Building Construction
Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 6.80
Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.17
7.a2
1.35
0.09
9.26
8.71
1.31
0.04
10.06
6.80
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.00
10.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.ao
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.99
6.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ROG
59.94
24.46
0.11
a4.51
65.33
23.70
0.02
a9.05
50.54
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.65
a9.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4a.57
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4a.68
48.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
46.63
0.10
NOx
57.68
5.02
2.20
64.90
65.21
4.a7
0.43
70.51
51.19
2.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
53.56
70.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o 00
52.53
2.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
54.76
54.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
53.a3
2.0a
co
o 44
0.00
0.44
0.42
0.00
0.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
S02
PM10
TOTAL
11.97
2.71
0.69
0.01
15.38
sa.94
2.91
0.67
0.01
62.53
2.21
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.24
62.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.02
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.06
2.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1. 85
0.03
PMI0
EXHAUST
2.71
0.58
0.00
3.29
2.91
0.56
0.00
3.47
2.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.21
3.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.03
2.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1 65
0.00
PMI0
DUST
11.97
0.00
0.11
0.01
12.09
58.94
0.00
0.11
0.01
59.06
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
59.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
o.ao
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 75 of 171
Page: 7
Arch Coatings Off-Gas 62.23
Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.17 0.10 2.08
Asphalt Off -Gas 0.06
Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 5.67 39.93 44.23
Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.01 0.22 0.04
Asphalt Worker Trips 0.02 0.01 0.27
Maximum lbe/day 68.17 46.72 55.91
Max Ibs/day all phases 68.17 46.72 55.91
Construction-Related Mitigation Measures
0.00 0.03 0 .00 0 .OJ
1.63 1.63 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 1.88 1.85 0.03
0.00 1.88 1.85 0.03
Phase 2: Soil Disturbance: Water exposed surfaces - 3x daily
Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0\ NOx 0.0\ CO 0.0\ 502 0.0\ PM10 50.0\)
phase 2: Stockpiles: Cover all stock piles with tarps
Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0\ NOx 0.0\ CO 0.0\ S02 0.0\ PMI0 9.5\)
Phase 2: Unpaved Roads: Water all haul roads 3x daily
Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0\ NOx 0,0\ CO 0.0\ 502 0.0\ PMIO 45.0\)
Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions
Start Month/Year for Phase 1: Apr '06
Phase 1 Duration: 2.0 months
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 1254000
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 28500
On-Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1056
Off-Road Equipment
No. Type
1 Cranes
1 Other Equipment
1 Rubber Tired Dozers
1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes
Horsepower
190
190
352
79
Phase 2 Site Grading Assumptions
Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Jun '06
Phase 2 Duration: 2.0 months
On-Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1022
Off-Road Equipment
No. Type
1 Graders
1 Other Equipment
1 Rubber Tired Dozers
1 Skid Steer Loaders
1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes
Horsepower
17'
190
352
62
79
Phase 3 Building Construction Aasumptions
Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Aug '06
Phase 3 Duration: 20.0 months
Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building: Aug '06
SubPhase Building Duration: 18.0 months
Off-Road Equipment
No. Type Horsepower
1 Cranes 190
2 Other Equipment 190
1 Skid Steer Loaders 62
1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79
Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings:
SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 2 months
Start Month/Year for SubPbase Asphalt: Feb '08
SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 2 months
Acres to be Paved: 1
Off.Road Equipment
No . Type
1 Paving Equipment
1 Rollers
1 Surfacing Equipment
Horsepower
111
114
.37
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 76 of 171
Load Factor
0.430
0.620
0.590
0.465
Load Factor
0.575
0.620
0.590
0.515
0.465
Load Factor
0.430
0.620
0.515
0.465
Feb '08
Load Factor
0.530
0.430
0.490
Hours/Day
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
HourS/Day
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
Hours/Day
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
Hours/Day
8.0
8.0
8.0
Page: B
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Winter Pounds per Day, Unmitigated)
Source ROO NOx CO 502 PM10
Natural Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wood Stoves 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fireplaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Landscaping - No winter emissions
Consumer Prdcts 0.00
TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigatedl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 79 of 171
Page: 9
UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Warehouse
RaG
4.65
NOx
7.82
co
56.10
S02
0.03
PMIO
5.29
TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbe/day)
4.65
7.82
56.10
0.03
5.29
Does not include correction for passby trips.
Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips.
OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES
Analysis Year: 2007 Temperature (F): 50
SeasOP: Winter
EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002)
Summary of Land Uses:
Unit Type
Trip Rate
Size Total Trips
Warehouse
8.41 trips / 1000 sq. ft.
74.00 622.34
Vehicle Assumptions:
Fleet Mix:
Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel
Light Auto 55.20 1. 80 97.80 0.40
Light Truck < 3,750 lb. 15.10 3.30 94.00 2.70
Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.10 1.90 96.90 1.20
Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.10 1.40 95.80 2.80
Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.10 0.00 81.80 18.20
Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.40 0.00 50.00 50.00
Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 0.00 20.00 80.00
Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.90 0.00 11.10 88.90
Line Haul > 60,000 lb. 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00
Urban Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00
Motorcycle 1. 70 82.40 17.60 0.00
School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00
Motor Home 1.20 8.30 83.30 8.40
Travel Conditions
Residential Commercial
Home~ Home- Home-
Work Shop Other Commute Non-Work CUstomer
Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5
Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.' 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5
Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0
. of Trips Residential 20.0 37.0 43.0
. of Trips Commercial (by land use)
Warehouse 2.0 1.0 97.0
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 80 of 171
Page: 10
Changes made to the default values tor Land Use Trip Percentages
Changes made to the default values for Construction
The user has overridden the Default Phase Lengths
Demolition Truck Hauling Miles/Round Trip changed from 30 to 20
Site Grading Fugitive Dust Option changed from Level 1 to Level 2
Phase 2 mitigation measure Soil Disturbance: Wate~ exposed surfaces - 3x daily
has been changed from off to on.
~haae 2 mitigation measure Stockpiles: Cover all stock piles with tarps
has been changed from off to on.
~hase 2 mitigation measure Unpaved Roads: Water all haul roads 3x daily
has been changed from off to on.
Changes made to the default values for Area
The natural gas option switch changed from on to off.
The wood stove option switch changed from on to off.
The fireplcase option switch changed from on to off.
The landscape option switch changed from on to off.
The consumer products option switch changed from on to off.
Changes made to the default values for Operations
The operational emission year changed from 2004 to 2007.
The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7.
The heme based Shopping selection item changed from 9 to B.
The home based other selection item changed from 9 to 8.
The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8.
The commercial based non-work selection item changed from 9 to 8_
The CommE,rcial based customer selection item changed from 9 to a.
The travE!l mode environment settings changed from both to: none
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 77 of 171
Page: 11
URBEMIS 2002 For Windows
File Name:
Project Name:
Project tocation:
On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions
7.5.0
P:\Rawling Reservoir.urb
Rawling Reservoir
South Coast Air Basin iLos Angeles area}
Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2
DETAIL REpORT
(pounds/Day ~ Summer)
Construction Start Month and Year: April, 2006
construction Duration: 24
Total Land Use Area to be Developed: 2 acres
Maximum Acreage Disturbed per Day: 2 acres
Single Family Units: 0 Multi-Family Units: 0
Retail/Office/lnstitutional/lnduetrial Square Footage: 14000
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES UNMITIGATED (lbs/day)
Source
*.. 2006*..
Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions
Fugitive Dust
Off~Road Diesel
On-Road Diesel
Worker Trips
~ximum lhe/day
Phase 2 - Site Grading
Fugitive Dust
Off~Road Diesel
On-Road Diesel
Worker Trips
Maximum lhs/day
Emissions
Phase 3 - Building Construction
Bldg Const Off~Road Diesel
Bldg Const Worker Trips
Arch Coatings Off-Gas
Arch Coatings Worker Trips
Asphalt Off-Gas
Asphalt Off-Road Diesel
Asphalt On-Road Diesel
Asphalt Worker Trips
Maximum lbs/day
Max lbs/day all phases
.*. 2007*..
Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions
Fugitive Dust
Off~Road Diesel
on-Road Diesel
Worker Trips
Maximum lbe/day
Phase :2 - Site Grading
Fugitive Dust
Off -Road Diesel
On-Road Diesel
Worker Trips
Maximum Ibs/day
EmisGions
Phase 3 - Building Construction
Bldg Const Off.Road Diesel
Bldg Const Worker Trips
Arch Coatings Off~Gas
Arch coatings Worker Trips
Asphalt Off-Gas
Aspnalt Off-Road Diesel
Asphalt On-Road Diesel
Asphalt Worker Trips
Maximum lbe/day
Max lbs/day all phases
.*1< 200e*..
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 78 of 171
ROO
'1.132-
1.35
0.09
9.26
a.71
1.31
0.04
10.06
6.130
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.00
10.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.80
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.99
6.99
NOx
co
59.94
24.46
0.11
84. S1
57.€e
5.02
2.20
64.90
65.33 65.21
23.70 4.e7
0.02 0.43
89.05 70.51
50.54 51.19
0.11 2.37
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
50.65 53.56
89.05 70.51
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
48.57 52.53
0.11 2.23
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
48.68 54.76
48.6e 54.16
0.44
0.00
0.44
0.42
0.00
0.42
502
PM10
TOTAL
PMIO
DUST
PMIO
EXHAUST
11.97
2.11
0.69
0.01
15.38
11.97
0.00
0.11
0.01
12.09
2.11
0.58
0.00
3.29
236.82
2.91
0.67
0.01
240.41
236.82
0.00
0.11
0.01
236.94
2.91
O.Sti
0.00
3.47
2.21 2.21 0.00
0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 2.24 2.21 0.03
0.44 240.41 3.47 236.94
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o 00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
2.02 2.02 0.00
0.03 0.00 0.03
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 O.Co 0.00
2.06 2.03 0.03
2 .06 , .03 O. 03
Page: 12
Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions
Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00
Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maximum lbe/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions
Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00
Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00
Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Phase 3 - Building Construction
Bldg Canst Off-Road Diesel 6.80 46.63 53.83 1. 85 1.85 0.00
Bldg Canst Worker Trips 0.17 0.10 2.08 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03
Arch Coatings Off-Gas 62.23
Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.17 0.10 2.08 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03
Asphalt off ~Gas 0.06
Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 5.67 39.93 .. .23 1.63 1. 63 0.00
Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0 01 0.22 0 . a. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Asphalt Worker Trips 0.02 0.01 0 .27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maximum lbs/day 68 17 46.72 55 .91 0.00 1.8a 1.85 0.03
Max Ib~;/day all phases 68.17 46.72 55.91 0.00 1. 88 1.85 0.03
Phase 1 . Demolition Assumptions
Start Month/Year for Phase 1: Apr '06
Phase 1 I~ration; 2.0 months
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 1254000
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 28500
On~Road 'I'ruck Travel (VMT): 1056
Off-Road Equipment
No, Type
1 Cranes
1 Other Equipment
1 Rubber Tired Dozers
1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes
Phase 2 Site Grading Assumptions
Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Jun '06
Phase 2 Duration: 2.0 months
On-Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1022
Off-Road Equipment
No. Type
1 Graders
1 Other Equipment
1 Rubber Tired Dozers
1 skid Steer Loaders
1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes
Horsepower
190
190
352
79
Horsepower
17'
190
352
62
79
Phaae 3 Building Construction Assumptions
Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Aug '06
Phase 3 Duration: 20.0 months
Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building: Aug '06
SubPhase Building Duration: 18.0 months
Off-Road Equipment
No. Type Horsepower
1 Cranes 190
2 Other Equipment 190
1 Skid Steer Loaders 62
1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79
Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings:
SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 2 months
Start Month/Year for SubPhaae Asphalt: Feb '08
Subphase Asphalt Duration: 2 months
Acres to be Paved: 1
Off-Road Equipment
No. Type
1 Paving Equipment
1 Rollers
1 Surfacing Equipment
Horsepower
111
11.
.37
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES MITIGATED (lbs/day)
Load Factor
0.430
0.620
0.590
0.465
Load Factor
0.575
0.620
0.590
0.515
0.465
Load Factor
0.430
0.620
0.515
0.465
Feb '08
Load Factor
0.530
0.430
o 490
Hours/Day
'.0
'.0
'.0
'.0
Hours/Day
'.0
'.0
'.0
'.0
'.0
Hours/Day
'.0
'.0
'.0
'.0
HourS/Day
'.0
8.0
'.0
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 81 of 171
Page: 13
Source
.-- 2006..-
Phase 1 . Demolition Emissions
Fugitive Dust
Qff.Road Diesel
On~Road Diesel
Worker Trips
Maximum lbs/day
Phase 2 - Site Grading
Fugitive Dust
Off-Road Diesel
On-Road Diesel
Worker Trips
Maximum Ibs/day
Emissions
phase 3 - Building Construction
Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel
Bldg Const Worker Trips
Arch Coatings Off.Gas
Arch Coatings Worker Trips
Asphalt Off-Gas
Asphalt Qff.Road Diesel
Asphalt On-Road Diesel
Asphalt Worker Trips
Maximum lbs/day
Max lbs/day all phases
--. 2007-..
Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions
Fugitive Oust
Off-Road Diesel
On-Road Diesel
Worker Trips
Maximum lbs/day
phase 2 - Site Grading
Fugitive Oust
Off.Road Diesel
On-Road Diesel
Worker Trips
Maximum lbs/day
Emissions
Phase 3 - Building construction
Bldg Const Qff.Road Diesel
Bldg Canst Worker Trips
Arch Coatings Qff~Gas
Arch Coatings Worker Trips
Asphalt Off-Gas
Asphalt Off-Road Diesel
Asphalt On-Road Diesel
Asphalt Worker Trips
Maximum lbs/day
Max Ibs/day all phases
... 2008...
Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions
Fugitive Dust
Off.Road Diesel
On.Road Diesel
Worker Trips
Maximum lbs/day
Phase 2 - Site Grading
Fugitive Dust
Off~Road Diesel
On-Road Diesel
Worker Trips
Maximum Ibs/day
Emissions
Phase 3 ~ Building Construction
Bldg Canst Off-Road Diesel 6.80
BIdg Const Worker Trips 0.17
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 82 of 171
7.82
1.35
0.09
9.26
8.71
1.31
0.04
10.06
6.80
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.00
10.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.80
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.99
6.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ROG
59.94
24.46
0.11
84.51
65.33
23.10
0.02
89.05
50.54
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.65
89.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
48.57
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
48.68
48.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
46.63
0.10
NOx
57.68
5,02
2.20
64.90
65.21
4.87
0,43
70,51
51.19
2.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
53.56
70.51
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
52.53
2.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
54.76
54.76
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
53.83
2.08
co
0.44
0.00
0,44
0.42
0.00
0.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.44
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
502
PMIO
TOTAL
11.97
2.71
0.69
0.01
15.38
58.94
2.91
0.67
0.01
62.53
2,21
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.24
62.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
2.02
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.06
2.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1. 85
0.03
PM10
EXHAUST
2.71
0.58
0.00
3.29
2.91
0.56
0.00
3.47
2.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.21
3.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.03
2.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.85
0.00
PM10
DUST
11.97
0.00
0.11
0.01
12.09
58.94
0.00
0.11
0.01
59.06
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
59.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
Page: 14
Arch Coatings Off-Gas 62.23
Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.17 0.10 2.08
Asphalt Off-Gas 0.06
Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 5.67 39.93 44.23
Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.01 0.22 0.04
Asphalt Worker Trips 0.02 0.01 0.27
Maximum lbs/day 68.17 46.72 55.91
Max lbs/day all phases 68.17 46.72 55.91
Construction-Related Mitigation Measures
0.00 0.03
1.63
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 1. 88
0.00 1.88
Phase 2: Soil Disturbance: Water exposed surfaces - 3x daily
Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0\ NOx 0.0\ co 0.0\ 502 0.0\ PMI0 50.0\)
Phase 2: Stockpiles: Cover all stock piles with tarps
Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0\ NOx 0.0\ CO 0.0\ S02 0.0\ PMlO 9.5\}
Phase 2: Unpaved Roads: Water all haul roads 3x daily
Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0\ NOx 0.0\ CO 0.0\ 502 0.0\ PMI0 45.0\)
phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions
Start Month/Year for phase 1: Apr '06
Phase 1 Duration: 2.0 months
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 1254000
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 28500
On-Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1056
Off-Road Equipment
No. Type
1 Cranes
1 Other Equipment
1 Rubber Tired Dozers
1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes
Horsepower
190
190
352
79
Phase 2 Site Grading Assumptions
Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Jun '06
Phase 2 Duration: 2.0 months
On-Road Truck Travel {VMT): 1022
Off-Road Equipment
No. Type
1 Graders
1 Other Equipment
1 Rubber Tired Dozers
1 Skid Steer Loaders
1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes
Horsepower
17'
190
352
62
79
Phase 3 Building Construction Assumptions
Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Aug '06
Phase 3 Duration: 20.0 months
Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building: Aug '06
SubPhase Building Duration: 18.0 months
Off-Road Equipment
No. Type Horsepower
1 Cranes 190
2 Other Equipment 190
1 Skid Steer Loaders 62
1 Tractor/Loaders/BaCkhoes 79
Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings:
SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 2 months
Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: ~eb 'DB
SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 2 months
Acres to be Paved: 1
Off-Road Equipment
No. Type
1 Paving Equipment
1 Rollers
1 Surfacing Equipment
Horsepower
111
11.
.37
Load Factor
0.430
0.620
0.590
0.465
Load Factor
0.575
0.620
0.590
0.515
0.465
Load Factor
0.430
0,620
0.515
0.465
Feb '08
Load Factor
0.530
0.430
0.490
Hours/Day
'.0
'.0
'.0
'.0
Hours/Day
'.0
'.0
'.0
'.0
'.0
Hours/Day
'.0
'.0
'.0
'.0
Hours/Day
'.0
'.0
'.0
0.00 0,03
1.63 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
1.85 0.03
l.a5 0.03
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 83 of 171
Page: 15
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds per Day, Unmitigated)
Source RaG NOx CO 502 PM10
Natural Gas 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00
Wood Stoves - No summer emissions
Fireplaces - No summer emissions
Landscaping 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Consumer Prdcts 0.00
TOTALS Clbs/day, unmitigated) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 84 of 171
page: 16
UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Warehouse
RaG
5.29
PMIO
5.29
NOx
s,n
co
58.23
502
0.03
TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day)
5.29
5.41
58.23
0.03
5.29
Does not include correction for passby trips.
Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips.
OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES
Analysis ~ear: 2007 Temperature (F): 90
Season: Summer
EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002)
Summary of Land Uses:
uni t Type
Trip Rate
Size Total Trips
Warehouse
8.41 trips I 1000 sq. ft.
74.00 622.34
Vehicle Assumptions:
Fleet Mix:
Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel
Light Auto 55.20 1.80 97.80 0.40
Light Truck < 3,750 lb. 15.10 3.30 94.00 2.70
Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16.10 1.90 96.90 1.20
Mad Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.10 1. 40 95.80 2.80
Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.10 0.00 81.80 18.20
Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.40 0.00 50.00 50.00
Med-Heavy 14,001.33,000 1.00 0.00 20.00 80.00
Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.90 0.00 11.10 88.90
Line Haul > 60,000 lb. 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00
Urban Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00
Motorcycle 1.70 82.40 17.60 0.00
School Bu. 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00
Motor Home; 1.20 8.30 83.30 8.40
Travel conditions
Residential Commercial
Home- Home- Home-
Work Shop Other Commute Non-Work Customer
Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5
Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5
Trip speeds (mphl 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0
t of Trips Residential 20.0 37.0 43.0
t of Trips Commercial (by land usel
Warehouse 2.0 1.0 97.0
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 85 of 171
Page: 17
Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages
Changes made to the default values for Construction
The user has overridden the Default Phase Lengths
Demolition Truck Hauling Miles/Round Trip changed from 30 to 20
Site Grading Fugitive Dust Option changed from Level 1 to Level 2
Phase 2 mitigation measure Soil Disturbance: Water exposed surfaces M 3x daily
has been changed from off to on.
Phase 2 mitigation measure Stockpiles: Cover all stock piles with tarps
has been changed from off to on.
Phase 2 mitigation measure Unpaved Roads: Water all haul roads 3x daily
has been changed from off to on.
Changes made to the default values far Area
The natural gas option switch changed from on to off.
The wood stove aptian switch changed from on to off.
The fireplcase option switch changed from on to off.
The landscape option switch changed from on to off.
The consumer products option switch changed from on to off.
Changes made to the default values for Operations
The operational emission year changed from 2004 to 2007.
The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7.
The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to 8.
The home based other selection item changed from 9 to 8.
The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8.
The commercial based non-work selection item changed from 9 to B.
The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to 8.
The travel mode environment settings changed from both to: none
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 86 of 171
Page: IB
URBEMIS 2002 For Windows
File Name:
Project Name:
Project Location:
On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions
7.5.0
P:\Rawling Reservoir.urb
Rawling Reservoir
South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area)
Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2
DETAIL REPORT
(Tons/Year)
Construction Start Month and Year: April, 2006
Construction Duration: 24
Total Land Use Area to be Developed: 2 acres
Maximum Acreage Disturbed Per Day: 2 acres
Single Family Units: 0 Multi.Family Units: 0
Retail/Office/Institutional/Industrial Square Footage: 74000
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES UNMITIGATED (tons/year)
Source
*** 2006***
Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions
Fugitive Dust
Off-Road Diesel
On~Road Diesel
Worker Trips
Total tons/year
Phase 2 . Sit@ Grading
Fugitive Dust
Off-Road Dies@l
On-Road Diesel
Worker Trips
Total tons/year
Emissions
Phase 3 - Building Construction
Bldg Const Off.Road Diesel
Bldg Const Worker Trips
Arch Coatings Off-Gas
Arch Coatings Worker Trips
Asphalt off-Gas
Asphalt Off-Road Diesel
Asphalt On-Road Diesel
Asphalt Worker Trips
Total tons/year
Total all phases tons/yr
*** 2007***
Phase 1 . Demolition Emissions
Fugitive Dust
Off-Road Diesel
On-Road Diesel
Worker Trips
Total tons/year
Phase 2 . Site Grading
Fugitive Dust
Off-Road Diesel
On-Road Diesel
Worker Trips
Total tons/year
Emissions
Phase 3 - Building Construction
Bldg Canst Off-Road Diesel
Bldg Const Worker Trips
Arch Coatings Off-Gas
Arch Coatings Worker Trips
Asphalt Off-Gas
Asphalt Off~Road Diesel
Asphalt On-Road Diesel
Asphalt Worker Trips
Total tons/year
Total all phases tons/yr
*** 2008~"''''
ROG
0.18
0.02
0.00
0.20
0.20
0.02
0.00
0.22
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.35
o.??
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.84
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.84
0.84
NOx
1.32
0.54
0.00
1.86
1.44
0.52
0.00
1.96
2.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.80
6.62
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6 36
6.36
co
1.26
0.12
0.04
1.42
1.44
0.10
0.00
1.54
2.80
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.93
5.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.96
0.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.20
7.20
S02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o 00
0.00
o 00
PM10
TOTAL
0.26
0.06
0.02
0.00
0.34
5.22
0.06
0.02
0.00
5.30
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
5.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.24
0.24
PM10
EXHAUST
0.06
0.02
0.00
0.08
0.06
0.02
0.00
0.08
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o 00
0.24
0.24
PM10
DUST
0.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.26
5.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.48
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 87 of 171
Page: 19
Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions
Fugitive Dust
Off-Road Diesel
On-Road Diesel
worker 'l'rips
Total tons/year
Phase 2 - Site Grading
Fugi ti ve Dust
Oft-Road Diesel
On-Road Diesel
Worker Trips
Total tens/year
Emissions
Phase J - Building Construction
Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel
Bldg Const worker Trips
Arch Coatings Off-Gas
Arch Coatings Worker Trips
Asphalt Off-Gas
Asphalt Off-Road Diesel
Asphalt On-Road Diesel
Asphalt Worker Trips
'rotal tons/year
Total all phases tons/yr
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
1.36
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
1.55
1.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.OD
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.51
0.00
0.00
o.ss
0.00
0.00
1.39
0.96
0.00
0.00
1. 63
1. 39
Phase 1 - Demolition ASsumptions
Start Month/Year for phase 1; Apr '06
Phase 1 Duration. 2.0 months
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 1254000
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 28500
On-Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1056
Off-Road Equipment
No. Type
1 Cranes
1 Other Equipment
1 Rubber Tired Dozers
1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes
Phase 2 Site Grading Assumptions
Start Month/Year for Phase 2; Jun '06
Phase 2 Duration: 2.0 months
On~Road Truck Travel (VM1'); 1022
Off-Road Equipment
No. Type
1 Graders
1 Other Equipment
1 Rubber Tired Dozers
1 Skid Steer Loaders
1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes
Horsepower
190
190
352
79
Horsepower
17.
190
352
62
79
Phase 3 Building Construction Assumptions
Start Month/Year for phase 3: Aug '06
Phase) Duration: 20.0 months
Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building: Aug '06
SubPhase Building Duration: 18.0 months
Off-Road Equipment
No. Type Horsepower
1 Cranes 190
2 Other Equipment 190
1 Skid Steer Loaders 62
1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 19
Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings:
SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 2 months
Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Feb '08
SubPhase Asphalt Duration: .2 months
Acres to be Paved: 1
Off.Road Equipment
No. Type
1 Paving Equipment
1 Rollers
1 surfacing Equipment
Horsepower
111
114
417
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES MITIGATED (tons/year)
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 88 of 171
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.59
0.02
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.63
0.00
Load Factor
0.430
0.620
0.590
0.465
Load Factor
0.575
0.620
0.590
0.515
0.465
Load Factor
Q.430
0.6.20
0.515
0.465
Feb '08
Load Factor
0.530
0.430
0.490
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.02 0.02 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.04 0.04 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.06 0.06 0.00
0,06 0.06 0.00
Haurea/Oay
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
Hours/Day
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
HourS/Day
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
Hours/Day
8.0
8.0
8.0
Page: 20
Source
",,,,,,, 2006"'..
Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions
Fugitive Dust
Off-Road Diesel
On-Road Diesel
Worker Trips
Total tons/year
Phase 2 - Site Grading
Fugitive Dust
Off-Road Diesel
On-Road Diesel
Worker Trips
Total tons/year
Emissions
Phase 3 - Building Construction
BIdg Canst Off-Road Diesel
BIdg Const Worker Trips
Arch Coatings Off-Gas
Arch Coatings Worker Trips
Asphalt Off-Gas
Asphalt off-Road Diesel
Asphalt On-Road Diesel
Asphalt Worker Trips
Total tons/year
Total all phases tons/yr
."'. 2007"''''.
Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions
Fugitive Dust
Off-Road Diesel
On-Road Diesel
Worker Trips
Total tons/year
Phase 2 - Site Grading
Fugitive Dust
Off-Road Diesel
On-Road Diesel
Worker Trips
Total tons/year
Emissions
Phase 3 - Building Construction
Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel
BIdg Canst Worker Trips
Arch Coatings Off-Gas
Arch Coatings Worker Trips
Asphalt Off-Gas
Asphalt Off-Road Diesel
Asphalt On-Road Diesel
Asphalt Worker Trips
Total tons/year
Total all phases tons/yr
",.", 2008***
Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions
Fugitive Dust
Off-Road Diesel
On-Road Diesel
Worker Trips
Total tons/year
Phase 2 - Site Grading
Fugitive Dust
Off-Road Diesel
OnwRoad Diesel
Worker Trips
Total tons/yea.r
Emissions
ROG
0.18
0.02
0.00
0.20
0.20
0.02
0.00
0.22
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.35
0.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.84
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.84
0.84
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Phase 3 - BUilding Construction
Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 0.07
Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.00
NOx
1.32
0.54
0.00
1,86
1.44
0.52
0.00
1. 96
2.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.80
6.62
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.36
6.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.51
0.00
1.26
0.12
0.04
1.42
1.44
0.10
0.00
1.54
2.80
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.93
5.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.96
0.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.20
7.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.59
o 02
co
S02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o 00
PMI0
TOTAL
0.26
0.06
0.02
0.00
0.34
1.30
0.06
0.02
0.00
1. 38
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
1. 82
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.24
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.24
0.24
0.00
o 00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
PMI0
EXHAUST
0.06
0.02
0.00
0.08
0.06
0.02
0.00
0.08
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.24
0.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
PMI0
DUST
0.26
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.26
1. 30
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 89 of 171
Page; 21
Arch Coatings Off-Gas
Arch Coatings Worker Trips
Asphalt Off-Gas
Asphalt Off-Road Diesel
Asphalt On-Road Diesel
Asphalt Worker Trips
Total tons/year
1. 36
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
1.55
Total all phases tons/yr
1. 55
Construction-Related Mitigation Measures
0.00
0.88
0.00
0.00
1. 39
1.39
0.04
0.98
0.00
o 00
1.63
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.04 0.04
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.06 0.06
0.00 0.06 0.06
1. 63
Phase 2; Soil Disturbance; Water exposed surfaces - 3x daily
Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0\ NOx 0.0\ CO 0.0\ S02 O.Ot PMI0 50.0\)
Phase 2: Stockpiles; Cover all stock piles with tarps
Percent Reduction(ROG O.Ot NOx 0.0\ CO O.ot S02 0.0\ PMIO 9.5t)
Phase 2: Unpaved Roads; Water all haul roads 3x daily
Percent Reduction[ROG O.ot NOx O.Ot CO 0.0\ S02 0.0\ PMIO 45.0\)
Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions
Start Month/Year for Phase 1: Apr '06
Phase 1 Duration; 2.0 months
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 1254000
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 28500
On-Road Truck Travel (VMT); 1056
Off-Road Equipment
No. Type
1 Cranes
1 Other Equipment
1 Rubber Tired Dozers
1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes
Phase 2 Site Grading Assumptions
Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Jun '06
Phase 2 Duration: 2.0 months
On-Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1022
Off-Road Equipment
No. Type
1 Graders
1 Other Equipment
1 Rubber Tired Dozers
1 Skid Steer Loaders
1 Tractor/Loaders/BaCkhoes
Horsepower
190
190
352
79
Horsepower
17'
190
352
62
79
Phase 3 Building construction Assumptions
Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Aug '06
Phase 3 Duration: 20.0 months
Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building: Aug '06
SubPhase Building Duration; 1B.0 months
Off-Road Equipment
No. Type Horsepower
1 Cranes 190
2 Other Equipment 190
1 Skid Steer Loaders 62
1 Tractor/Loaders/BaCkhoes 79
Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings:
SuhPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 2 months
Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Feb '08
SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 2 months
Acres to be Paved: 1
Off-Road Equipment
No. Type
1 Paving Equipment
1 Rollers
1 Surfacing Equipment
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 90 of 171
Horsepower
111
11.
.37
Load Factor
0.430
0.620
0.590
0.465
Load Factor
0.575
0.620
0.590
0.515
0.465
Load Factor
0.430
0.620
0.515
0.465
Feb 'OB
Load Factor
0.530
0.430
0.490
Hours/Day
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
Hours/Day
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
Hours/Day
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
Hours /Day
8.0
8.0
8.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Page: 22
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
Source ROG NOx CO S02 PMIO
Natural Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wood Stoves 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fireplaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Consumer Prdcts 0.00
TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 91 of 171
.,
Page: 23
UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Warehouse
RaG
0.93
NOx
1.13
co
10.50
502
0.01
PMID
0.97
TOTAL EMISSIONS (tons/yr)
0.93
1.13
10.50
0.01
0.97
Does not include correction for passby trips.
Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips.
OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES
Analysis Year: 2007 Temperature (F): 90
EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002)
Season: Annual
Summary of Land Uses:
Unit Type
Trip Rate
size Total Trips
Warehouse
8.41 trips I 1000 sq. ft.
74.00 622.34
Vehicle Assumptions:
Fleet Mix:
Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel
Light Auto 55.20 1. BO 97.80 0.40
Light Truck < 3,750 lb. 15.10 3.30 94.00 2.70
Light Truck 3,751- 5.750 16.10 1. 90 96.90 1.20
Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.10 1.40 95.80 2.80
Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LI0 0.00 81.80 18.20
Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.40 0.00 50.00 50.00
Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 0.00 20.00 80.00
Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.90 0.00 11.10 88.90
Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00
Urban Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00
Motorcycle 1.70 82.40 17.60 0.00
School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00
Motor Home L20 8.30 83,30 8.40
Travel Condi tions
Residential Commercial
Home~ Home- Home-
Work Shop Other Commute Non-Work Customer
Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 .., 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5
Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 .., 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5
Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0
. of Trips Residential 20.0 37,0 43,0
. of Trips Commercial (by land use)
Warehouse 2.0 1.0 97,0
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 92 of 171
'.
Page: 24
Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages
Changes made to the default values for Construction
The user has overridden the Default Phase Lengths
Demolition Truck Hauling Miles/Round Trip changed from 30 to 20
Site Grading Fugitive Dust Option changed from Level 1 to Level 2
Phase 2 mitigation measure Soil Disturbance: Water exposed surfa~es - 3x daily
haa been changed from off to on.
Phase 2 mitigation measure Stockpiles: Cover all stock piles with tarps
has been changed from off to on.
Phase 2 mitigation measure Unpaved Roads: Water all haul roads 3x daily
has been changed from off to on.
Changes made to the default values for Area
The natural gas option switch changed from on to aff.
The wood stave aptian switch changed from on to off.
The fireplcase option switch changed from on to off.
The landscape option switch changed from on to off.
The consumer products option switch changed from an to off.
Changes made to the default values for Operations
The operational emission year changed from 2004 to 2007.
The hom@ based work selection item changed from 8 to 7.
The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to 8.
The home based other selection item changed from 9 to S.
The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8.
The commercial based non-work selection item changed from 9 to 8.
The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to 8.
The travel made environment settings changed from both to: none
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 93 of 171
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 94 of 171
Response to Comments
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SCH No. 2006011002
City of Tustin
Water Service Division
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Contact: Mr. Fred Adjarian
(714) 573-3145
April 6, 2006
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Responses to Comments
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Paoe
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Introduction.........................................,.....................................,...................... 1-1
1.2 Public Notification and Review Process ........................................................... 1-2
2 Responses to Comments ......................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Responses to Comment Letters Received....................................................... 2-1
2.2 Response to Comments Received at Public Input Meeting,
January 12, 2006...................................,....................................................... .2-16
R:\Projed$\Tl,IstlnUOO3\RTC-040606_doc
Tabla ofContwls
Resolution No. U6-49
Page 95 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Repfacement Project
Responses to Comments
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Tustin conducted an Initial Study (IS) for the Rawlings Reservoir Replacement
Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended (Public
Resources Code ~21000 et seq.) and in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines (California
Code of Regulations, Title 14, ~15000 et seq.). In summary, the proposed project involves the
demolition of an existing water reservoir and the construction and operation of two new
reservoirs.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 080( c)(2), the City of Tustin determined that a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was the appropriate environmental document for the
project. Public Resources Code Section 21091(f) and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15074
require that the lead agency must consider the MND before approving the project. Specifically,
Section 15074(b) states:
"Prior to approving a project, the decisionmaking body of the lead agency shall consider the
proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration together with any
comments received during the public review process. The decision making body shall adopt
the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the
basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received),
that there is no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the
environment and that the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration reflects the
lead agency's independent judgment and analysis.'
Following is a list of the public agencies, organizations, and individuals that submitted
comments on the IS/MND:
STATE AGENCIES
1. California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (February 2, 2006)
2. Department of Toxic Substances Control (January 27, 2006)
3. Department of Transportation, District 12 (January 11, 2006)
REGIONAL/LOCAL AGENCIES
4. South Coast Air Quality Management District (January 20, 2006)
5. Orange County Fire Authority (January 17, 2006)
INDIVIDUALS
6. Mike Fiorvanti (January 16, 2006)
7. Stephan and Robin Lang, and Earl Karetta (no date)
8. Michael Sultan, Seth Sultan, and Ellen Sultan (January 2, 2006)
1-1
Introduction
R. \PrOjed!\ T ustmUOO3\RTC..()4()6()6.doc
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 96 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Responses to Comments
Comments were also received from the public at an informational community meeting which
was held on January 12, 2006, at Foothill High School.
Per CEQA, the lead agency is not required to prepare formal responses to comments received
on the IS/MND; however, the City of Tustin has elected to prepare written responses to
comments. Each comment letter received is included in Section 2 of this document and is
immediately followed by the City's response. Responses to comments made at the January 12,
2006, community meeting are also provided.
1.2 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW PROCESS
Section 15072 of the State CEQA Guidelines states:
"(alA lead agency shall provide a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or
mitigated negative declaration to the public, responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and
the county clerk of each county within which the proposed project is located, sufficiently
prior to adoption by the lead agency of the negative declaration or mitigated negative
declaration to allow the public and agencies the review period provided under
Section 15105.
(b) The lead agency shall mail a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated
negative declaration to the last known name and address of all organizations and
individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing and shall also give
notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration by at
least one of the following procedures to allow the public the review period provided
under Section 15105:
(1) Publication at least one time by the lead agency in a newspaper of general
circulation in the area affected by the proposed project. If more than one area is
affected, the notice shall be published in the newspaper of largest circulation from
among the newspapers of general circulation in those areas.
(2) Posting of notice by the lead agency on and off site in the area where the project is
to be located.
(3) Direct mailing to the owners and occupants of contiguous property shown on the
latest equalized assessment roll."
The City of Tustin complied with the requirements to notify agencies and interested individuals
about its intent to adopt an MND for the Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project. The notice of
intent was distributed on December 22, 2005, to various agencies, organizations, and
individuals including the County of Orange Clerk/Recorder and property owners within 300 feet
of the project s~e. The notice was also published in the Tustin News on December 22, 2005,
informing all City customers and residents of the greater Tustin area of the availability of the
MND, and the Notice of Intent to adopt an MND was posted on the project site. Although not
required, on December 20, 21, and 22, 2005, City staff contacted residents within a 300-foot
radius of the project by telephone to inform them of the proposed project. Additionally, a letter
was sent to these residents on January 4, 2006, to further infonn them of the proposed project
and the scheduled infonnational community meeting. A copy of the MND was requested by and
distributed to several area residents.
The City of Tustin held an informational community meeting on January 12, 2006, at Foothill
High School regarding the project. The meeting was attended by approximately 13 individuals.
R:IProjectsITwstInUOO3IRTC-040&'6 doc
1-2
IntroducjiQn
Resolution No. 05-49
Page 97 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Responses to Comments
Comments on the Initial Study and Notice of Intent to adopt an MND were received through the
State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research, and the City of Tustin from
December 22, 2005, through February 1, 2006 (the end of the review period as noted by the
Office of Planning and Research).
R. \PrOJects\T ustinIJOO3\RTC-040006,doc
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 98 of 171
1-3
Introduction
Rawlings ReselVOir Replacement Project
Responses to Comments
SECTION 2
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
2.1 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED
This section includes responses to substantive comments on the IS/MND received by the City of
Tustin. This section is formatted so that the respective comment letters are followed
immediately by the corresponding responses. The comment number provided in the right
margin of the letters corresponds with the responses provided.
R:\ProjectsIT u~lin\J003\RTC.040606_doc
2-1
Responses to Comments
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 99 of 171
8
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
Comment Letter 1
<~
(~.J
~It...~
Arnold
Sel1wmon__
CJoVen1or
Soan W.l.h'
Direc1Dr
Febnwy 2, 2006
RECEIVED
FEB 0 7 2006
C!WJNITY DEVELOPMENl
Scali Roekstin
City of Tustin
300 CcntcnDiaJ Way
TIIStin, CA 92780
Subject: Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
SCH#: 20060 II 002
Dear Scott Rccbtin:
The Stale Clearinghouse submitted the above named Neptive Declaration to selected 'laic _sencies for
review. On the cncloscd Documtmt DetaiJa Report pi.... ""'" that the Clearinghouse has liated the S1ale
aaencie, thaI reviewed your documeoI. The review period closed on Febnwy I, 2006, aod the comments
from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment packsSe i, not in order, pi.... noti1)'
the Stale Clearinghouse ~1y. Please refer to the project'. tcn-digit Stale Clearinghouse mnnber in
fut\tte correspondence so that '"" may rcopond promptly.
1'1.... DO'" that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code ,talel that:
H A re'pon,ible or other public agency ,ball only male_ subslll1tive coDlllleIllll regarding those
activitiea involved in . project which are within an Bn'a of ~ of the agency or which are
required to b. carried out or approved by the agency. Those commentJ ,baD be supported by
specific docwnentation:'
1
Theae commentJ are forwarded for use in prepariuJ your final environmental document. Should you need
more information or clarification of the: euc1o&ed COtnmlmlS, we recommend that you contact the
commenting agency directly.
This 1eltl;1' aclcnowlcdg., that yoo bav. complied with the Stale Cle4ringhous. review requimnenls for draft
environmental documcnta, purausnt to the California Environmental Quality Act. PI.... contact the Stal<
Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regardins!be environmental review proc....
Sincerely,
,-:1r-.M.t j?,?-a:;-
Terry Jl.obeis
Director, Stal< Cl.aringbouse
Ern::lo~C3
cc: Resources Agency
1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 96812-30<4
TEL (916) _13 FAX (916) 823-3018 """""pr.ca.p>v
- -msolutiorrNO'.il649----..----.-
Page 100 of 171
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
SCH* 2008011002
ProJeat TItle RowIlnga RoseNOIr Replacement Project
Lead Agency Tu8lln, CIty 01
Type Neg Negative Declaration
Description Replacemont oIexlatlng 3.82 MG reservoir tank with two new 3.0 MG each reseNOlr tank..
Lead Agency Contact
Name ScolI RookaUn
A/18IICY City of Tustin
Phone (714) 573-3018
emeJf
Addnu 300 Centennial Way
City Tustin
Fax
Sta'" CA ZIp 92780
Project Location
County Orange
CIty T ualIn
RegIon
Cro" _Is
Po,.,., No.
TownshIp
Foothill Boulevard I Newport Avenue
393-181.09,10,11,12
RIInge
Section Bau
Proximity to:
HIghways 55
A1rpot1s
RaUways
Wa_JIB
Schoo" Foothill High School
Land Us. GP: Low Density Residential end Public Institutional
Project "suas
Review/nil Reaourcea Agency; Depattment 01 FIah and Game, Region 5: Oepllltmont of Paltts and _lion;
Al/8ncIN Department 01 Water Rooourcea: California Highway Patrol: Caltrana, Dlatricl12: DIplIttmant of Health
Services: Nativ. American HetIl8ge Commission: ReglOnsl Water Qua1IIy Control Board, RegIOn 3;
- Weter Reaources Control Board, DIvllIon 01 Water Qusllty; _ WatBr Reaourcea Control
Board, Dlvlalon of Waler R1ghta: Intllgl8l8d Waata Managemant Board
Data R...tved 01103/2008
Staff of Revtew 01103/2008
End ofRevtew 02/0112OOl1
Note: Blanks In data fields resuK from Insufficient information provided by lead agoocy.
--.---------__.___________.___ ..____ Resolution No. 06-49
-- --- - ------ ---- --Page 101 of 171
!tTATBOF'('..AI..IRWN1A RlI.mNJlU TlrAM:PORTATION A",owarr!UNr. At":BNr.Y
ARNOInSr.HW"D~g Oovemnr
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Dislrict 12
3137 MidlelJoq Dri.e, Sui.. 1to
Irvine. CA 926J2~8894
RECEIVED
JAN Z 3 2006
c\~o.'r
~'I'''/''
e
.
flU)lOUrfJ(1WrTI
It tMIfJ qJidtJtl!
January 11, 2006
STATE CLfl\RING HOUSE
Mr. Scott Reekstin
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
File: IGR/CEQA
SCHI: 2006011002
Log #; 1672
SR It; 261
Subject: M1tlgllted Negative Declaration for RawUnp Reservoir Replat:ement Project
Dear Mr, Reekstin,
Thank you for the opportUnity 10 review' and comment on the MltipUd Neaatlve Declaration for
RawllDp R-..olr Repl~..........t ProJec:t. ~ project proposes to replace an existing 3.82 MG
reservoir tank with two new 3,0 MG each reservoir tanks in the City of Tustin. California.
CaJlI'lIIIS Dtstrk:t 11 status Is a revlewln& agency on this project and has no cornt'rlent.
Please continue to keep us informed of this project and other future developments, which could
poIeIItially impaclthe 1ransportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contacl us, please do
not hesitate to call Lan Zhou at (949) 756-7827.
Sincerely.
w
c; Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research
Tern Pencovic, Caltrans HQ lGR/Community Planning
Gale Mcintyre, Deputy District Director for Planning and Local Assistance
"CalfrM$ JmproW's mobiliry acnn.f Cali/omitl"
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 102 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 1
California Governor's Office of Planning and Research
February 2, 2006
1. This comment letter acknowledges that the City of Tustin complied with the State
Clearinghouse review required pursuant to CECA.
R. \ProjectIITustln\JOO3\RTC-Q4();()6.00c
2-2
Respon~.~ to Commwls
Resolution No. uo-49
Page 103 of 171
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 104 of 171
Mr, Scott Reekstin
January 27, 2006
Page 2
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS): A database
of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA.
. Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability
Information System (CERCLlS): A database of CERCLA sites that is maintained
by U.S,EPA,
Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided by the Califomia
Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both open as well as
closed and inactive solid waste disposal faellities and transfer stations. 2
cont.
. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) / Spills, Leaks, Investigations and
Cleanups (SLlC): A list that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control
Boards.
Local Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup sites
and leaking underground storage tanks.
The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard,
Los Angeles, Califomla, 90017, (213) 452-3908, maintains a list of Formerly
Used Defense Sites (FUDS),
3)
The ND should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation
and/or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the govemment
agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If hazardous materials or
wastes were stored and used at the site, a Site Assessment could determine if a
release had occurred. If so, further studies should be carried out to delineate the
nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health
and/or the environment should be evaluated. It may be necessary to determine if
an expedited response action is required to reduce existing or potential threats to
public health or the environment. If no immediate threat exists, the final remedy
should be implemented in compliance with state regulations and policies,
3
4)
All environmental investigations, sampling and/or remediation for the site should
be conducted under a WOrkplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency
that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. The findings of
any investigations, induding Phase I and /I investigations should be summarized
in the document. All sampling results in which hazardous substances were found
should be clearly summarized in a table.
4
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 105 of 171
Mr. Scott Reeks!in
January 27, 2006
Page 3
5) Proper investigation, sampling and remedial actions overseen by a regulatory }
agency, if necessary, should be conducted at the site prior to the new 5
development or any construction. All closure, certification or remediation
approval reports by these agencies should be included in the NO.
6) If '.Y pro_ ""'~' '" .. """od.ne . ~_ with -""'"' }
chemicals, and if the proposed project Is within 2,000 feet from a contaminated
site, then the proposed development may fall within the "Border Zone of a 6
Contaminated Property,. Appropriate precautions should be taken prior to
construction if the proposed project is within a Border Zone Property.
7) Your document slalas: "Asbestos is present in the reservoir's ...mastic and
fiberboard, The contractor shall submit an Asbestos Management Program..."
If buildings or other structures, asphalt or concrete-paved surface areas are
being planned to be demolished, an investigation should be conducted for the 7
presence of other related hazardous chemicals, lead-based paints or products,
and mercury, If such materials are identified, proper precautions should be taken
during demolition activities. Additionally, the contaminants should be remediated
in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies.
8) The project construction may require soil excavation and soil filling in certain
areas. Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated soil.
If the soil is contaminated, property dispose of it rather than placing it in another
location. Land Disposal Restrictions may be applicable to these soils. Also, if 8
the project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, proper
sampling should be conducted to make sure thatlhe imported soil is free of
contamination.
9) Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected
during the construction or demolition activities. A study of the site overseen by
the appropriate govemment agency should be conducted to determine if there 9
are, have been, or wUl be, any releases of hazardous materials that may pose
a risk to human health or the environment.
10) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the
proposed operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the
California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code, 10
Division 20, chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations
(California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5).
Resolution No. 06-49-
Page 106 of 171
Mr. Scott Reekstin
January 27. 2006
Page 4
11) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are or will be generated and the wastes
are (a) stored in tanks or containers for more than ninety days. (b) treated onsite,
or (c) disposed of onsite, then a permit from DTSC may be required, If so. the
facility should contact DTSC at (714) 484-5423 to initiate pre application
discussions and determine the permitting process applicable to the facility.
12) If It is determined that hazardous wastes will be generated, the facility should
obtain a United States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number
by contacting (800) 618-6942.
10
cont.
13) Certain hazardous waste treatment processes may require authorization from
the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the
requirement for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA.
14)
If the project plans include discharging wastewater to storm drain, you may be
required to obtain a wastewater discharge permit from the overseeing Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
}11
}12
15)
If during construction/demolition of the project, the soil and/or groundwater
contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area would cease
and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented.
DTSC provides guidance for cleanup oversight through the Voluntary Cleanup Program
(VCP) for other parties. For additional information on the VCP, please visit DTSC's web
site at www.dtsc.ca.gov.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact MS.Teresa Hom. Project
Manager, at (714) 484-5477 or emall atthom@dtsc.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
h4{;~z: -
Greg Holmes
Unit Chief
Southem California Cleanup Operations Branch. Cypress Office
cc: See next page.
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 107 of 171
Mr. Scott Reekstin
January 27, 2006
Page 5
cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
P,O. Box 3044
Sacramento, California 95812-3044
Mr. Guenther W, Moskat, Chief
Planning and Environmental Analysis Section
CEQA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, California 95812-()806
CEQA# 1293
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 108 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 2
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Greg Holmes, Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch - Cypress Office
January 27, 2006
1. The existing environmental setting of the project site is described in Section 2.1 of the
IS/MND. As noted in Section 2.2, Project Background, the project site has been
developed with a water reservoir and associated facilities since 1971. Prior to the
construction of the current reservoir, the site was developed with a private residence.
These uses have not resulted in the release of hazardous waste/substances.
2. Based on a records search conducted by Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR),
dated February 3, 2006, and as reported by The EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck, the
project site is identified on the HAZNET database for asbestos-containing waste.
However, despite the presence of asbestos containing material (ACM), no actual release
of ACM has ever occurred at the site and no remedial action has ever been required.
The potential impact from the presence of asbestos-containing materials on site is
analyzed in Section 5.VII of the IS/MND, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and is based
on a comprehensive Asbestos and Lead Survey that was conducted at the site. While
the existing reservoir does have asbestos-containing materials, consistent with
information reported in the EDR report, the removal, transportation and disposal of ACM
during construction would be conducted in strict compliance with applicable federal,
state and local regulations including, but not limited to, South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403. In addition, the contractor would be
required to submit an Asbestos Management Program to the City's Department of Public
Works prior to issuance of any grading permit in accordance with Mitigation Measure
(MM) 7-1.
3. As discussed in Section 5.VII of the IS/MND, Hazardous and Hazardous Materials, the
only hazardous materials known to occur on site is asbestos-containing materials. In
order to ensure continued protection of human health and the environment of sensitive
receptors, all project-related demolition activities shall comply with Southern California
Air Quamy Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403-Asbestos Emissions From
Demolition/Renovation Activities. In addition to compliance with Rule 1403, the Asbestos
Abatement Contractor shall comply with applicable regulations set forth by the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, and
the Department of Health Services.
4. MM 7-1 (page 5-18 of the IS/MND) requires the preparation of an Asbestos
Management Program prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the existing
reservoir structures. There are no other hazardous substances on site that require
investigation, sampling and/or remediation.
5. The removal of asbestos-containing material on site would be completed prior to
construction or the new reservoirs and would be conducted in accordance with
requirements of the Asbestos Management Program prepared for the project site. Also
refer to response to comment 3 above.
6. Based information presented in The EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck, no contaminated
sites or sites that qualify as "Border Zone Properties" were identified within 2,000 feet of
the project site.
R"\Pro/llC1s1TuSllnUOO3\RTC-Q40006_doc
2-3
~~~1~fi~ncm~'5'lf-49
Page 109 of 171
Rawlings ReselYoir Replacement Project
Responses to Comments
7. As noted in Section 5VII of the IS/MND, an asbestos and lead survey was conducted for
the proposed project in compliance with all regulatory agency requirements, including
SCAQMD Rule 1403, and included all structures and facilities to be demolished.
Asbestos- containing materials were the only hazardous materials located on site. There
was no presence of materials with lead levels at or above the United States Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Guidelines. No other hazardous materials or
chemicals were detected.
8. Prior to development of the site with the existing water reservoir, the project site was
developed with a residential use. Based on review of historic photographs, and the
information provided in the EDR records search, it is not anticipated that the on-site soils
have been contaminated. However, the on-site soils would be sampled prior to disposal.
Should contaminated soils be encountered they would be disposed of properly. Soils
used for backfill after the new reservoirs are constructed would also be sampled;
contaminated soils would not be used.
9. Based on investigation of the project site, review of applicable records for hazardous
materials, and historic use of the site as a private residence, there is no evidence that
the project site has been subject to improper handling or release of chemicals or other
hazardous materials. The IS/MNO identifies that asbestos-containing materials are
located on site and notes that these materials can become friable if damaged or
disturbed. Removal of these materials would be conducted in accordance with Standard
Condition (SC) 7.1 and MM 7-1 to reduce potential impacts to a level considered less
than significant.
10. As identified in Section 5.VII, item (c) of the ISIMND (page 5-17), the proposed water
reservoir replacement project does not include the construction of any uses that would
involve the use, storage, or transport of hazardous materials resulting in the risk of
release or emission of hazardous materials.
11. As identified in Section 5VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality, item (f) (page 5-19), the
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has issued a statewide, general
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (NPOES No.
CAS000002) for stormwater discharges from construction sites with a disturbance area
of one or more acres, including the project site. This general permit requires that
individual construction sites obtain individual NPDES permits for stormwater discharges
or be covered by the Construction General Permit. Per SC 8-1, a Notice of Intent to
obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit would be filed for the project.
Long-term operation of the proposed water reservoir would not involve any discharge of
wastewater into the stormdrain system.
12. Based on investigation of the project site and review of applicable records, there is no
evidence of soil and/or groundwater contamination on site. However, should such
contamination be suspected, demolition and construction activities would cease and
health and safety measures would be implemented in compliance with applicable local,
state, and federal requirements.
R:\Pro)ectsITuslin\JOO3IRTC-040006 doe
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 110 of 171
2-4
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 3
STATE OF CAIJR)RNIA_BUSINF.s..~ TRANSPORTATID.'I,l AND HrnJSING AGENCY
ARNOI DSCHWAR7I:IrtlR'.Gf.ll Co~
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
District 12
3337 Michelson Drive. Suite 380
IrvIne. CA 926(2-8894
.
January 11,2006
RECE.\\IEO
J"N , 11006
_n ut'S.Q?~~~: IGR/CEQA
SCH#: 2006011002
Log#: 1672
SRII:26t
f1~x your POWU!
lh e"~rgy tDirientl
Mr. Scott Reekstin
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration for Rawlings Reservoir Replat:ement Project
Dear Mr. Reekstin,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project. The project proposes to replace an existing 3,82 MO
reservoir lank with two new 3.0 MG each reservoir lanks in the City of Tustin, California,
Caltrans District 12 status is a reviewing agency on this project and has no comment.
1
Please continue to keep us informed of this !,<oject and other future developments, which could
potentially impact the transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do
not hesitate to caJl Lan Zhou at (949) 756-7827.
Sincerely,
~~",~
ROBERT F. ;Js~Uf
Chief of lOR/Community Planning Branch
District 12
c: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research
Tem Pencovic, Caltrans HQ IGR/Community Planning
Gale McIntyre, Deputy District Director for Planning and Local Assistance
"Caltrwu improws mobility a("ruJ.\" CaillotnllA"
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 111 of 171
Rawfings ReS8IVoir Replacement Project
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 3
Department of Transportation
Robert F. Joseph, Chief of IGRlCommunity Planning Branch, District 12
January 11, 2006
1. This comment acknowledges that the Department of Transportation reviewed the
IS/MND and has no comment. No response is required.
R 'lprojettlllT uiMin\JOO3IRTC-040606, doc
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 112 of 171
2.5
Responses to Comments
Jf'f'i 20 '06 06: il8PM SCAQMD sse 909 396 3324
Comment Letter 4
rlAll X~~~u~~~knagement District
r:~.:.;: . 11865 Copley DrIve. Diamond Bar, CA 917654178
LI....~'.:, (909) 396-ZOOO' www,aqmd.p
F"'Ylr.n~ J~Y ;0. 2006
Jaauary 20, 2006
Mt. Scott Reelatin
CityofTualin
Community Development Department
300 C~i.1 Way
TIIItin. CA 92780
MItIpW N..live DecJaratIoD (MND) tor TII, RawllDp Rennoolr
Rep1ac,_t Project, TuMbI
Dear Mt. R.eekstin:
TIlt South Cout Air Quality Management Dlstrlct (SCAQMD) IpJIleCi4tes the opportImity to
commeat Oil the lIbove-melllioDeli docNmc:at. The followllla eoJIIIIICIItI .. meant U &\.Itlarv.e
for the Lead Apuoy lIIId .lwuld be incorpotaled in tho FiDaI Mitiptecl Ne8*tive Dcc1aration,
PIeue provide tIul SCAQMD with wri_ respoll8el to all comm_ COJltIiDed harein prior to
the certificalion of the Flllal Mitl&1llccI Ncplivc DeoIaration. The SCAQMD 'NOuld be happy to
work with the Lad Ajcncy to address these Issuea IIld any other questions that may uise, 1
Please oo~ Charles Blankaon, Ph.D" Air Quality SpecIalIlIt - CEQA S~on. at (909) 396.
3304l1you bave any questlOIl.B J'tll8fding these comm"l1ts.
Sincerely
C:<-+-. ... 5 -.. d:t.
V'-""'V"'f rr-.~.\
Steve Smith, Ph.D,
Prosrem Supervisor, CEQA Section
Planning, Rule Dove!opmcnt & Area Sources
Attachment
SS:CB
nDrn1t""..NJ
COOon1_
Resolution No. 06.49
Page 113 of 171
JFI'l 20 '06 06:l!ll3I'M 5CR(,X1D sse 9B9 39G 3324 .
P,3
Scott R.llebtin
-1-
JanWllY 20, 2006
Miticated Negattl" D.cJaralfoll (MND) for Th. Ra..1IDp RH'l'>'olr
Replacemmt Project
I. >>......lltIo.. EmIIllo..1 '" SCAOMD Rll\e 1403, 011 PIBO 3-1 the lead agency states
that ubeatos-cont.aioJna materials have been ideMlfied in the .xlstlna rescrvolr materials,
The leed *aencY also Blate$ tbat asbestos-en1l1ll1ni'lJr materials will be removed and
diaposed of in IlCQOrdanc. with Ipplitl8bl. prococlures CIllIb1l8hed by _ ao.d looal
apllcica, The lead apncy should be awaro that the proposed demolition activities would
be subject to SCAQMD RIll. 1403 :- Asbestlls Emiasions From DemolltiOlliRenov8l1Cl1l
Activities. Thill'\lI. regulates asbestlls emissions from buildillll demolition. Oiven that
the proposed project site is l\IITounded by nlIidAmces and FootbIll Hiab Sobool, both
conaldered IIOlIIitive receplOrS, it Is important that the project proponent also comply wlth
SCAQMD Rule 1403. A copy oCthe tuIc is attached for colIVeni,*e,
2
2. ShOl'l- Term Localized ,.....utl: Table:} 011 pap S- 7 oCthe MND &bows
COllItrUc:tion PMIO emissions exc:cedlni the rejiolllll mau daily ~ tbnIIhold,
~mitigation. The proposed project has the potential to aI80 l'8lse ~.Il'A4 Ill1bie.nt
concentrations. Consl_ wlth the SCAQM!)'s envil'OlWl""lIll ~ program and
policies, the SCAQM!) recomme.llds that lead aaenoy also evaluate loca'I'.A air ql1ll1ity
Impacts, SiIle. the Jl1'Opolled project I. leulhall Ilve I<::eS in area, It:tll8y be pouible thel
the lead agenc:y could \11IO the JocaIizetI.sIgalil.c:an<:e threshold (LST) tables and IIOt
p.noun dispcl'sion modeJin&. Given the proximity of the propoaed project to the ab0ve-
mentioned IOlISitivc receptors, SCAQMD ataffrec:ommends that the lead apIC)'
Wldcrlakc the Jocallzed analysis to ensure that all neclllllll'yand feu/ble mitiption
measuru are implemented &bould the @a1yala clea1onstra1'Al that collJlrUCliOJl NOx and
CO emissions are IIignifiCllllt. The metbodolollY for collductina the localized si~
tbresholda analysis can be found 011 the SCAQMD Wl:bsite at:
www.aqmd.aov/t:.etJlII/..lillntt~1cJLSTILST ~J.
3
Resolution No. 06-49 -
Page 114 of 171
Rawfings Reservoir Replacement Project
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 4
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Steve Smith, Ph.D., Program Supervisor, CEQA Section
January 20, 2006
1. The comment acknowledges receipt and review of the IS/MND and requests written
responses to the comments contained within the letter. Written responses are provided
below.
2. SC 7-1 (page 5-18) of the IS/MND acknowledges that compliance with SCAQMD
Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions From Demolition/Renovation Activities) is required.
Asbestos removal work would be conducted in an isolated work area. Additionally,
engineering controls would be implemented which may include, but not be limited to: the
use of High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filtration systems which would operate
continuously from the commencement of work until the final clearance is achieved; wet
removal methods; HEPA vacuums; and perimeter air sampling with on- and off-site
analysis.
Additionally, although not required, asbestos removal would be monitored by an
independent environmental consulting firm retained by the City to ensure compliance
with the regulations set forth in SCAQMD Rule 1403. Should any form of non-
compliance be observed, the independent consultant would immediately notify the City
and the City would order the contractor to cease all ACM removal activity until the non-
compliance issue is resolved to the satisfaction of the City.
3. The air quality analysis conducted for the proposed project was completed in
accordance with current SCAQMD analysis requirements as specified in SCAQMD's
CEQA Handbook. SCAQMD has not mandated that local agencies conduct localized air
quality analyses for all development projects (see AQMD Fact Sheet, "Localized
Significance Thresholds" [LSTS]). The only required analysis is the analysis set forth in
the CEQA Handbook, which is the analysis that has properly been conducted for this
project. The purpose behind SCAQMD's development of LSTs was merely to provide
lead agencies with a tool for assessing the localized air quality impacts of the project
should an agency decide to conduct such an analysis. (lQ., p.2). In this case, the City
elected not to conduct a localized air quality analysis because the project site is not
located within an area that is currently plagued by disproportionately higher levels of air
pollution, such as, for example, industrial areas or transit corridors. The general area is
primarily residential.
Consistent with the methodology for analyzing construction emissions established in the
SCAQMD handbook and as presented in Section 5.111 of the IS/MND, with mitigation, the
proposed project would not exceed any of the SCAQMD's significance thresholds. It is
important to note that pollutant emissions would only occur temporarily during
construction. These emissions would cease upon project completion.
It should be noted that the IS/MND did identify PM" emissions to be significant prior to
mitigation. The air quality mitigation measure included in the IS/MND (MM 3-1) indicates
that the contract specifications shall require compliance with all applicable SCAQMD
Rules and Regulations including Rule 403 to reduce the proposed project's potential
PM10 impacts. Specific measures which will be required of the contractor are listed in the
IS/MND. As a result, construction of the proposed project will not exceed SCAQMD's
significance threshold for PM,0. On the contrary, PM" emissions will be well below
SCAQMD's daily significance threshold (refer to Table 3 on page 5-7 of the IS/MND).
R'\Proj$Cl1lITusUn\JOO3\RTC-040600.doc
2-6
Responses to Comments
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 115 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Responses to Comments
With respect to CO and NOx emissions, the air quality analysis performed for the
proposed project indicates that construction of the proposed project would not result in
an exceedance of SCAQMD's thresholds for these criteria pollutants (refer to Tables 2,
3, and 4 in the IS/MND). However, in a good faith effort to minimize potential
construction-related air quality impacts to the greatest extent feasible, the City hereby
incorporates the following mitigation measures in the IS/MND. This mitigation measure
does not change the conclusions of the IS/MND as presented.
MM 3-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Community Development
Department shall verify that the following requirements are included on
the contractor specifications:
. all equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in accordance
with the manufacturers' specifications
. engines on trucks and vehicles in loading and unloading queues
shall be turned off when not in use to reduce vehicle emissions
. construction activity shall utilize electricity from power poles rather
than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators, to the extent
feasible
. all on-site mobile equipment used during construction shall be
powered by alternative fuel sources, where feasible
. all on-site heavy-duty construction equipment shall be equipped with
diesel particulate traps to the extent that this equipments is available
at the time the contracts are awarded
. emulsified diesel fuel shall be used in diesel-fueled construction
equipment that is not equipped with diesel particulate traps to
reduce NOx emissions.
It should also be noted that on-site construction activities would be monitored on a daily
basis by City staff. This would include visual monitoring to ensure that dust emissions
are not dispersing to adjacent properties. Additionally, the City would implement a publiC
outreach program for the project to maintain communication between the community and
the City during construction phases. This will include provision of a "call-in" number to
report any concems during implementation of the project.
2-7
Responses to Comments
R,\Projects\TustInUOO3\RTC-040606 doe
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 116 of 171
Comment Letter 5
~
~ ' .. ~ J
~
City of Tustin
Scott Reekstin
300 Centennial Wy
Tustin, CA 92780
ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY
P.O. Box 57JJ5,lrvine. CA 92619-7115 .1 Fire Authorlty Rd., Irvine, CA 92602
Chip fralher, Fire Chief www.ocfa.org (714) 573-6/99
Rl:C~1
.144' I VS'D
C~/f, ? 100&
tt:~OP.ltE,f/
January 13, 2006
SUBJECT: Rawlings Reservoir ReplaceDlent MND
Dear Mr. Reekstin:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject docwnenl. OCF A bas contacted the City
and discussed water availability with the project plan. Given the nature of the project, the
impaclS to the OCF A are insignificant. While no additional public safety resources are needed as 1
a result of this project, all standard conditions and guidelines will be applied to the project during
the normal review process.
Please contact me at 714-573-6199 if additional information is required.
Sincerely,
~~h
Michele Hernandez
Strategic Services
mlC':hPlf'!npn1AnttP7@ru'fa nTg
Sctvins the Cities of: AJiifO Viejo. Huetta Put. C)'pRt$. 0.. Point. lrvinc. l..tp1. HUll. t.aauaa Nipl . LIpm.a Woods. lib Forat. La PaInut.
Los AJ.mitos. MitsiOft Viejo. ~. Randlo s.a Matprita. S.. CkmInIe . SIn}l&ID Capistrano. SelllIcd. StMtoft. Tustin . Villa Pm: .
W~tminster. Yarba Linda. nI Unl........po.n&.d Alas ofOrlnae County
RESWENTlAL SPRINKLtRS AND SMOKE DtrECTORS SAVE UVES
Re~nllJtion No. 06-49
Page 117 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 5
Orange County Fire Authority
Michele Hernandez, Strategic Services
January 13, 2006
1. This comment acknowledges that OCFA has reviewed the document and concurs with
the finding that project-related impacts to the OCFA are insignificant.
2.8
R: IPrOJectsl TUlItin\JOO3\RTC-0406Q6, doc
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 118 of 171
Responses to Comments
Page 1 of2
Comment Letter 6
Reekstin, Scott
From: Mike Fioravanti [m4avanti@cox.netj
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 4:56 PM
To: 00\19 Oaverl
Subject: FolloW-up on Rawlings Reservoir project
Hi Doug -
I'm following up on our email exchanges last week regarding the Rawlings Reservoir project as well
as our brief phone conversation today, I want to share wIth you my concerns from the community
meeting last Thursday night at FHS now that I have much more solid Information,
The team that did the presentation to the small group of property owners did a fine job and they
were very receptive to the concerns expressed by those in attendance, Unfortunately, many
people In this neighborhood didn't know about the meeting and others didn't even know aboUt the
project. I Initially heard about It through word-of-mouth.
My five main concerns for this project are as follows:
P-'lllJ-'-'~UOIl'
The team talked about contacting the property owners within 500' of the project site, According to
my caleulations that's approximately 33 homes, In speaking with many of my neighbors this
weekend, It appears that the majority have NOT been contacted. Some received a letter from the
City of Tustin along with the Initial Study and others received just a letter. I do think an Initial
effort was put forth by the City of Tustin but It wasn't complete (even though $75K was budgeted
for public outreach). ALL of the property owners within 500' should have received the same
information at the same time, Why were some given the study and others not even notified
(Including myseif)?
1
30"PQ: Bu.!.w .C;~mmflntPedll.c1
I am perplexed why the 3D-day public comment period was launched on December 22nd,
This period Is typically the busiest time of year for most people, Plus, there are several major
holidays during this 30-day window In which the City of Tustin offices are closed. That means
roughly 18 business days are available for the public to contact the city directly which Is not much
ttme before the January 20th cut-off date for questions, We were told at the meeting that
questions would be taken after January 20th and If that Is the case, then why impose a cut-off date
altogether?
2
(;~UJlty .of OrInllLLaml.UleAaRtOYMI
We learned that the RaWlings Reservoir sits on land owned by the City of Tustin, like an island,
with the surrounding land managed by the County of Orange. That still means, however, that
approvals must be obtained by the County of Orange Planning Department AND the North Tustin
Advisory Committee (NTAC). At the meeting I asked if NTAC had been contacted and the response
was: 'Our mailing was sent back to us as the NTAC address was Incorrect". That Is not a
Justifiable reason to bypass NTAC's board for approval of the project -- It simply means that
someone must make more of an effort to get the right information (the County of Orange Planning
Dept, has the right address if necessary).
3
~U!.ll.mOYII.PJlln
I asked the team what the plan Is for removing the asbestos materials at the project site. The
response was that all of the asbestos would be handled In accordance to the AQMD's
}4
01/24/2006
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 119 of 171
Page 2 of2
requirements, Nice to hear but I asked "when" the plan would be ready for review, They told us
"at a later date" which seemed very vague considering the importance of this Issue, I
subsequently learned In re-readlng the Initial Study (atter the meeting) that the selected
contractor "shall submit an Asbestos Management Program (AMP) to the Public Works
Department". That tells me the plan will be developed AFTER the project Is approved by the Tustin
City Council,
4
cont.
Given that this project site is In close proximity to three schools (Foothill, Hlllview and Hewes)
roughly 4,000 people could be greatly effected, While It might be "standard operating procedure"
to develop the plan later on, it would be far better for the community to know the details
now, Personally, I can't offer my support for the project without all of the details and this is the
most Important of all.
LlII1d.QJle.J>JilO }
A cosmetic concern and far less important than the previous point. Regardless, the City of Tustin
should present the landscape plan to the public so that we have something to comment on during
the 3D-day review period. Yes, I understand that this is "not required" at this pOint in the project 5
but It makes solid sense to have the details now.
From my viewpoint, this project Is moving too quickly and the publiC has not had enough time to }
(a) be notified, and (b) be presented with ALL of the necessary facts, lam requesting the City of
Tustin extend the review/comment period until after the asbestos removal ancllanclscaplng plans 6
have been presented in a public forum. During this time, approvals must be obtained by the
County Planning Department and NTAC as mentioned above.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss these points with you in further detail, Please feel free to
contact me at your earliest convenience.
Best,
Mike Fioravanti
19331 Gateway Drive
North Tustin
714,544,7207
01/24/2006
Resolution No. 06-49 -
Page 120 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 6
Mike Fioravanti
January 16, 2006
1, Please refer to Section 1.2 for a discussion of the public notification and review process
for the Initial Study and notice of intent to adopt an MND that was conducted by the City
of Tustin. Residents within 300 feet of the project site were mailed notifications and
adjacent property owners were provided with a copy of the IS/MND.
2. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15073(a), "the lead agency shall provide a public review
period pursuant to Section 15105 of not less than 20 days. When a proposed negative
declaration or mitigated negative declaration and initial study are submitted to the State
Clearinghouse for review by state agencies, the public review period shall not be less
than 30 days, unless a shorter period is approved by the State Clearinghouse under
Section 15105(d)." Therefore, the 30-day review period provided by the City of Tustin
was in compliance with CEQA requirements. There are no provisions/restrictions for
public review periods occurring during state or federal holidays.
As was noted in the comment letter, interested parties were informed at the January 12,
2006, community meeting that public comments would be considered after the official
close of the 30-day comment period until the City Council meeting for the project.
3. A lead agency is defined in Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines as "the public
agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project." The
City of Tustin is the "Lead Agency" for the Rawlings Reservoir Replacement project. A
minor component of the proposed project consists of street improvements along Foothill
Boulevard, which require an encroachment permit from the County of Orange.
Therefore, the County of Orange has only limited jurisdiction over the project and to the
extent the encroachment permit process is discretionary, the County would be a
Responsible Agency for purposes of CEQA. A notice of intent to adopt the MND was
sent to the County of Orange; however, no comment letter was received. Should any
input be received prior to the decision-making process, it will be considered.
Pursuant to Section 15072(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Tustin submitted
the Notice of Intent to the "Iast known name and address" of the North Tustin Advisory
Committee (NTAC). The NTAC is an advisory committee that serves the unincorporated
area of Orange County which does not include the project site. The proposed project is
not subject to review by NTAC. However, the City of Tustin, in good faith, elected to
voluntarily present the proposed project to the NT AC at its regularly scheduled meeting
on February 15, 2006.
4. As discussed in Response No.2 to the DTSC letter, MM 7-1 requires the City to prepare
an Asbestos Management Program (AMP). While the precise details of the plan have
not been finalized, the AMP would comply with the requirements of Rule 1403 and must
incorporate the recommendations of the Asbestos and Lead Survey Report (Note that
the Asbestos and Lead Survey is available for public review at the Community
Development Department counter at Tustin City Hall). Rule 1403 is reproduced in its
entirety and included as Attachment A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference
herein. This Rule requires the City to notify the SCAQMD prior to demolition activity and
sets forth specific reqUirements for the safe removal, transportation and disposal of
asbestos from the project site. Moreover, various details of the proposed ACM removal
are described in Response 2 to SCAQMD Comment Letter 4 and again repeated in
Response 1 to Comment Letter 7.
R\ProjedsITulStlnWOO3\RTC-040606 Qoc
2-9
Re!i{lOflse. tQ Cort/Qlen/s
KeSOIU!IOn NO. u6-49
Page 121 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Responses to Comments
5. As discussed in Section 5.1 of the IS/MND, Aesthetics, the proposed project (which
includes implementation of landscaping) would not substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site and no significant aesthetic impacts would result.
Therefore, no mitigation is required. Preparation of the landscape plan will occur during
final design and will be part of the Final Plans and Specifications to be considered by the
City Council.
6. As noted in the responses for comments 1 and 2, the City of Tustin has processed a
notice of intent to adopt an MND for the Rawlings Reservoir Replacement project in
compliance with the requirements of CEaA. Subsequent project approvals by the City
Council provide additional opportunities for the public to comment on more detailed
aspects of the project.
R.\Projects\Tuslin\JOO3\RTC-04060Etdoc
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 122 of 171
2.10
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 7
Dear Mr. Reekstin:
We attended the neighborhood meeting for your proposed water towers to be built where
the Rawlings Reservoir currently sits. Our home sits directly above the reservoir and the
Karetta home sits directly behind us.
The following are just a few of our concerns: l
I. The safe removal of the asbestos. Will the AQMD be mnnitnring the >-
remnval? lfoot, why not? J
The height of the tnwers. Although you state that they will be no higher than l
the current structure, the fact that there are two of them makes the forward J 2
tower sit high out of the ground and is a huge concrete wall that did not exist
before, Can you make one larger tower so it will sit further back on the lot
and not be sueh a sore thumb?
Can the sides of the tower/towers be more esthetic? ]- 3
You will be creating a huge blank canvas for graffiti. This can not be resolvedJ_ 4
with lighting the towers as that would be an even greater nuisance.
One of my biggest concerns is the appearance of the structures from the top.
Not only are the proposed roofs ugly, but the huge concrete flat area around
the back and Y, of the front tower will create glare, heat, and would be visually
ugly, We estimate the square footage of concrete and surface area nf the the
top of the towers to be approx. 40,000 sq. ft, perhaps more. Can you verify
this figure? You state that you need it for maintenance so trucks can drive on
the concrete apron, but, this seems to be overkill. We wnuld rather see foliage
from bushes, and a ladder on the side of the tower to reach the top for
maintenance.
This project will create dust, rodents, etc. for at least 2 years. How does the
city plan on cleaning our bomes, cars, yards, etc?
It is a major concern that the city of Tustin is the designer, approver and
developer of the project. There is nn disinterested 3 nI party to grant approvals,
permits, elc, We were all unaware that this island was part of The City of
Tustin. Consequently, we, the neighbors, are disenfranchised. We have no
city council to appeal to since we are in the county area and you have no
government entity to watch over you and create a check and balance. The
people most effected by this project have not real voice. I am quite certain
that if a private developer were proposing sueh unappealing structures that
would sit in the middle of the city, the planning department would be far mnre
concerned with the esthetics and not just the function, If there were
complaints about the project being made by city residents, the head of
planning and the city council would sit up and Iislen. Furthermore, we are
concerned that we gnt notification of our 30 days to make our views heard
about the project on Dec. 20"'. Most of us were in the middle of celebrating
the holidays until after New Year and consequently have had little time to
digest the information gi ven us.
2.
3.
4,
5.
6.
7,
These are just a few of our thoughts. Please respond 10 this letter as soon as possible.
1
5
}6
7
}.
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 123 of 171
Thank You,
Stephan and Robin Lang
Earl Karetta
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 124 of 171
Rawlings ResefYoir Replacement Project
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 7
Stephan and Robin Lang
Earl Karetta
1. Construction activities for the Rawlings Reservoir Replacement project are under the
jurisdiction of the SCAQMD and all project-related construction activities, including
demolition and structure removal, must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1403. In accordance
with Rule 1403, SCAQMD would be notified of the asbestos removal prior to
commencement of the demolition activity. The notification must include key components
of the proposed removal which must be consistent with the health and safety procedures
outlined in Rule 1403. In addition to compliance with Rule 1403, the Asbestos
Abatement Contractor must comply with applicable regulations set forth by the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, and
the Department of Health Services. An Asbestos Management Plan must also be
prepared pursuant to Mitigation Measure 7-1.
Asbestos removal work would be conducted in an isolated work area. Additionally, other
engineering controls would be implemented which may include, but not be limited to, the
use of High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filtration systems that would operate
continuously from the commencement of work until the final clearance is achieved, wet
removal methods, HEPA vacuums, and perimeter air sampling with on- and off-site
analysis.
Additionally, although not required, the project site would be monitored by an
independent environmental consulting firm retained by the City to ensure compliance
with the regulations set forth in SCAQMD Rule 1403. Should any form of non-
compliance be observed, the independent consultant would immediately notify the City
and the City would order the contractor to cease all ACM-removal activity until the non-
compliance issue is resolved to the satisfaction of the City. To ensure this independent
oversight occurs, the City will impose the following special condition:
Haz-1 Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for the existing reservoir, the Community
Development Department shall verify that the following requirement is included in
the contractor specifications: An independent environmental consulting firm shall
be retained and shall be onsite to monitor all removal/handling of asbestos
containing material (ACM) conducted by the Asbestos Abatement Contractor,
and to ensure compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1403. Should any form of non-
compliance be observed, the independent consultant shall notify the City and the
City shall order the contractor to cease all ACM-removal activity until the non-
compliance issue is resolved to the satisfaction of the City.
2. Due to the size and shape of the project site (long and narrow), it is not possible to
provide the necessary volume of water storage in a single circular tank; therefore, two
tanks are required. The placement of the tanks on the project site is dictated by
construction/engineering requirements. Nonetheless, as documented in the IS/MND
discussion of the project's potential aesthetics impacts, the project has been designed to
ensure that any visual or aesthetic impact would be less than significant.
3. As stated on page 5-1 of the IS/MND, the exposed portion of the front tank as well as
non-paved areas of the site would be landscaped and the exterior of the exposed
portions of the two tanks would receive coloration treatment to further screen and b"~nd
the facilities with the proposed landscaping. It should be noted that the visual simulations
of the proposed reservoirs that were presented at the January 12, 2006, community
R 'IPrOjed$\T ustinUOO3IRTC-Cl4060S,doc
2-11
~,&,gruf,!l'ncllfom~49
Page 125 of 171
Rawlings ReselVOir Replacement Project
Responses to Comments
meeting (which was attended by the commenter) represented the pre-landscape
condition and were not intended to show the final visual characteristics of the project
site.
4. During the construction phase, the police department would periodically patrol the
project site. Additionally, during and after construction the project site would be fenced
and locked to prevent trespassing and vandalism. It should also be noted that with
landscaping of the exposed face of the reservoir tanks, access would be further
deterred.
5. The roof area of the existing rectangular reservoir is approximately 38,000 square feet
(sf). The roof area of the two new tanks would be approximately 28,200 sf, which is
approximately 25 percent less hardscape than the existing reservoir. The perimeter area
shown for reservoir access and maintenance would be approximately 22,500 sf. The
combined areas of the new roofs and access area would be approximately 50,700 sf. A
roadway for access to the roof of each tank is necessary for maintenance. As noted
previously, the exposed portion of the front tank as well as non-paved areas of the site
would be landscaped, and the exterior of the exposed portions of the two tanks would
receive coloration treatment to further screen and blend the facilities with the proposed
landscaping. As documented in Section 5.1 of the IS/MND, the project has been
designed to ensure that any visual or aesthetic impact would be less than significant. It
should also be noted that the location of ladders would not change the need for access
of maintenance and inspection vehicles. Multiple roof hatches on each tank are required
for safety and for personnel and equipment access, and paved access is necessary to
each hatch location.
6. As stated on page 5-9 of the IS/MND, the project would be required to comply with
applicable SCAQMD Rules and Regulations, including those related to dust control.
Specifically, a fugitive dust control plan would be prepared and submitted to the City of
Tustin Public Works Department and would be employed throughout project
construction, including grading.
With respect to concerns raised regarding rodents, residential areas do not provide
sufficient natural resources for native wildlife species including but not limited to mice or
other small animals that may inhabit the project site. In addition, project construction
activity will largely be confined to currently disturbed areas as opposed to undeveloped
densely vegetated areas that may provide shelter to rodents. There is no evidence that
the project would create a significant rodent problem in this neighborhood. Therefore, no
mitigation is required.
It should also be noted that the City of Tustin would conduct a public outreach program
throughout the construction phase of the project. As part of this program, surrounding
residents would be notified of whom to contact during construction if they have any
concerns/complaints. Specific concerns would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
7. A lead agency is defined in Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines as "the public
agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project." The
City of Tustin is the "Lead Agency" for the Rawlings Reservoir Replacement project. The
proposed project includes street improvements along Foothill Boulevard, which requires
approval from the County of Orange before this component of the project can be
initiated. Therefore, the County of Orange is a Responsible Agency. A notice of intent to
adopt the MND was sent to the County of Orange; however, no comment letter was
2-12
Responses to Comments
R. lProjecrs\ T ustlnUOO3\RTC..Q40600,doc
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 126 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Responses to Comments
received. Should any input be received prior to the decision-making process, it would be
considered.
Pursuant to Section 15072(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Tustin submitted
the notice of intent to the "last known name and address" of the North Tustin Advisory
Committee (NTAC). The NTAC is an advisory committee that serves the unincorporated
area of Orange County which does not include the project site. The proposed project is
not subject to review by NTAC. However, the City of Tustin elected to voluntarily present
the proposed project to the NTAC at the regularly scheduled meeting on February 15,
2006.
The City of Tustin has solicited input from property owners in the area surrounding the
project site and would continue to accept and consider comments from any interested
parties. As noted previously, the City would implement a public outreach program for the
project to maintain communication throughout the project design and construction
phases.
8. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15073(a), "the lead agency shall provide a public review
period pursuant to Section 15105 of not less than 20 days. When a proposed negative
declaration or mitigated negative declaration and initial study are submitted to the State
Clearinghouse for review by state agencies, the public review period shall not be less
than 30 days, unless a shorter period is approved by the State Clearinghouse under
Section 15105(d)." Therefore, the 30-day review period provided by the City of Tustin
was in compliance with CEQA requirements. There are no provisions/restrictions for
public review periods occurring during state or federal holidays.
R'IProjeCl5\T U$lin\JOO3IRTC4I0606.doc
2-13
@sponfi.~ to Comm~f]/s
ReSOlution No. uti-49
Page 127 of 171
Comment Letter 8
January 2, 2006
TO: Scott Reekstin, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Tustin, California
1~~CEIIIED
JAN 0 5 lOOG
~/TI' fJEV&. /J~
v?I.fENT
FROM: Michael Sultan, M.D., F.A.A.P.
13321 Orange Knoll Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Re: Commentary and requests regarding mitigation
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project (RRRP)
Dear Mr. ReekstiD,
As per your request, enclosed is a written synopsis of our meeting at my home on
12/28/05.
I. Attendees: Mr. Reekstin, Mr.S. Sagredo, Mr. F. Adjanian, Michael Sultan, M.D.,
Seth Sultan, MHSE, Ellen Sultan, R.N.
2. Time 8:30 am - 9: 15am
3. Synopsis of my commentary snd the response on the mitigation report ofRRRP:
A Concern for asbeltol dilpenal (airborne) during demolition and removaL }
PI'8DMM critir.1 barrier encloaure (dome?) with ventilation, Hepa filters, bazmat
precautions (NYC school renovation model cited). *Note close Droximitv to 3 schools 1
and manv homes.
B. Concern for noise abatement sufficient to account for conCUrreDt use of many}
vehicles, machines and equipment. Prooosed perimeter noise barrier walls and 2
extended barriers juxtaposed to homes proximate to site.
C. Concern for air qualitv. exception taken to random sample analysis. El\DOSUre i1
both continuous and cumulative. Proposal: same as A above plus vehicle 3
eJ<haust filters et al
D. Proposed onlloinR reliable, independent monitoring and regular feedback to all} 4
partIes.
E Concern for rodent displacement as previously experienced with earlier project.} 5
F. Concern with vibratory impacts on structures and hillsides. } 6
~esolution'No.06-49 -
Page 128 of 171
G. Request for ore-oroiect mid-proiect and earlv post-proiect assessments of
pro.P<<lY iDlDm OD homes and schools.
}7
H. Request acceptance by city of Tustin for responsibility to health, safety and
welfare of vulnerable populations within the proximity of the proposed project ,
including:
Defined patients with airway or respiratory disorders
Elderly penons
Young children
Student!faeulty and staff at 3 nearby schools
Pets
Plants
That responsibility would require:
I. The highest standards of precaution and an abundance of caution in executing the
project in accordance with the regulations in S 1529 and all applicable federal,
state and local health requirementa.
2. The ameliorative repair and reparations for any injury or harm done persons or
property.
3. The bearing of any and all costs associated with nec:essary relocation and return of
those persons deemed to be "in harms way" during the term of the project from
onsel to completion.
8
Mr. Adjarian made a scholarly presentation of the reasoning as to why this project was
needed froDl a perspective of needed water capacity, advantages of gravity flow and
value to the city's rating and operlIling costs.
To the extent that the project is done with any and all of the factors that provide for the
public safety, health and welfare, 1 presently see no basis for assuming an adversary
stance towards the project.
We all understand that the d.....mi..tift. of aUbon:e..beItoa and continuous 9
diub.....e of dj.....1 Hhaost .arbor t:IIrftnftDMK oot__"_1 To dispense this upon
scores of young children, elderly persons and those with respiratory disorders would be
unconscionable and is legally and morally unw:cptable. Until there is evidence of this, I
will suppan the project ofa safely done responsible expansion of the Rawlings
Reservoir which serves the water needs of the local community in accordance with any
and all of the provisions under Jaw which are imendcd to protect the public health and
safety.
Sincerely,
Michael Sultan, M.D., F.A.A.P
Seth Sultan, BA MHSE, CHES
Ellen Sultan B.S., R.N
" t" ~ "
~r p!- .w,~
.U~..,."./~U~A.-
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 129 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 8
Michael Sultan, Seth Sultan, and Ellen Sultan
January 2, 2006
1. Construction activities for the Rawlings Reservoir Replacement project are under the
jurisdiction of the SCAQMD and project-related construction activities, including
demolition and structure removal, must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1403. In addition to
compliance with Rule 1403, the Asbestos Abatement Contractor must comply with
applicable regulations set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Occupational Safety & Health Administration, and the Department of Health Services.
Asbestos removal work would be conducted in an isolated work area. Additionally, other
engineering controls would be implemented which may include, but not be limited to, the
use of High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filtration systems that would operate
continuously from the commencement of work until the final clearance is achieved, wet
removal methods, HEPA vacuums, and perimeter air sampling with on- and off-site
analysis.
2. As noted in Section 5.x1, Noise, construction-related noise would occur during the least
noise sensitive daytime hours between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday, and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No
construction activity would be allowed on Sundays or on City-observed federal holidays.
In addition, a temporary sound barrier would be constructed, "residential grade" mufflers
would be required on construction equipment, and construction hours would be
prominently posted on the site to ensure that construction activity begins and ends at the
hours specified above (see Special Conditions Noise-1, Noise-2, and Noise-3 as
described on page 5-26 of the IS/MND).
3. Project construction activities would be in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, which
imposes strict requirements on fugitive dust emission generation and control. The rules
are especially restrictive in regards to dust control and do not allow any visible
particulates to migrate off site. Section 5.11 of the IS/MND, Air Quality, indicates that no
significant impacts would occur with implementation of the required mitigation (refer to
MM 3-1).
4. Although not required, the project site would be monitored by an independent
environmental consulting finn to ensure compliance with the regUlations set forth in
SCAQMD Rule 1403. Should any form of non-compliance be observed, the independent
consultant would immediately notify the City and the City would order the contractor to
cease all asbestos containing material-removal activity until the non-compliance issue is
resolved to the satisfaction of the City. As previously noted, the City has included a
special condition for monitoring of compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1403. With respect to
fugitive dust, on-site construction activities would be monitored on a daily basis by City
staff. This would include visual monitoring to ensure that dust emissions are not
dispersing to adjacent properties. Additionally, the City would implement a public
outreach program for the project to maintain communication throughout the project
design and construction phases.
5. See Response 6 to Comment Letter 7 regarding the project's potential to create a rodent
problem in the neighborhood.
2-14
Responses to Comments
R\PrOjeds\Tustin'JOO3\RTC-040606 doe
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 130 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Responses to Comments
6. Vibratory impacts associated with construction are usually due to either blasting or pile
driving operations. Since this project does not incorporate either blasting or pile driving,
no significant vibration impacts are anticipated.
7. As documented in the IS/MND, the project would have either no impact, a less than
significant impact, or a less than significant impact with mitigation, for each
environmental resource area evaluated in the IS/MND. There is no evidence that the
project would result in any significant adverse impact on the structural integrity of any
nearby residential or school property. Therefore, a pre-project, mid-project and early
post-project assessment of nearby property is not required.
B. As noted in Response No.7, there is no evidence that this project would have any
potential impact on the health, safety, and welfare of vulnerable populations within the
proximity of the project. The City would take all necessary precautions to ensure the
adjacent sensitive receptors and property are adequately protected during project
construction. In addition to ensuring that contractors comply with all applicable federal,
state and local health requirements, additional measures would be incorporated into the
project to address the potential impacts of the project. As documented in the IS/MND
and its supporting technical data, all potentially significant impacts (most of which would
occur on a temporary basis during construction only) would be mitigated to a less than
significant level. These impacts include potential impacts from airborne asbestos and
noise. Other construction related impacts, including impacts from construction emissions
from heavy equipment and dust, would be less than significant. Pollutant emiS!lions
generated during construction would be below applicable South Coast Air Quality
Management District significance thresholds (see IS/MND, Table 4).
Based on the conclusions of the IS/MND, there is no evidence that any injury or harm
would occur to people or property in the vicinity of the project; therefore, implementation
of the measures recommended in this comment, such as "ameliorative repair and
reparations" and relocation of certain segments of the population in this area is not
required under CEOA.
9. The comment is noted and will be taken into consideration by the decision makers.
R:\ProjeClSITuttinUOO3\RTC.040606. doc
2-15
Responses to COmm'l/lls
ReSOlution No. U6-49
Page 131 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Reptacement Project
Responses to Comments
2.2 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED AT PUBLIC INPUT MEETING,
JANUARY 12, 2006
As previously discussed in Section 1, Introduction, the City of Tustin held a community meeting
at Foothill High School on January 12, 2006. Comments were noted during the meeting and are
addressed below. A list of meeting attendees is provided following these responses to
comments.
Comment 1: Will residents receive assurance that Rule 1403 (concerning asbestos
removal) be fully complied with?
Response: Standard Condition 7-1 (page 5-18) of the IS/MND acknowledges that
compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions From Demolitionl
Renovation Activities) is required. National Econ Corporation, an independent
environmental consulting firm, would have an experienced project technician
on site full time to observe the asbestos removal conducted by the Asbestos
Abatement Contractor and ensure compliance with Rule 1403. By law, the
Asbestos Abatement Contractor must notify SCAQMD in writing of their
intention to remove the asbestos 14 calendar days prior to the start of any
abatement. This allows SCAQMD to make unannounced visits to the site at
any time to ensure compliance. In addition to complying with Rule 1403, the
Asbestos Abatement Contractor must at all times comply with Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, Occupational Safety & Health
Administration (OSHA) regulations, Department of Health Services (DHS)
regulations, and other regulations that apply to this project. National Econ
Corporation's on-site technicians are rigorously trained in all aspects of
asbestos project monitoring and would not hesitate to contact the City if any
non-compliance is observed.
Comment 2: Will the project be fully enclosed during asbestos removal? (Clarification of
question No.1)
Response: Asbestos removal work would be conducted in an isolated work area.
Additionally, other engineering controls would be implemented which may
include, but not be limited to, the use of High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA)
filtration systems that would operate continuously from the commencement of
work until the final clearance is achieved, wet removal methods, HEPA
vacuums, and perimeter air sampling with on and off-site analysis.
Comment 3: Do we know the name of the company who will be performing the asbestos
removal?
Response: The Asbestos Abatement Contractor has not yet been determined. The City of
Tustin would put the project (design and construction) out for public bid. A
component of this bid package is the asbestos removal specifications to be
prepared by National Econ Corporation. Part of the bid process is a mandatory
site visit by all the prospective Asbestos Abatement Contractors. This site visit
would afford the prospective bidders the opportunity to see the project first
hand and to ask any questions of the Independent Environmental Consultant
who would be monitoring the project from commencement to completion. The
prospective Asbestos Abatement Contractors would be issued a copy of the
removal specifications outlining all regulatory requirements that would be
rigorously enforced. The prospective bidders would then compile their bids for
R.\ProjeclsITUSlinlJOO3\RTC-040006. doc
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 132 of 171
2.16
Responses to Comments
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Responses to Comments
submission no later than a date and time that would be determined by the City
of Tustin. The City of Tustin would then begin a thorough review process of
each bid to determine the eligibility and competence of each bidder. The City
of Tustin would work closely with the Environmental Consultant during this
review. At the end of the review process, the most qualified bidder would be
given the City's recommendation for submission to the Tustin City Council for
approval. If approval is authorized by the City Council, the project would be
awarded to that bidder. A successful bidder will have demonstrated not only
competitive prices, but experience with this type of project, a good safety
record, adequate insurance, bonding, etc.
Comment 4: Can local residents be notified of the name of the winning bidder?
Response: The City of Tustin provides public notification of all City Council meetings,
including agenda items. As noted above, the Final Plans and SpeCifications for
the Rawlings Reservoir Replacement must be approved by the City Council
and the recommended bidder would be included in the public notification for
the City Council meeting.
Comment 5: What about dust control? (From the School District, should they get special
filters, change them more often, etc.?)
Response: As stated on page 5-9 of the IS/MND, the project would be required to comply
with applicable SCAQMD Rules and Regulations, including those related to
dust control. Specifically, a fugitive dust control plan would be prepared and
submitted to the City of Tustin Public Works Department and would be
employed throughout the grading phase of project construction.
Comment 6: Will there be any remediation or assistance to remove dust from houses, cars,
and plants?
Response: The only phase of construction that could generate significant dust emissions
is the grading phase. However, as documented in the IS/MND (Table 3), with
implementation of the extensive dust control measures set forth in Mitigation
Measure 3-1, potential off-site dust emissions would be less than significant.
Nonetheless, the City of Tustin would conduct a publiC outreach program
throughout the construction phase of the project. As part of this program,
surrounding residents would be notified of whom to contact during construction
if they have any concerns/complaints. Specific concerns/complaints, including
those associated with dust, would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
Comment 7: When grading, what will be done regarding rodent infestation? Will this be
remediated and how will this be accomplished?
Response: See Response 6 to Comment Letter 7 regarding the project's potential to
create a rodent problem in the neighborhood.
Comment 8: Where will the noise barriers be placed? Describe the size of the barriers ,md
the length of time the barriers will be in place.
Response: The temporary noise barrier would be placed along the north and east property
lines of the project site. The height of the barrier would initially be 24 feet tall as
identified in Special Condition Noise-1 of the ISIMND. The barrier would be
R.\Project8\Tu.tin\JOO3\RTC-040S06 doc
2-17
Rftrso4~1f8R?fcf."61f-49
Page 133 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Responses to Comments
installed prior to any demolition or grading and would remain in place until no
longer required by construction activities. The deep excavation and associated
shoring walls would provide noise attenuation and the height of the walls could
be reduced during construction as appropriate based on the noise levels
generated. Additionally, the later phases of construction might not include any
significant noise generators, and the City could remove the barrier if this were
the case.
Comment 9: Will the noise barriers be placed around the homes?
Response: The noise barrier would not be placed around the homes. As noted previously,
the noise barriers would be placed along the north and east property lines of
the project site.
Comment 10: Clarify, will the barriers really be 24 feet tall?
Response: As noted in Special Condition Noise-1 (page 5-26 of the IS/MND), the
temporary barrier would be 24 feel high. Also refer to response to comment 8
above.
Comment 11: Will there be any pile driving associated with this project?
Response:
No pile driVing is planned or required for the project.
Comment 12: Are there any natural gas lines within the project limit area?
Response: Available utility information indicates that there is a natural gas pipeline in
Foothill Boulevard in front of the project site, but not on the site or in the
access roadway along the easterly side of the site.
Comment 13: Where will construction trucks access the job site and sit while waiting to
access the site?
Response: Construction vehicles would park along the curb of Foothill Boulevard while
waiting to access the site. Construction vehicles would access the site from the
existing access driveway and from a new driveway on the westerly front side of
the site.
Comment 14: Is the construction duration actually going to be 22 months?
Response: Based on currently available project information, project construction is
estimated to take approximately 22 months. Construction activities would
include demolition of the existing reservoir; site clearing, excavation, and
preparation for construction; new tank construction; site backfill; construction of
pipelines and related improvements; site paving and landscaping; and final
cleanup. The Final Plans and Specifications would provide a specific timeline
for construction activities.
Comment 15: Is the storm drain pipeline construction included in the original construction
timeline?
Response: Construction of the new drain line in Foothill Boulevard would take place within
the same time period noted above for the proposed project.
2-18
Responses to Comments
RIProjects\Tu,tinUOO3\RTC..o40606 doc
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 134 of 171
Rawlings ReseNOir Replacement Project
Responses to Comments
Comment 16: Will there be security at the job site?
Response: During the construction phase, the project construction site would be
periodically patrolled by the police department. During construction and
operation, the site would be fenced and locked restricting access into the site.
Comment 17: What about graffiti control on the noise barriers and other portions of the job
site?
Response: As indicated above, the periodic patrols by the police department would be
conducted. Should the noise barriers or other surfaces be vandalized with
graffrti, the City would ensure that it is removed immediately which is consistent
with city-wide policies.
Comment 18: What is the target date for the MND to be presented to City Council?
Response: Based on the current project schedule, it is expected that the MND would be
presented to the City Council in April 2006.
Comment 19: Citizens need more time and facts regarding the MND before it goes to
Council. Can it be delayed?
Response: Refer to the discussion of the public notification and review process for the
IS/MND provided in Section 1.2 of this responses to comment document.
Comment 20: Why isn't the asbestos plan completely in place before the MND goes to
Council for approval?
Response:
The Asbestos Management Program (AMP) would not be prepared until the
City selects the Asbestos Abatement Contractor. Nonetheless, no grading
permit would be issued and no asbestos removal would occur until the AMP is
prepared and SCAQMD is properly notified of the details of the removal plan.
While the exact details of the AMP have not been defined, the AMP must
include procedures that are consistent with the removal, transportation, and
disposal procedures that are set forth in SCAQMD Rule 1403. Moreover the
AMP would incorporate the recommendations of the Asbestos and Lead
Survey that has already been prepared for the project. The Asbestos and l.ead
Survey recommended the following measures to address ACM on site:
a The AMP should set forth operation and maintenance guidelines to
minimize fiber release which may be caused by age, normal wear and tear,
delamination, building maintenance, repairs, renovation and other activities
which may disturb ACM.
. Prior to demolition, or major construction, specifications should be properly
modified to incorporate the removal of ACM.
. If removal of ACM is required in connection with demolition, renovation, or
building repair, such work should only be performed by personnel who are
appropriately trained, experienced, and registered. Intentional disturbance
of ACBM should be performed in a manner such that emissions are
controlled. Control measures should include, but not be limited to, wet
methods, encapsulation, removal with HEPA-filter equipped vacuums, and
R:\PrOjeetSITustinUOO3\RTC-040606.doc
2-19
Responses to Comments
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 135 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Responses to Comments
appropriately labeled polyethylene bags. HVAC systems in work areas
where asbestos is to be abated should be deactivated and the register
closed and temporarily sealed. Air monitoring relating to such work should
be performed by or under the direct supervision of a California State
Certified Asbestos Consultant before, during, and after the abatement
work, as required by EPA and other regulations.
. California law requires a building owner to provide tenant, employee, and
vendor notification within fifteen (15) days of receipt of information
identifying the presence of ACBM in their buildings(s) and annually
thereafter. Specific notification requirements are outlined in Assembly
Bill 3713 and California Health and Safety Code 25915-2519.7.
. There are potential liabilities associated with the presence and removal of
ACM. Precautionary measures should be taken in accordance with the
guidelines set forth by the EPA, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), and other regulatory agencies.
Comment 21 : Will the new tanks be taller than the existing tanks?
Response: As shown on Exhibit 7 of the IS/MND, the top of the new tanks would be only
one foot higher than the roof of the existing reservoir. In addition, the new
tanks would have roof vents and access hatches that extend slightly above the
finished roof level.
Comment 22: Can the City do something to make the roof of the reservoir more aesthetically
appealing to the neighbors that look down on it? (e.g., sod roof)
Response: For purposes of analysis, it has been assumed that the reservoir roof surface
would consist of asphalt with a gravel coating. However, alternative roof
treatments may be considered during the design process. The City would
ensure that the roof treatment does not cause glare.
Comment 23: What about expansive soil problems and potential damage to retaining walls,
swimming pools, etc.?
Response: The City's design engineer for the project is working with geotechnical
engineers and shoring engineers to address the soils issue and to mitigate
impacts to nearby retaining walls and swimming pools. Potential impacts
related to unstable soils and expansive soils are addressed in Section 5.v1 of
the IS/MND and would be less than significant with the implementation of
current Uniform Building Code standards and standard engineering practices
are used.
Comment 24: What will be done to control/prevent graffiti on large walls that are exposed
after construction is complete?
Response: The project site would be fenced and locked, restricting access to the reservoir
tanks. Additionally, as stated on page 5-1 of the IS/MND, the exposed portion
of the front tank would be screened by landscaping. The visual simulations of
the proposed reservoirs that were presented at the January 12, 2006,
community meeting represented the pre-landscape condition and were not
intended to show the final visual characteristics of the project site.
2.20
Responses to Comments
R;\projects\T ustinUOO3\RTC-040606.doc
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 136 of 171
Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project
Responses to Comments
Comment 25: Will there be a process to ensure that the landscaping is maintained after
completion of project? (Currently it has deteriorated.)
Response: The City of Tustin would be responsible for maintaining the on-site
landscaping. It should be noted that area immediately in front of the resefvoir
site along Foothill Boulevard is currently owned and maintained by the County
of Orange. With the proposed project, there would be improvements to Foothill
Boulevard implemented in this area, including the introduction of a sidewalk
and landscaping.
Comment 26: Can the tanks be completely buried?
Response: Completely burying the tanks is not feasible due to engineering, hydraulic, and
public health and safety (e.g., water quality) constraints. Additionally, this
method of construction would be cost-prohibitive.
Comment 27: Is Tustin Unified School District being informed during all of these processes?
Response: A copy of the Notice of Intent to adopt an MND was distributed to the Tustin
Unified School District (TUSD). No comment letter was received. Additionally,
the TUSD was invited to the informational community meeting held at Foothill
High School. A representative from the TUSD attended this meeting and the
NTAC meeting held on February 15, 2006.
Comment 28: Is this meeting a 'Public Hearing"?
Response: The meeting that took place on January 12, 2006, was an informational
community meeting with the purpose of introducing the project to interested
parties. It was not a public hearing. A public hearing would be scheduled to
take place during a City of Tustin City Council meeting.
Comment 29: Has NT AC been notified of this project and is being involved?
Response: Pursuant to Section 15072(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Tustin
submitted the notice of intent to the "last known name and address" of the
North Tustin Advisory Committee (NTAC). The NTAC is an advisory committee
that serves the unincorporated area of Orange County which does not include
the project site. The proposed project is not subject to review by NT AC,
however, the City of Tustin has voluntarily presented the proposed project to
the Committee at its regularly scheduled meeting on February 15, 2006.
Comment 30: Is this project being "fast tracked"?
Response: The proposed Rawlings Reservoir Replacement project is not being 'fast-
tracked: The project is a Capital Improvement Program that is necessary to
ensure sufficient water supply in the City service area. As discussed in
Section 2.2 of the IS/MND, Project Background, the City initiated an evaluation
of the proposed project in 1996 when an engineering analysis of the Rawlings
Reservoir identified several structural deficiencies. The existing reservoir was
taken out of service in 2004. Based on the current schedule, the City Council
will consider approval of the MND and conceptual project design in April 2006,
and required rate increase in May 2006. Subsequently, the City will solicit
design/construction bids (Final Plans and SpeCifications) which, based on the
R. \Projects\TullinUOO3\RTC.040606.dOc
2.21
Responses to Comments
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 137 of 171
Rawlings ReselVoir Replacement Project
Responses to Comments
current schedule, would be considered by the City Council in Fall 2006.
Construction activities are expected to be initiated in Spring 2007 and
completed in Winter 2009.
Comment 31: Who will issue the actual permits to perform the work?
Response: The City of Tustin would issue permits to the contractor for on-site construction
activities. The County of Orange and Orange County Flood Control District
(OCFCD) would issue permits and other necessary approvals for street
improvements on Foothill Boulevard and storm drain connections, respectively.
Comment 32: Does the County oversee road closures and traffic control?
Response: As indicated on page 5-28 of the IS/MND under item (a), the number of
additional trips generated by the project during the construction phase would
not significantly impact existing roadway operating conditions. However, MM
16-1 (page 5-31 of the IS/MND) requires submittal of Traffic Management
Plans to the County of Orange for review and approval.
Comment 33: Will there be enough aesthetical planning done? Will the area look better than
it does currently?
Response: As indicated on page 5-1 of the IS/MND, item (c), the existing visual character
of the project site would be altered through the demolition of the existing
reservoir and construction of two new reservoir tanks. The project has been
designed to minimize aesthetic impacts through partial burial of the tanks and
landscaping which is proposed for location along the exposed face of the front
tank and on non-paved areas throughout the site.
Comment 34: Will there be additional public meetings, say at the mid-point of the project and
at the end for public input?
Response: As noted previously, the MND and conceptual project design, and required rate
increase will be considered by the City Council in April/May 2006. The Final
Plans and Specifications for the proposed project would be considered by the
City Council at a subsequent meeting. Additionally, the City of Tustin would
implement a public outreach program for the project which could include
periodic meetings to provide project updates and obtain input on the project.
Comment 35: The City owns this "island" of land. When did this island appear and why?
Response: The City of Tustin incorporated the reservoir site in the early 1980s when the
City acquired Tustin Water Works and all of their privately held properties.
R ij::\PlrplectS\.T~st'nI.JP2.3\RT~-Q406OEj.<lOC
esolu Ion NO. utj-4~
Page 138 of 171
2-22
Responses to Comments
ATTACHMENT A
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
RULE 1403 - ASBESTOS EMISSIONS FROM
DEMOLlTION/RENOVA TION ACTIVITIES
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 139 of 171
(Adopted October 6, 1 989)(Amended April 8, 1994)
RULE 1403. ASBESTOS EMISSIONS FROM DEMOLITlONIRENOVATlON
ACTIVITIES
(a) Purpose
The purpose of this rule is to specify work practice requirements to limit asbestos
emissions from building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal
and associated disturbance of asbestos-containing materials (ACM). The
requirements for demolition and renovation activities include asbestos surveying,
notification, ACM removal procedures and time schedules, ACM handling and
clean-up procedures, and storage, disposal, and landfilling requirements for
asbestos-containing waste materials (ACWM), All operators are required to
maintain records, including waste shipment records, and are required to use
appropriate warning labels, signs, and markings.
(b) Applicability
This rule, in whole or in part, is applicable to owners and operators of any
demolilion or renovation activity, and the associated disturbance of asbestos-
containing material, any asbestos storage facility, or any active waste disposal site.
(c) Definitions
For the purpose of this rule, the following definitions shall apply:
(l) ACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL SITE is any disposal site that receives, or has
received or processed ACWM within the preceding 365 calendar days.
(2) ADEQUATELY WET is the condition of being sufficiently mixed or
penetrated with amended water to prevent the release of particulates or
visible emissions, The process by which an adequately wet condition is
achieved is by using a dispenser or water hose with a nozzle that permits the
use of a fine, low-pressure spray or mist.
(3) AMENDED WATER is water to which a chemical wetting agent or
surfactant has been added to improve penetration into ACM.
(4) ASBESTOS is the asbestiform varieties of serpentine (chrysotile), riebeckite
(crocidolite), cummingtonite-grunerite (amosite), anthophyllite, actinolite or
tremolite,
1403 - 1
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 140 of 171
Rule 1403 (ConI.)
(Amended AprilS, 1994)
(5) ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIAL (ACM) is both friable asbestos-
containing material or Class I non friable asbestos-containing material.
(6) ASBESTOS-CONTAINING WASTE MATERIAL (ACWM) is any waste
that contains commercial asbeslos and Ihat is generated by a source subject
to the provisions of this rule. ACWM includes, but is not limited to, ACM
which is friable, has become friable, or has a high probability of becoming
friable, or has been subjected to sanding, grinding, cutting, or abrading, and
the waste generated from its disturbance, such as asbestos waste from
control devices, particulate asbestos material, asbestos slurries, bags or
containers that previously contained asbestos, used asbestos-contaminated
plastic sheeting and clothing, and clean-up equipment waste, such as cloth
rags or mop heads.
(7) ASBESTOS HAZARD EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACT (A HERA) is the
act which legislates asbestos-related requirements for schools (40 CFR 763,
Subpart E),
(8) CLASS I NONFRIABLE ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIAL is
material containing more than one percent (I %) asbestos as determ ined by
paragraph (h)(2), and that, when dry, can be broken, crumbled, pulverized,
or reduced to powder in the course of demolition or renovation activities.
Actions which may cause material to be broken, crumbled, pulverized, or
reduced to powder include physical wear and disturbance by mechanical
force, such as, but not limited to, sanding, sandblasting, cutting or abrading,
improper handling or removal or leaching of matrix binders. Class I
nonfriable asbestos-containing material includes, but is not limited to,
fractured or crushed asbestos cement products, transite materials, mastic,
roofing felts, roofing tiles, cemenl water pipes and resilient floor covering,
(9) CLASS II NONFRIABLE ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIAL is all
other material containing more than one percent (1%) asbestos as determined
by paragraph (h)(2), that is neither friable nor Class I nonfriable.
(10) COMMERCIAL ASBESTOS is any material containing asbestos that is
extracted from asbestos ore.
(11) CUTTING is penetrating with a sharp-edged instrument and includes sawing,
but does not include shearing, slicing, or punching.
(12) DEMOLITION is the wrecking or taking out of any load-supporting
structural member of a facility and related handling operations or the
intentional burning of any facility.
1403 - 2
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 141 of 171
Rule 1403 (Cont.)
(Amended April 8, 1994)
(13) EMERGENCY DEMOLITION is any demolition or remedial action under
order of a state or local governmental agency. Such an order is generally
issued for a structurally unsound facility in danger of imminent collapse.
(14) EMERGENCY RENOVATION is any renovation that was not planned and
results from a sudden unexpected event that results in unsafe conditions.
Such events include, but are not limited to, renovations necessitated by non.
routine failures of equipment, earthquake or fire damage.
(15) ENCAPSULATION is the treatment of ACM with a material that surrounds
or embeds asbestos fibers in an adhesive matrix to prevent the release of
fibers, as the encapsulant creates a membrane over the surface (bridging
encapsulant) or penetrates the material and binds its components together
(penetrating encapsulant).
(16) FACILITY is any institutional, commercial, public, industrial or residential
structure, installation, or building; any ship; and any aclive waste disposal
site.
(17) F ACILlTY COMPONENT is any part of a facility including equipment.
(18) FRIABLE ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIAL is material containing
more than one percent (1 %) asbestos as determined by paragraph (11.)(2),
that, when dry, can be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand
pressure.
(19) GLOVEBAG is a sealed compartment with attached inner gloves used for
handling ACM, When properly installed and used, glove bags provide a
small work area enclosure used for small-scale asbestos stripping operations.
Information on glovebag installation, equipment, and supplies, and work
practices is contained in Ihe Occupational Safety and Health Administration's
final rule on occupational exposure to asbestos (Appendix G to 29 CFR
1926.58),
(20) HIGH EFFICIENCY PARTICULATE AIR (HEPA) FILTER is a filter
capable of trapping and retaining at least 99.97 percent of alt monodispersed
particles of 0.3 micrometer in diameter or larger.
(21) INST ALLA TlON is any building or structure or any group of buildings or
structures at a single demolition or renovation site that are under the control
of the same owner or operator (or owner or operator under central control).
(22) ISOLA TED WORK AREA is the immediate enclosed containment area in
which the asbestos abatemenl activity takes place.
1403 - 3
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 142 of 171
Rule 1403 (Cont.)
(Amended AprilS, 1994)
(23) LEAK-TIGHT is the condition whereby any contained solids or liquids are
prevented from escaping or spilling out.
(24) NONSCHEDULED RENOVATION OPERATION is a renovation
operation necessitated by the routine failure of equipment, which is expected
to occur within a given calendar year based on past operating experience, but
for which an exact date cannot be predicted.
(25) OUTSIDE AIR is air outside of the facility or outside of the isolated work
area.
(26) OWNER or OPERA TOR OF A DEMOLITION OR RENOVATION
ACTIVITY is any person who owns, leases, operates, controls or supervises
activities at the facility being demolished or renovated; the demolition or
renovation operation; or both,
(27) PERSON is any individual, firm, association, organization, partnership,
business, !rust, corporation, company, contractor, supplier, inslaller, user or
owner, or any state or local government agency or public district or any
other officer or employee thereof, PERSON also means the United States or
its agencies to the extent authorized by F ederallaw.
(28) PLANNED RENOVATION is a renovation operation, or a number of such
operations, in which the amount of ACM that will be removed or stripped
within a given period of time can be predicted, Individual nonscheduled
renovation operations are included if a number of such operations can be
predicted to occur during a given period of time based on operating
experience,
(29) PROJECT is any renovation or demolition activity, including site preparation
and clean-up activity.
(30) REMOVAL is the taking out of ACM or facility components that contain or
are covered with ACM from any facility.
(31) RENOVATION is the altering of a facility or the, removing or stripping of
one or more facility components in any way, including, but not limited to, the
stripping or removal of ACM from facility components, retrofitting for fire
protection, and the installation or removal of heating, ventilation, air
conditioning (HV AC) systems. Activity involving the wrecking or taking out
of load-supporting structural members are demolitions.
(32) RESIDENTIAL SINGLE UNIT DWELLING is a structure that contains
only one residential unit. Apartment buildings, townhouses, and
condominiums are not residential single unit dwellings.
1403 - 4
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 143 of 171
Rule 1403 (Cont,)
(Amended April 8, 1994)
(33) RESILIENT FLOOR COVERING is asbestos-containing floor lile, including
asphalt and vinyl floor tile, and sheet vinyl floor covering containing more
than one percent (1%) asbestos as determined by paragraph (h)(2),
(34) STRIPPING is the taking off of ACM from any part of s facility or facility
component.
(35) STRUCTURAL MEMBER is any load-supporting member of a facility, such
as beams and load-supporting walls; or any nonload-supporting member,
such as ceilings and nonload-supporting walls.
(36) WASTE GENERA TOR is any person who owns or operales a source
subject to Ihe provisions of this rule according to section (b), and whose act
or process produces ACWM.
(37) WASTE SHIPMENT RECORD is the shipping document, required to be
originated and signed by the waste generator, used to track and substantiate
the disposition of ACWM as specified by the provisions of subdivision (t).
(38) WORKrNG DAY is Monday through Friday and includes holidays that fall
on any of the days Monday through Friday.
(d) Requirements
A person subject to this rule shall prevent emissions of asbestos to the outside air
by complying with the following requirements:
(1) Demolition and Renovation Activities
The owner or operator of any demolition or renovation activity shall comply
with the following requirements:
(A) Facility Survey
The affected facility or facility components shall be thoroughly
surveyed for the presence of asbestos prior to any demolition or
renovation activity, The survey shall include the inspection,
identification, and quantification of all friable, and Class I and Class II
non-friable asbestos-containing material, and any physical sampling of
materials. The survey shall be documented with the following
information:
(i) The name, address, and telephone number of the person who
conducted the survey;
1403 - 5
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 144 of 171
Rule 1403 (Cont.)
(Amended AprilS, 1994)
(Ii) A written statement of the qualifications of the person who
conducted the survey, demonstrating compliance wilh
paragraph (i)( 4);
(Iii) The dates the survey was conducted;
(iv) A listing of all suspected materials containing any asbestos and
samples taken;
(v) The name, address, and telephone number of any laboratory
used to conduct analyses of materials for asbestos content; and
(vi) A statement of qualification of the laboratory which conducted
the analyses, demonstrating compliance with paragraph (h)(2).
(vii) A list of the test methods used, demonstrating compliance with
subdivision (h), including sampling protocols and laboratory
methods of analysis, test data, and any other information used
to identilY or quantilY any materials containing asbestos,
(viii) Persons conducting asbestos surveys in accordance with
subparagraph (d)(l)(a) shall be certified by Cal/OSHA pursuant
to regulations required by subdivision (b) of Section 9021.5 of
the Labor Code, and shall have taken and passed an EPA-
approved Building Inspector Course and conform to the
procedures outlined in the Course.
(B) Notification
The District shall be notified of the intent to demolish or renovate any
facility. Notifications shall be submitted on District-approved forms,
and shall be provided in accordance with the following requirements:
(i) Time Schedule
(I) Demolition or Renovation Activities
The District shall be notified by typewritten notification
postmarked or delivered no later than 10 working days
before any demolition or renovation aClivities other than
emergency demolition, emergency renovation, or planned
renovations involving individual nonscheduled renovation
operations begin.
(II) Planned Renovation - Annual Notification
The District shall be notified by typewritten notification
postmarked or delivered by December 17 of the year
1403 - 6
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 145 of 171
Rule 1403 (Cont.)
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 146 of 171
(Amended April 8, 1994)
preceding the calendar year for which notice is being
given for planned renovation activities which involve
individual nonscheduled renovation operations,
(III) Emergency Demolition or Renovation
The District shall be notified by telephone, as soon as
possible, but prior to any emergency demolition or
renovation activity. The telephone notification shall be
confirmed with a follow-up typewritten notification to the
District postmarked or delivered within 48 hours of the
telephone notification or the following business day,
(ii) Telephone and Written Notification Required Information
All telephone and written notifications shall include the
following information:
(I) An indication of whether the notice is the original or a
revised nolification;
(II) Name, address and telephone number of both the owner
and operator of the facility, supervising person, and the
asbestos removal conlractor, owner or operator;
(III) Address and location of the facility to be demolished or
renovated and the type of operation: demolition or
renovation;
(IV) Description of the facility or affected part of the facility to
be demolished or renovated including the size (square
meters or square feet and number of floors), age, and
present or prior uses of the facility;
(V) The specific location of each renovation or demolition at
the facility and a description of the facility components or
structural members contributing to the ACM to be
removed or stripped from the facility;
(VI) Scheduled project starting and completion dates of
demolition or renovation. Notifications shall also include
the ACM removal starting and completion dates for
demolition or renovation; planned renovation activities
1403 - 7
Rule 1403 (Cont.)
(Amended AprilS, 1994)
involving individual nonscheduled renovation operations
need only include the beginning and ending dates of the
report period as described in subclause (d)(1)(B)(i)(Il);
(VII) Brief description of work practices and engineering
controls to be used to comply with this rule, including
asbestos removal and waste handling emission control
procedures;
(VIII) A separate estimate for each of the amounts of friable,
Class I, and Class II nonfriable asbestos-containing
material to be removed from the facility in terms of length
of pipe in linear feet, surface area in square feet on other
facility components, or volume in cubic feet if off the
facility components. The Iotal as equivalent surface area
in square feet shall also be reported;
(IX) Name and location of wasle disposal site where ACWM
will be deposited.
Telephone notifications may consist of a combination of
verbally and electronically communicated information if the
electronic portion is transmitted and received in a legible,
District -approved format.
(iii) Written Notification Additional Required Information
All written notifications shall include the following additional
information:
(I) Description of procedures to be followed in the event that
unexpected ACM is found or Class II nonfriable asbestos-
containing material becomes crumbled, pulverized, or
reduced to powder;
(II) California State Contractors License Certification number;
(III) Cal/OSHA Registration number;
(IV) Name and location address of off-sile storage area for
ACWM;
(V) Name, address, and telephone number of transporters
used to transport ACWM off-site;
1403 - 8
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 147 of 171
Rule 1403 (Cont.)
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 1480f171
(Amended April 8, 1994)
(VI) Procedures, including analytical methods, used to delect
the presence of friable and nonfriable asbestos-containing
material; and
(VII) Signed certification that at least one person trained as
required in subparagraph (d)(1)(G) will supervise the
stripping and removal described by this notification.
(iv) Emergency Demolition Additional Information
Telephone and written notification of all emergency demolition
activities shall include the following additional information:
(I) The agency, name, title, telephone number and authority
of the representative who ordered the emergency
demolition; and
(II) A copy of the order, and the date on which the demolition
was ordered to begin.
(v) Emergency Renovation Additional Information
Telephone and written notification of all emergency renovation
activities shall include the following additional information:
(I) The name and phone number of the responsible manager
or authorized person who is in charge of the emergency
renovation; and
(II) The date and hour that the emergency occurred, a
description of the sudden, unexpected event, and an
explanation of how the event caused an unsafe condition,
or would cause equipment damage or an unreasonable
financial burden.
(vi) Notification Updales
All written notifications shall be updated when any of the
following conditions arise:
(I) Change in Quantity of Asbestos
A change in the quantity of affected asbestos of 20
percent or more from the notified amount shall be
reported to the District by telephone, or by facsimile, as
1403 - 9
Rule 1403 (Cont.)
(Amended April 8, 1994)
soon as the infonnation becomes available. The
telephone, or facsimile, notification shall be followed by a
typewritten notification to the District, postmarked or
delivered within 48 hours or the following business day.
(II) Later Starting Date
A delay in the starting date of any demolition or
renovation activity shall be reported to the District by
telephone as soon as the infonnation becomes available.
The telephone nolification shall be followed by a
typewritten notification to the District submitted as soon
as possible and postmarked no later than the original start
date,
(III) Earlier Starting Date
A change in the starting date of any demolition or
renovation activity to an earlier starting date shall be
reported to the District by typewritten notification,
postmarked no laler than 10 working days before any
demolition or renovation activities begin,
(IV) Completion Date Change
Planned changes in the completion date shall be reported
10 the District by typewritten notification, postmarked at
least 2 calendar days before the original scheduled
completion date. In the event planned renovations or
demolitions are delayed or completed ahead of schedule,
Ihe District shall be notified by telephone, as soon as
possible, but no later than the following business day. The
telephone notifications shall be followed by typcwritten
notification to the District postmarked or delivered, within
48 hours of the telephone notification or the following
business day.
(V) Planned Renovation Progress Report
Notifications for on-going planned renovalion operations
in which the scheduled starting and completions dates are
more than I year apart shall be updated, by typewritten
1403 - 10
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 149 of 171
Rule 1403 (Cont.)
(Amended AprilS, 1994)
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 150 of 171
notification, postmarked or delivered every year of
operation by December 17, unless the most recent written
notification update was postmarked or delivered after
October I of that year. The amount of ACM removed
and the amount of ACM remaining to be removed shall be
reported,
(C) Asbestos Removal Schedule
Material containing asbestos shall be removed from a facility
according 10 the following schedule:
0) Burning Demolitions
All ACM and Class II asbestos-containing material shall be
removed from a facility prior to any demolition by intentional
burning.
(ii) Renovations and Non-Burning Demolitions
All ACM shall be removed from a facility being demolished or
renovated before any non-burning demolition or renovation
activity begins that would break up, dislodge, or similarly
disturb the material or preclude access to the material for
subsequent removal. ACM not accessible for testing or not
discovered until after demolition activities begin may be
removed after the start of non-burning demolition activities.
Notwilhstanding the above, asbestos-containing packings,
gaskets, resilient floor covering, and asphalt roofing products
which are not friable and are not crumbled, cut, abraded, or
otherwise not damaged and in good condition, may be removed
after the start of non-burning demolition activities if prior
approval from the District is obtained (Procedure 5). If the
demolition activity involves any mechanical force such as, but
not limited to, sanding, sandblasting, cutting, or abrading and
Ihus would render the materials friable, they must be removed
prior to demolition.
(D) Removal Procedures
One or more of the following procedures shall be used when
removing or stripping ACM:
1403 - 11
Rule 1403 (Cont.) (Amended AprilS, 1994)
(i) Procedure I - HEP A Filtration
Remove ACM within an isolated work area.
techniques shall be used during Procedure
activities:
The following
ACM removal
(I) All stationary objects and surfaces not intended for
removal or stripping of ACM shall be covered with
plastic sheeting;
(ll) All air passageways, such as doors, windows, vents
and registers in the work area, shall be covered and
rendered air tight with plastic sheeting or hard wooden
barriers with studded support, Air passageways used
to provide makeup air for the isolated work space
need not be covered;
(III) All sources of air movement, including the air-
handling system, shall be shul off or temporarily
modified to restrict air movement into the work zone;
(IV) The barriers used for the construction of the isolated
work area shall be equipped with transparent viewing
ports which allow outside observation of all stripping
and removal of ACM;
(V) The isolated work area shall be vented, with negalive
air pressure to a HEP A filtration system, which shall
be operated continuously from the commencement of
removal activities through the final clean-up of the
work area;
(VI) The HEP A filter shall be free of tears, fractures, holes
or other types of damage and shall be securely latched
and properly situated in the holding frame to prevent
air leakage from the filtration system; and
(VII) ACM shall be adequately wet during the removal
process.
(ii) Procedure 2 - Glovebag
1403 - 12
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 151 of 171
Rule 1403 (Cont.)
(Amended April 8, 1994)
Remove by the glovebag method or minienclosures designed
and operated according to 29 CFR Section 1926.58,
Appendix G, and current Cal/OSHA requirements.
(iii) Procedure 3 - Adequate Wetting
Remove ACM using the following techniques:
(I) All exposed ACM shall be adequately wet during
cutting or dismantling procedures.
(II) ACM shall be adequately wet while it is being
removed from facility components and prior to its
removal from the facility.
(III) Drop cloths and tenting shall be used to contain the
work area 10 the extent feasible.
(iv) Procedure 4 - Dry Removal
Obtain written approval from the Executive Officer's designee
prior to using dry removal methods for the control of asbestos
emissions when adequate wetting procedures in the
renovation work area would unavoidably damage equipment
or present a safety hazard. Dry removal methods may include
one or more of the following:
(I) Use of a HEPA filtration system, operated in
accordance with clause (d)(l)(D)(i), within an isolated
work area;
(II) Use of a glovebag system, operated in accordance
with clause (d)(l)(D)(ii); or
(III) Use of leak-tight wrapping or an approved alternative,
to contain all ACM removed in units or sections prior
to dismantlement.
(v) Procedure 5 - Approved Alternative
Use an alternative combination of techniques and/or
engineering controls, Written approval from the Executive
Officer or his designee shall be obtained prior to the use of
Procedure 5 ACM removal activities.
(E) Handling Operations
1403 - 13
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 152 of 171
Rule 1403 (Cont,)
(Amended AprilS, 1994)
All ACWM shall be collected and placed in leak-tight containers or
wrapping. Such containers or wrappings shall be transparent no laler
than August 12, 1994. The following techniques shall be used:
(i) ACM shall be carefully lowered to the ground or a lower
floor without dropping, throwing, sliding, or otherwise
damaging or disturbing the ACM;
(ii) ACM which has been removed or stripped more than 50 feet
above ground level and was not removed as units or in
sections shall be transported to the ground via leak-tight
chutes or containers;
(Hi) ACWM shall be collected and sealed in leak-tight containers.
ACWM shall be adequately wet prior to and during collection
and packaging. Alternatively, areas of Class I nonfriable
asbestos-containing material which have become friable or
have been subjected to sanding, grinding, cutting, or abrading,
may be sealed via encapsulation; and
(iv) All surfaces in the isolated work area shall be cleaned, with a
vacuum system utilizing HEPA filtration, wet mopping and
wipe down with water, or by an equivalent methods, prior to
the dismantling of plastic barriers or sealed openings within
thc work area,
(F) Freezing Temperature Conditions
When the temperature at the point of wetting is below OOC (320F),
the wetting provisions of subparagraph (d)(1)(D) or (d)(1)(F) shall be
superseded by the following requirements:
(i) Facility components containing, coated with, or covered with
ACM shall be removed as units or in sections to the maximum
extent possible; and
(ii) The temperature in the area containing the facility
components shall be recorded at the beginning, middle, and
end of each workday during periods when wetting operations
are suspended due to freezing temperatures. Daily
temperature records shall be available for inspection by the
District during nonnal business hours at the demolition or
renovation site. Records shall be retained for at least 2 years.
1403 - 14
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 153 of 171
Rule 1403 (Cont,) (Amended April 8, 1994)
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 154 of 171
(0) On-Site Representative
At least one on-site representative, such as a foreman, manager, or
other authorized representative, trained in accordance with the
provisions of paragraphs (i)(I) and (i)(3), shall be present during
the stripping, removing, handling, or disturbing of ACM. Evidence
that the required training has been completed shall be posted at the
demolition or renovation site and made available for inspection by
the Executive Officer's designee.
(H) On-Site Proof
On-site proof of the following shall be provided upon request:
(i) California State Contractor's Liccnse certification number;
and
(ii) CallOSHA Registration number.
Proof shall be consistent with the most recently updated
infonnation submitted in the notification,
(I) On-Site Storage
On-site storage of leak-tight containers shall be maintained within
an enclosed storage area prior to transportal ion. Conlents of the
storage contsiners shall not be accessible to the general public and
shall be locked when not in use.
(J) Disposal
All ACWM shall be disposed of at a waste disposal site that is
operated in accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this rule.
(K) Container Labelling
Leak-tight containers which contain ACWM shall be labelled as
specified in subdivision (e),
(L) Transportation Vehicle Marking
Vehicles used to transport ACWM shall be marked, as specified in
subdivision (e), during the loading and unloading of ACWM.
(M) Waste Shipment Records
Waste Shipment Records shall be prepared and handled in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph (t)(l).
(N) Recordkeeping
1403 - 15
Rule 1403 (Cont.)
(Amended AprilS, 1994)
Records shall be kept as specified in subdivision (g).
(2) ACWM Storage Facilities
The owner or operator of any ACWM storage facility shall comply with the
following requirements:
(A) Maintenance and Handling
(i) ACWM shall be stored in leak-tight containers;
(ii) All leak-tight containers shall be labelled as specified in
paragraph (e)(I); and
(iii) ACWM shall be stored in an enclosed locked area.
(8) Transportation Vehicle Marking
Vehicles used to transport ACWM shall be marked, as specified in
paragraph (e)(3), during the loading and unloading of ACWM.
(C) Waste Shipment Records
Waste Shipment Records shall be handled in accordance with the
provisions of paragraph (1)(2).
(D) Recordkeeping
Records shall be maintained as specified in paragraph (g)(2).
(3) Active Waste Disposal Sites
The owner or operator of any waste disposal site where ACWM is being
deposited shall comply with the following requirements:
(A) Maintenance and Handling
(i) ACWM shall be in leak-tight containers;
(ii) Warning signs, as specified in paragraph (e)(2), shall be
displayed at all entrances and at intervals of 330 feet or less
along the property line of Ihe site or along the perimeter of
the sections of the site where ACWM is being deposited;
(iii) Access to the general public shall be deterred by maintaining a
fence along the perimeter of the site or by using a natural
barrier;
(iv) All ACWM shall be maintained in a separate disposal section:
(v) ACWM deposited at the site shall be covered with at least six
(6) inches of nonasbestos-containing material at the end of
normal business hours. The waste shall be compacted only
1403 - 16
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 155 of 171
Rule 1403 (Cont.) (Amended AprilS, 1994)
after it has been completely covered with nonasbestos-
containing material. A low pressure water spray or nontoxic
dust suppressing chemical shall be used for any surface
wetting after compaction; and
(vi) ACWM shall be covered with a minimum of an additional
thirty (30) inches of compacted nonasbestos-containing
material prior to final closure of the waste disposal site, and
shall be maintained to prevent exposure of the ACWM.
(B) Transportation Vehicle Marking
Vehicles used to transport ACWM shall be marked, as specified in
paragraph (e)(3), during the loading and unloading of ACWM.
(C) Waste Shipment Records
Waste Shipment Records shall be handled in accordance with the
provisions of paragraph (1)(2).
(D) Recordkeeping
Records shall be maintained as specified in paragraph (g)(3),
(e) Waming Labels, Signs, and Markings
Warning labels, signs, and markings used to identify asbestos-relaled health
hazards shall comply with the following requirements:
(I) Leak-Tight Containers
Leak-tight containers shall be labelled according to the following
requirements:
(A) Warning labels for leak-tight containers and wrapping shaH have
letters of sufficient size and contrast as 10 be readily visible and
legible, and shall contain the following information, or as specified
by Occupational Safety and Health Standards of the Department of
Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
under 29 CFR 1910.100(0)(2) or I 926,S&(k)(2)(iii), or current
Cal/OSHA requirements:
1403 - 17
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 156 of 171
Rule 1403 (Cont,)
(Amended April 8, 1994)
CAUTION
Contains Asbestos Fibers
Avoid Opening or Breaking Container
Breathing Asbestos is Hazardous to Your Health
or
DANGER
CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBERS
A VOID CREATING DUST
CANCER AND LUNG DISEASE HAZARD
(B) Leak-tight containers that are transported off-site shall be labeled
with the name of the waste generator and the location at which the
waste was generated,
(2) Active Waste Disposal Sites
Warning signs for active waste disposal sites shall:
(A) Be displayed in such a manner and location that a person can easily
read Ihe legend;
(B) Confonn to the requirements for 51 cm x 36 crn (20 inch x 14 inch)
upright fonnat signs specified in 29 CFR 1910.145 (d)(4) and this
paragraph;
(C) Display the following legend in the lower panel with letter sizes and
styles of a visibility at least equal to those specified in this
subparagraph:
1403 - 18
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 157 of 171
Rule 1403 (Cont.)
(Amended AprilS, 1994)
Legend Notation
2.5 cm (I inch) Sans Serif,
Asbestos Waste Disposal Site
Gothic or Block
.9 cm (3/4 inch) Sans Serif,
Do Not Create Dust
Gothic or Block
Breathina Asbestos is Hazardous to Your Health 14 Point Gothic
; and
(D) Have spacing between any two lines at least equal to the height of
the upper ofthe two lines.
(3) Transportation Vehicles
Markings for transportation vehicles shall;
(A) Be displayed in such a manner and location that a person can easily
read the legend;
(B) Conform to the requirements for 51 em x 36 em (20 inch x 14 inch)
upright format signs specified in 29 CFR 1910.145 (d)(4) and this
paragraph; and
(C) Display the following legend in the lower panel with letter sizes and
styles of a visibility at least equal to those specified in this
paragraph;
Legend Notation
2.5 cm (I inch) Sans Serif,
DANGER
Gothic or Block
2.5 cm (I inch) Sans Serif,
ASBESTOS DUST HAZARD
Gothic or Block
.9 crn (3/4 inch) Sans Serif,
CANCER AND LUNG DISEASE HAZARD !
I Gothic or Block
Authorized Personnel Only I 14 Point Gothic
1403 - 19
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 158 of 171
Rule 1403 (Cont.) (Amended April 8, 1994)
; and
(D) Have spacing between any two lines at least equal to the height of
the upper of the two lines.
(t) Waste Shipment Records
Waste Shipment Records shall be prepared and handled in accordance with the
following:
(I) Waste Generators
A waste generator shall comply with the following:
(A) Waste shipment infonnation shall include, but not be limited to, the
following:
(i) The name, address, and telephone number of the waste
generator;
(ii) The name, address, and telephone number of the South
Coast Air Quality Management District;
(iii) The quantity of ACWM in cubic meters or cubic yards;
(iv) The name and telephone number of the disposal site owner
and operator;
(v) The name and physical site location of the disposal site;
(vi) The date transported;
(vii) The name, address, and telephone number of the
transporter; and
(viii) A signed certification that the contents of this consignment
are fully and accuralely described by proper shipping name
and are classified, packed, marked, and labeled, and in
proper condition for highway transport according to
applicable federal, state, and local regulations,
(8) A copy of the Waste Shipment Record shall be provided to the
disposal site owner or operator at the same time the ACWM is
delivered to the disposal site.
(C) If a copy of the Waste Shipment Record, signed by the owner or
operator of the designated disposal site, is not received within 35
days of the date the ACWM was accepted by the initial transporter,
the transporter and/or the owner or operator of the designated
disposal site shall be contacted to determine the status of the waste
shipment.
1403 - 20
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 159 of 171
Rule 1403 (Cont.)
(Amended AprilS, 1994)
(D) If a copy of the Waste Shipment Record, signed by the owner or
operator of the designated disposal site, is not received within 45
days of the date the ACWM was accepted by the initial transporter,
a written report shall be submitted to the District and shall include
the following:
(i) A copy of the Waste Shipment Record for which a
confinnation of delivery was not received; and
(ii) A signed cover letter explaining the efforts taken to locate
the ACWM shipment and the results of those efforts.
(2) Storage and Active Waste Disposal Facilities
The owner or operator of any storage facility or active waste disposal site
shall comply with the following requirements:
(A) Waste shipmenl infonnation shall be filled out on the Waste
Shipment Record fonns provided by the waste generator, for all
ACWM received from an off-site facility, and shall include, but not
be limited to, the following:
(i) The name, address, and telephone number of the waste
generator;
(ii) The name, address, and telephone number of the
transporter;
(iii) Thc quantity of ACWM received in cubic meters or cubic
yards; and
(iv) The date of receipt.
(D) No shipment of ACWM shall be received from an off-site facility
unless it is accompanied with a Waste Shipment Record signed by
the waste generator,
(C) If there is a discrepancy between the quantity of ACWM designated
in the Waste Shipment Record and the quantity actually received,
and if the discrepancy cannot be resolved with the waste generator
within 15 days of the date the ACWM was received, a wrilten
report shall be filed with the District. The report shall include the
following:
(i) A copy ofthe Waste Shipment Record; and
(ii) A signed cover letter explaining the discrepancy, and the
altempts to reconcile it.
1403 - 21
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 160 of 171
Rule 1403 (Cont,) (Amended April 8, 1994)
(D) If any shipment of ACWM is not properly containerized, wrapped,
or encapsulated, a written report shall be filed with the District.
The report shall be postmarked or delivered within 48 hours after
the shipment is received, or the following business day.
(E) A signed copy of the Waste Shipment Record shall be provided to
the waste generator no later than 30 calendar days after the ACWM
is delivered to the disposal site.
(g) Recordkeeping
The following records shall be maintaincd for not less than threc (3) years and
made available to the District upon request:
(I) Demolition and Renovation Activities
The owner or operator of any demolition or renovation activity shall
maintain the following infonnation:
(A) A copy of all survey-related documents;
(8) A copy of all submitted notifications, A copy of the most recently
5pdated written notification submitted in accordance with the
provisions of this rule shall be maintained on-site;
(C) A copy of all pennits, or written approvals obtained under the
requirements of subparagraph (d)(1 )(0);
(D) A copy of all Waste Shipment Records;
(E) All training infonnational materials used by an owner or operator to
Irain supervisors or workers for the purposes of this rule; and
(F) A copy of all supervisors and workers training certificates and any
annual reaccreditation records which demonstratc EP A-approved
or state accreditation to perfonn asbestos-related work.
(2) Storage Facilities
The owner or operator of any storage facility shall maintain a copy of all
Waste Shipment Records,
(3) Active Waste Disposal Sites
The owner or operator of an active waste disposal site shall maintain the
following infonnation:
(A) A description of the active waste disposal site, including the specific
location, depth and area, and quantity, in cubic meters or cubic
1403 - 22
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 161 of 171
Rule 1403 (Cont.)
(Amended April 8, 1994)
yards, of ACWM within the disposal site on a map or diagram of
the disposal area;
(B) A description of the methods used to comply with waste disposal
requirements; and
(C) A copy of all Waste Shipment Records.
(4) In lieu of the requirements of paragraph (g)(I), the owner or operator ofa
renovation activity at any facility, in which less than 100 square feet of
surface area of ACM on facility components is removed or stripped, shall
maintain the following infonnation:
(A) A copy of all survey-related documents;
(8) Records containing an estimate of the amount of ACM removed or
stripped at each renovation subject to this paragraph;
(C) Type of removal controls used for each renovation; and
(D) A copy of all Waste Shipment Records.
(h) Sampling Protocols and Test Methods
(1) Sampling of materials suspected to contain asbestos shall be conducted
following the provisions of 40 CFR Part 763.107'
(2) Analysis of materials for asbestos shall be detennined by using SCAQMD
Method 300-91 as detailed in the District's Laboratory Methods of
Analysis for Enforcement Samples manual, or by using the Method
specified in Appendix A, Subpart F, 40 CFR Part 763, Section I, Polarized
Light Microscopy.
Asbestos analyses perfonned to comply with this rule must be undertaken
by laboratories accredited by the National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation Program (NVLAP).
(i) Training Requirements
The owner or operator perfonning the demolition or renovation activity shall
provide asbestos-related training as follows:
(I) On-site supervisory personnel shall successfully complete the Asbestos
Abatement Contractor/Supervisor course pursuant to the Asbestos Hazard
Emergency Response Act (AHERA), and obtain and maintain accreditation
as an AHERA Asbestos Abatement Contractor/Supervisor.
(2) Workers shall successfuly complete the Abatement Worker course
pursuant to the AHERA.
1403 - 23
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 162 of 171
Rule 1403 (Cout.)
(Amended April 8, 1994)
(3) Supervisory personnel and workers shall be trained on the provisions of
this rule as well as on the provisions of 40 CFR Part 61.145, 61.146,
61.147 and 61.152 (Asbestos NESHAP provisions) and Part 763, and the
means by which to comply with these provisions.
0) Exemptions
(1) The notification requirements of subparagraph (d)(I)(B) and the training
requirements of subdivision (i) shall not apply to renovation activities,
other than planned renovation activities which involve non-scheduled
renovation operations, in which less than 100 square feet of surface area of
ACM are removed or stripped.
(2) The notification requirements of subparagraph (d)(I)(B) and the training
requirements of subdivision (i) shall not apply to planned renovation
activities which involve non-scheduled renovation operalions, in which the
total quantity of ACM to be removed or stripped within each calendar year
of activity is less than 100 square feet of surface area.
(3) Subparagraph (d)(I)(A)(v), (vi) and (vii) and subclause (d)(l )(B)(iii)(VI)
shall not apply to the owner or operator of any renovation or demolition
activity, when the suspected material is removed, stripped, collected, and
handled as ACM and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this
rule,
(4) Subclauses (d)(I)(A)(viii), (d)(I)(B)(iii)(II), (d)(l)(B)(iii)(IlI) and
subparagraph (d)(1 )(H) requiring proof of CaJ/OSHA Registration and
California State Contractors license certification shall not apply to persons
performing work not subject to the registration requirements under the
Labor Code, Section 6501.5 and Section 9021.5, and Business and
Professions Code, Section 7058.5, respectively.
(5) The provisions of subparagraph (f)(2)(E) shall not apply to storage
facilities that do not meet the definition of an active waste disposal site as
defined by paragraph Ii)( I).
(6) The handling requirements of subclause (d)(I)(D)(i)(ll), (d)(I)(D)(i)(V),
and (d)(l)(D)(i)(VI), the training requirements of paragraph (i)(I) and
(i)(2), the reporting of Iraining certificate requirement of subclause
(d)(I)(B)(iii)(VlI), and the on-site proof of training requirement of
subparagraph (d)(I)(G) and subdivision (i) shall not apply to the exclusive
1403 - 24
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 163 of 171
Rule 1403 (Cont.)
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 164 of 171
(Amended April 8, 1994)
removal of asbestos-containing packings, gaskets, resilient floor covering
and asphalt roofing producls which are not friable, have not become friable,
and have not been subjected to sanding, grinding, cutting, or abrading.
(7) The provisions of this rule shall not apply to an owner-occupant of a
residential single-unit dwelling who conducts a renovation activity at that
dwelling.
(8) The survey requirements of subparagraph (d)(I)(A) shall not apply to
renovation activities of residential single-unit dwellings in which less than
100 square feet of surface area of ACM are removed Or stripped.
1403 - 25
EXHIBIT B
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Resolution No. 06-49
Page 165 of 171
RAWLINGS RESERVOIR REPLACEMENT PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15097(a), the
public agency that approves or carries out a project where a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) has identified potential significant effects "shall adopt a program for monitoring or
reporting on the... .measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental
effects." An MND has been prepared for the Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project which
addresses the potential environmental impacts and, as appropriate, recommends measures to
mitigate these impacts. Recommended mitigation identified in the mitigation monitoring program
(MMP) include mitigation measures (MM), standard conditions (SC), and special conditions for
noise and hazardous materials as shown in the attached matrix. The City of Tustin, as lead
agency for the implementation of the Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project, is responsible
for implementation of the MMP.
The MMP for the Rawlings Reservoir Replacement Project will be in place through construction
of the project or until all mitigation measures are implemented. The City of Tustin Department of
Pubic Works is the primary agency responsible.
Resolution No. 06.49
Page 166 of 171
MITIGATION MONITORING
MITIGATION COMPLIANCE
AND ENFORCEMENT
MEASURE
TIMING AND IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBILITY
RESPONSIBILITY
Air Quality
MM 3-1
The contractor shall comply with all applicable SCAQMD
Verify requirements on contractor
Project Contractor
Public Works Department
Rules and Regulations including Rule 403. This requirement
specifications prior to issuance of
shall be included on the contractor specifications. A plan to
a grading permit
control fugitive dust during the project grading phase through
implementation of reasonable available dust control
Implementation during
measures shall be prepared and submitted to the City of
construction
Tustin Public Works Department. The plan shall specify the
fugitive dust control measures to be employed. The plan may
include, but shall not be limited to, the following fugitive dust
control techniques:
• Application of sufficient water prior to initiating any earth
movement;
• Suspension of grading operations during first and second
stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per
hour;
• Watering portions of the project site undergoing earth
moving operations a minimum of three times a day;
• Sweeping and/or street cleaning where vehicles exit
construction sites;
• Installation of bedliners in fill import and export vehicles;
• Covering of fill import and export vehicles when carrying
bulk material;
• Installation of wheel washers where vehicles exit disturbed
surface areas onto paved roads.
MM 3-2
Fhe Community Development Department shall verify that the
Verify requirement on contractor
Project Contractor
Community Development
following requirements are included on the contractor
specifications prior to issuance of
Department
specifications:
a grading permit
• all equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in
Implementation during
accordance with the manufacturers' specifications
construction
• engines on trucks and vehicles in loading and unloading
queues shall be turned off when not in use to reduce
vehicle emissions
• construction activity shall utilize electricity from power
poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power
A
generators, to the extent feasible
CD
• all on-site mobile equipment used during construction
T
shall be powered by alternative fuel sources, where
feasible
CD
• all on-site heavy-duty construction equipment shall be
0, o equipped
with diesel particulate traps to the extent that
CD o
�
this equipments is available at the time the contracts are
rn
awarded
-4 .0-
• emulsified diesel fuel shall be used in diesel -fueled
construction equipment that is not equipped with diesel
articulate traps to reduce NOx emissions.
MITIGATION MONITORING
MITIGATION COMPLIANCE
AND ENFORCEMENT
MEASURE
TIMING AND IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBILITY
RESPONSIBILITY
Cultural Resources
SC 5-1
Should any archaeological or paleontological resources be
Verify requirement on contractor
Project Contractor
Public Works Department
uncovered during grading or excavation activities, these
specifications prior to issuance of
activities shall be diverted to a part of the site away from the
a grading permit
find, and an Orange County -certified archaeologist and/or
paleontologist shall be contacted by the contractor to: (1)
Implementation during
ascertain the significance of the resource, (2) establish
construction
protocol with the contractor to protect such resources, (3)
ascertain the presence of additional resources, and (4)
provide additional monitoring of the site, if deemed
appropriate. If human remains are discovered on the site, the
Orange County Coroner shall be contacted to examine the
remains, and the provisions of Section 15064.5(3) of the
CEQA Guidelines shall be followed. These requirements
shall be included as notes on the contractor specifications
and verified by the Public Works Department prior to
issuance of grading permits.
Geology and Soils
MM 6-1
The contractor shall submit grading plans that incorporate
Prior to issuance of grading permit
Project Contractor
Public Works Department
recommendations of the geologic and soils engineer reports.
Compliance with this requirement shall be verified by the
Public Works Department.
MM 6-2
Geotechnical observation and testing shall be provided by
During project construction
Geotechnical engineer/
Public Works Department
the geotechnical engineer/engineering geologist. Specifically,
engineering geologist
observation and testing shall occur during shoring
installation, overexcavation, compaction of all backfill and/or
when unusual geotechnical conditions are encountered. This
requirement shall be included on the contractor's
specification and verified by the Public Works Department.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
SC 7-1
The contractor shall comply with notification and asbestos
Prior to demolition of the existing
Project Contractor
Public Works Department
removal procedures outlined in SCAQMD Rule 1403 to
reservoir
reduce asbestos-related health risks. SCAQMD Rule 1403
applies to any demolition or renovation activity and the
associated disturbance of asbestos -containing material. This
requirement shall be included on the contractors'
specifications and verified by the Department of Public
Works.
MM 7-1
The contractor shall submit an Asbestos Management
Prior to issuance of demolition
Project Contractor
Public Works Department
Program (AMP) to the Public Works Department. The AMP
permit
set forth operational and maintenance guidelines to minimize
fiber release which may be caused by the proposed project
during demolition activities. The AMP shall incorporate
recommendations from the Asbestos and Lead Survey report
prepared for the project (National Econ, February 2005) and
compliance with the this program shall be a requirement
included on the contract specifications. Inclusion of these
MITIGATION MONITORING
MITIGATION COMPLIANCE
AND ENFORCEMENT
MEASURE
TIMING AND IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBILITY
RESPONSIBILITY
requirements on the specifications shall be verified by the
Public Works Department.
Special
The Community Development Department shall verify that
Prior to issuance of a demolition
Project Contractor
Community Development
Condition Haz-1
the following requirement is included in the contractor
permit for the existing reservoir
Department
specifications: "An independent environmental consulting fine
shall be retained and shall be onsite to monitor all
removal/handling of asbestos containing material (ACM)
conducted by the Asbestos Abatement Contractor, and to
ensure compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403. Should any
form of non-compliance be observed, the independent
consultant shall notify the City and the City shall order the
contractor to cease all ACM removal activity until the non-
compliance issue is resolved to the satisfaction of the City.
H dro ogy and
Water Quality
SC 8-1
The contractor shall provide written evidence to the Public
Prior to approval of grading plans
Project Contractor
Public Works Department
Works Department that a Notice of Intent has been filed with
the SWRCB in order to obtain coverage under the
Construction General Permit (CGP) (NPDES No.
CAS000002, Resolution No. 2001-046, or the latest
approved CGP). Pursuant to the permit requirements, the
contractor shall develop an SWPPP that incorporates BMPs
for reducing or eliminating construction-related pollutants in
the site runoff.
SC 8-2
The contractor shall submit a project water quality
Prior to approval of grading plans
Project Contractor
Public Works Department
management plan (WQMP) to the Public Works Department
for review and approval. The WQMP shall demonstrate
compliance with the implementation plans under the MS4
Permit, namely the Drainage Area Management Plan
DAMP.
Noise
SC 11-1
All construction documents and contracts shall require that all
Prior to approval of grading plans
Project Contractor
Public Works Department
construction activities meet the requirements of the City of
and during project grading phase
Tustin Noise Ordinance. In order to comply with the City's
Noise Ordinance, noise-generating activities must only occur
during the hours when construction noise is exempted from
the Noise Ordinance standards. The contractor shall ensure
that all construction activities shall be subject to the City of
CD
W
Tustin Noise Ordinance and shall only occur between 7:00
9.
a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between the
o
hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays excluding
CD I
City-observed federal holidays.
al
The contractor shall install a 24-foot temporary noise barrier
Prior to commencement of
Project Contractor
Public Works Department
"ition
at the east and north property lines to provide noise
demolition or construction
1]�ige -1
reduction at adjacent residences during construction. The
activities
requirement for installation of this noise barrier shall be
included on the contractor specifications and verified by the
Public Works Department.
R:\Projects\Tus mUO0 MMP-0,INM.0
MITIGATION MONITORING
MITIGATION COMPLIANCE
AND ENFORCEMENT
MEASURE
TIMING AND IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBILITY
RESPONSIBILITY
Special
The contractor shall utilize residential grade mufflers on all
Prior to commencement of
Project Contractor
Public Works Department
Condition
construction equipment. This requirement shall be included
demolition or construction
Noise -2
on the contractor specifications and verified by the Public
activities
Works Department.
Special
The contractor shall clearly post construction hours on the
Prior to commencement of
Project Contractor
Public Works Department
Condition
project site to the satisfaction of the Public Works
demolition or construction
Noise -3
Department. This requirement shall be included on the
activities
contractor specifications and verified by the Public Works
Department.
Utilities and Service Systems
MM 16-1
The contractor shall submit Traffic Management Plans to the
Prior to approval of street
Project Contractor
Public Works Department
County of Orange for review and approval. The Traffic
improvement plans
Management Plans shall describe traffic control measures
that shall be implemented to maintain traffic flow in all
directions where utility improvements are being implemented
in existing roadways. Said traffic management measures
shall be implemented on-going during road construction.
R:\Projects\Tus mUO0 MMP-0,INM.0
X
CD
0
0
CD 0
-4 Z
0
0 . 0
CD
4
CO
( T .) "7111 , . i , 1 , t ,, , 1 110 , , I . Imac 1- 11 " 11 , , . t " I