The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12 PASADENA AVE WELL DESIGN REV 07-17-06AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JULY 17, 2096 TO: WilLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW 06-013 - PASADENA AVENUE WEll SITE SUMMARY Design Review 06-013 is a City of Tustin Water Services Division project that involves the construction of a water well facility, housed in a 1,450 square foot structure, with a paved service yard and surrounded by landscaped grounds. The proposed project would pump water from the existing groundwater supply as required to satisfy domestic water demands for Tustin's service area. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt: 1. Resolution No. 06-79 approving the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration as adequate for Design Review 06-013 for the Pasadena Avenue Well Site project and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and 2. Resolution No. 06-80 approving Design Review 06-013 to construct a water well facility, housed in a 1,450 square foot structure, with a paved service yard and surrounded by landscaped grounds. FISCAL IMPACT: Design Review 06-013 is a City-initiated project. Funds in the amount of $2,132,184 are currently budgeted in Fiscal Year 2006-07 for the final design and construction of the project. ENVIRONMENTAL: A Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program have been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and are attached as Exhibits A and B of Resolution 06-79 (Attachment C). Design Review 06-013 July 17, 2006 Page 2 BACKGROUND: The project site encompasses approximately 0.38 acre and is located on Pasadena Avenue at Second Street. (Attachment A - Location Map). The project site is bounded by one (1) residential property to the south, Pasadena Avenue and predominantly single family residences to the east, and the Newport Freeway (SR-55) to the north and west. The property is zoned Multiple Family Residential and Public and Institutional (P&I) and is within the City's Cultural Resources Overlay District. The project site is about 16,500 square feet in area and is vacant. The site has General Plan Land Use Designations of High Density Residential and Public/Institutional. The proposed project would be designated as a Public/lnstitutional use and therefore would not conflict with the Tustin General Plan, zoning ordinance, other policies, or regulations applicable to the area. The City of Tustin Water Services Division supplies domestic water and maintains water wells, water main lines, service laterals, hydrants, pump stations, pressure reducing valves, and water storage facilities. The City's water system is divided into three pressure Zones (1, 2, and 3) and currently provides for 7.83 MG of the total storage from five existing reservoirs. Before it was taken out of service in late 2004, the Rawlings Reservoir provided an additional 3.82 MG (approximately one-third) of the storage required for pressure Zones 1 and 2 to meet operational, fire, and emergency storage needs. While Rawlings Reservoir is out of service, the City's groundwater wells are making up the temporary loss of storage from Rawlings Reservoir. Additional back-up or emergency water supplies are also available via the City's emergency inter-connections. Tustin's existing sources of water supply include seven (7) untreated or "clear" groundwater wells that pump directly into the City's water distribution system, two treatment facilities that treat the groundwater from five (5) additional wells, seven (7) imported water connections via the East Orange County Water District, and four (4) emergency interconnections with neighboring agencies. In addition to being more cost effective and locally controlled, groundwater is considered to be more reliable than imported water supplies. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California [Metropolitan's] regional water treatment and distribution facilities are periodically taken out of service for maintenance and inspection. This typically requires a minimum shutdown time period of 7-10 days. Additionally, many of Metropolitan's transmission lines cross active earthquake faults that may make Southern California's regional imported water supply vulnerable to damage and/or disruption in a seismic event. Tustin's long-term objective is to supply 85 - 90% of its customer water needs from groundwater, with the balance from imported sources. Accordingly, the ultimate objective of the City of Tustin Water Services Division long- range capital improvements program is to increase groundwater supply as required to satisfy normal water demands up to and including maximum day demand, while utilizing Design Review 06-013 July 17, 2006 Page 3 system reservoirs to supply peak demands. As a member agency of the Orange County Water District [OCWD]. the City of Tustin Water Services Division is entitled to groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin. OCWD is moving forward with its Long-Term Facilities Plan, a comprehensive program designed to implement a series of innovative groundwater recharge projects to increase Basin yield. In addition to other groundwater producers, OCWD's projects will also benefit Tustin's service area and enhance the City's investment in its future groundwater water supplies. DISCUSSION: The Pasadena Avenue Well Site project involves the construction of a water well facility, housed in a 1,450 square foot structure made of split-face concrete block and 14 feet in height, with a paved service yard and surrounded by landscaped grounds. The following design features have been incorporated into the working plans: . The well equipment would be contained within an enclosed building, 1,450 square feet in size. The structure would have a twenty (20) foot front yard setback consistent with residential properties in the vicinity, a twenty (20) foot setback from the adjacent property on the south for the main building, and a ten (10) foot setback for the wall adjacent to the sand settling basin. . The sand settling basin would be located to the rear of the southwest corner of the building. Sand and other particulates that are extracted from the well water are deposited in the basin. An electrical transformer would be located to the north of the building within an enclosed service yard. Pumping equipment, a sand separator, electrical and chlorination equipment, a standby generator, control and monitoring equipment, and a chlorine scrubber system would be located within the building. . The building would be constructed mainly of two colors of split-face cement block and scored split face blocks for architectural accent. The overall height of the building is fourteen (14) feet which is compatible with the predominantly single story residential character of the area. Metal door and roll-up door openings would face north and west. The street facing elevation (east elevation) and adjacent residential elevation (south elevation) would not include any openings, which would allow more opportunities for landscape screening. . The proposed paved service yard used for parking maintenance vehicles and installation of an aboveground transformer cabinet by Southern California Edison would be enclosed by a six (6) foot tall block wall and a vehicle gate. The wall would be designed to be compatible with the architecture of the building. . Additional landscaping including trees, bushes, vines, and ground cover would be planted to enhance the appearance of the building and to complement the residential Design Review 06-013 July 17, 2006 Page 4 character of the area. There are three (3) existing mature trees on the site, two (2) of which would be preserved. The proposed building and landscaping would soften the appearance of the existing 13- foot tall Caltrans sound wall located along the west side of the site. During construction the following equipment would be used: a crane, a drill rig, a backhoe, and other construction vehicles such as trucks and loaders. Delivery truck trips as well as construction-worker vehicular trips would also occur during construction. It is estimated that there would be 10 or fewer construction trips on an average day. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS A Final Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project (Exhibit A of Resolution No. 06-79). The attached Initial Study discusses potential impact categories and appropriate mitigation measures. Any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance and mitigation measures are listed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The public comments period for the environmental documents was from March 23, 2006, to April 25, 2006. The City received four (4) comment letters from state, regional, and local agencies and 25 comment letters from individuals. The City of Tustin, as 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 the Responses to Comments document and is immediately followed by the City's response. Mitioation Monitorino and Reoortino Prooram A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) designed to ensure compliance with mitigation measures that are required to avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects of the Project identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared to meet the requirements of Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. The MMRP, which is attached as Exhibit B to Resolution No. 06-79 provides a checklist of mitigation measures and implementation measures (existing regulatory requirements) identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project and which Program is proposed to be adopted if the Project is approved. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The well construction would take approximately 16 months as follows: well drilling, testing, and well construction operations - 9 weeks; installation of security fencing and the temporary 24-foot noise wall, the construction of the masonry structure, the installation of utilities, permanent pumping and chlorination equipment, and the planting of landscaping - 14 months. Design Review 06-013 July 17, 2006 Page 5 xfed;t;~~ Scott Reekstin Senior Planner Attachments: A. Location Map B. Schematic Design Plans C. City Council Resolution No. 06-79 D. City Council Resolution No. 06-80 S:\Cdd\CCREPORT\Pasadena Avenue Well Design Review 06-013.doc Tim Serlet Public Works Director izabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director ATTACHMENT A Location Map PROJECT NO ADDRESS . ~- --.==. ---<. , I II ) I ) \ I) . :. ~ l:& ~ . . , I 1 If',' " \ . , - ! !I ~ I i4lQ '~I ('! l 1'li'i':Ti1illl! , I i , ,p ~;; i: B !i a1a an .. .. ..~ s' re: IJ t ) \, PEPPERTREE pARK = :: i ,. . 100 jo ,. ;~oC:c= ,. . L. TUSTIN UNIFIED ,~ ' SCHOOL D[!lTRI I ' ADWINJSTRATlO~ - mmJ>~' e =1 T". C:OC5E-r,~ ~. = ~.. - .. ~ :;; ""~'. I ':1 ~ ~ ~- ,~ i---:- ; ATTACHMENT B Schematic Design Plans ~ ~ ~"lJ -- - I - I. I . I i II 'II ~ I! ! i i iif!iii' : I !III 'II ---- I'" I Ii I (. i ~!al!'j . III lEI II ~ I,' .; I, ~ I" ;' !: II Id I I , III II I II I .1 III I I II I I! I II I, II i: , II I ii' Iii I Ii Ii I I I i I I.>> , I i'l >>:c- . w '~ !~ w I '"I il . I' I l :1 ~v 'I , I II I --~ II I il II I I I I '1" J- pl."' 'I ! -- f'" I~' ~ . ,~ ~ i' ~ ~ECOND T _ ~ ~ I .l " I I : ~ .'.'If II II I ell " _ _ ---.J I ~ -~ --', i" : 1 ~ , . ~ I II I I - I I Ii II II '1 ~ I! I ~ . ~ i ifil iii, : I III i iii ~ !I ! .:.. II i r' i e -II ~ ! ~II . I i;, !~l j !I ~ 1 1-1 ." Hi ~::tJ ~" i f ,,~ .~ H - - 1If1ro1Iswng:f~~ 1 I '" ~ ~ ~ Ii L# II /,'7 II '7 II &: II J'; ~u II P ~&. I ,Y ~~ ~ , , ~" <;)' ~ ~ !~! ~ "1'1"1 C ~ I~m~ :0 ~~~ ~ <; ~. I ~ II ~U}JI~ N ~ '" ""i .'" ~'" ':'r;: -"" ~ C5 '" - I I I . ~ I ! i :Hii ~l I ! ~ U l iel ~ J; II~ ~!, ~I II! N ,~ I ~, ~ , , . , , ~ ,~" ,~ ' ! ~ ! ~ " ~' i . , ~ ~ . . ~ a ' ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ a e a ' a , I ' ~ ! - a ! , , . J "~ ,~ , i i~ !!. ~~ ' " . , ~ ~ ~I~ ~ ~ " .' ~ . ~ , i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;: a a i , ~ a a a ! ! a ~ I ~ a , a I I \ ~ 19 ~ ::t: ,n, f;; ~ a '" I; . ~ ifi i I I ! I . ~ n I i~1 !; I!~ I. ~I IE! I " , n, 10 .'" ~n, ~ ~ t,.," -". '" ~ 1)-(1' /f'-(J' . ~ r I i I .:..." . ~ . '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t.': ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , I I '. ~,1' " ~ . ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ I ~ ~ I I ~ e ~ e e ~ ~ I e ~ I ~ e , I I , ~ ATTACHMENT C Resolution No. 06-79 RESOLUTION NO. 06-79 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR DESIGN REVIEW 06-013, 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 06-013 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 Pasadena Avenue Well Site 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 July 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 no Resolution No. 06-79 Page 2 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 06-013, 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 the 1ih day of July, 2006. DOUG DAVERT MAYOR PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 06-79 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 1ih day of July, 2006, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK Exhibit A to Attachment C Mitigated Negative Declaration Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal Mai/ to: State Clearinghouse, P. O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613 For Hand Delivery/Street Address: 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 SCH # 2005031127 AppendixC Project Title: Pasadena Avenue Well Site Lead Agency: City of Tustin Mailing Address: 300 Centennial Way City: Tustin Zip: 92780 Contact Person: Scott Reekstin Phone: 714.573-3016 County: Orange ----------------------------------------- Project Location: County: O..nge Cross Streets: Pasadena Avenue I Second Street Assessor's Parcel No.: 401-543-01,03,10,11 Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: SR-55 Airports: CitylNearest Community: Tustin Section: Twp.: Waterways: Railways: Range: Zip Code: 92780 Base: Schools: ----------------------------------------- Document Type: CEQA: 0 Nap o Early Cons o Neg Dec iii Mit Neg Dec o Draft EIR o SupplementJSubsequent EIR (prior SCH No.) o Other NEPA: 0 NO! o EA o Draft EIS o FONS1 Other: 0 Joint Document o Final Document o Other ----------------------------------------- Local Action Type: o General Plan Update 0 Specific Plan 0 Rezone o General Plan Amendment 0 Master Plan 0 Prezone o General Plan Element 0 Planned Unit Development 0 Use Permit o Community Plan 0 Site Plan 0 Land Division (Subdivision, o o o etc.) Ii1I Annexation Redevelopment Coastal Permit Other wall site ----------------------------------------- Development Type: o Residential: Units o Office: Sq. ft. o Commercial: Sq. ft. o Industrial: Sq.ft. o Educational o Recreational Total Acres (approx.) Acres Acres Acres Acres Employees Employees Employees il Water Facilities: Type well site o Transportation: Type o Mining: Mineral o Power: Type o Waste Treatment: Type o Hazardous Waste: Type o Other: MGD MW MGD ----------------------------------------- Project Issues Discussed in Document: iii AestheticNisual 0 Fiscal 0 Recreation/Parks 0 Vegetation o Agricultural Land 0 Flood PlainlFlooding 0 SchoolslUniversities I!!I Waler Quality iii Air Quality 0 Forest Land/Fire Hazard 0 Septic Systems il Water Supply/Groundwater iii Archeologica1/Historical iii Geologic/Seismic 0 Sewer Capacity 0 WetlandlRiparian o Biological Resources 0 Minerals 0 Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading 0 Wildlife o Coastal Zone iii Noise 0 Solid Waste 0 Growth Inducing o Drainage/Absorption 0 Population/Housing Balance iii Toxic/Hazardous iii Land Use o Economic/Jobs I!I Public ServiceslFacilities 0 Traffic/Circulation 0 Cumulative Effects o Other ----------------------------------------- Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation: Vacant. Zonse Multiple Family Residential & Public and Institutional. High Density Residential & Public and Institutional General Plan Designations. ----------------------------------------- Project Description: (please use a separate page if necessary) The construction of a water well facility, housed in a 1.450 square foot structure made of split-face concrete block and 14 feet in height, with a paved service yard and surrounded by landscaped grounds. Note: The State Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. Ifa SCH number already exists for a project (e.g. Notice of Preparation or previous draft document) please fill in. Revised 2004 Reviewing Agencies Checklist Appendix C, continued Lead Agencies may recommend State Clearinghouse distribution by marking agencies below with and "X". If you have already sent your document to the agency please denote that with an "S". Air Resources Board _ Boating & Waterways, Department of _ California Highway Patrol x Caltrans District # ~ Caltrans Division of Aeronautics _ Caltrans Planning (Headquarters) _ Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy Coastal Conurussion Colorado River Board _ Conservation, Department of _ Corrections, Department of Delta Protection Commission _ Education, Department of _ Energy Commission _ Fish & Game Region # _ _ Food & Agriculture, Department of _ Forestry & Fire Protection _ General Services, Department of ~ Health Services, Department of _ Housing & Community Development _ Integrated Waste Management Board _ Native American Heritage Commission _ Office of Emergency Services Office of Historic Preservation Office of Public School Construction Parks & Recreation _ Pesticide Regulation, Department of Public Utilities Commission Reclamation Board ~ Regional WQCB # ~ _ Resources Agency _ S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission _ San Gabriel & Lower L.A. Rivers and Mms Conservancy _ San Joaquin River Conservancy _ Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy State Lands Commission SWRCB: Clean Water Grants _ SWRCB: Water Quality _ SWRCB: Water Rights _ Tahoe Regioual Planning Agency _ Toxic Substances Control, Department of _ Water Resources, Department of Other Other ----------------------------------------- Starting Date Local Public Review Period (to be filled In by lead agency) Ending Date ----------------------------------------- Lead Agency (Complete If applicable): Consulting Firm: Address: City/State/Zip: Contact: Phone: Applicant: City ofTustin Address: 300 Centennial Way City/State/Zip: Tustin, CA 92780 Phone: 714.573-3016 ----------------------------------------- Signature of Lead Agency Representative: ?, ') ~/ ,;/ j~'l.?/ ~ t V j-~> I'.~.."" ,,) Date: ..7.;21.0,6 Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration Pasadena Avenue Well Site Public Review Period: March 23, 2006 through April 24, 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Title: Pasadena Avenue Well Site Project Location: 170 Pasadena Avenue, Tustin Project Description: Construction of a water well facility housed in a 1,450 sq. ft. structure Project Proponent: City of Tustin Lead Agency Contact Person: Scott Reekstin Telephone: 714/573-3016 The Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study for the above project in accordance with the City of Tustin's procedures regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and on the basis of that study hereby finds: o That there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [gJ That potential significant effects were identified, but revisions have been included in the project plans and agreed to by the applicant that would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Said Mitigation Measures are included in Attachment A of the Initial Study which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required. The Initial Study which provides the basis for this determination is attached and is on file at the Community Development Department, City of Tustin. The public is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this Negative Declaration during the review period, which begins with the public notice of Negative Declaration and extends for thirty (30) calendar days. Upon review by the Community Development Director, this review period may be extended if deemed necessary. Date REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:00 P.M. ON APRIL 24, 2006 S7:~~-t1/ ,/J d/(~~,,~ Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director J.21'0u, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 INITIAL STUDY A. BACKGROUND Project Title: Pasadena Avenue Well Site Lead Agency: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Scott Reekstin Phone: (714) 573-3016 Project Location: 170 Pasadena Avenue Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Tustin/Water Services 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 General Plan Designation: High Density Residential and Public/Institutional Zoning Designation: Multiple Family Residential and Public and Institutional Project Description: The construction of a water well facility housed in a structure of approximately 1,450 square feet. Surrounding Uses: North: Newport Freeway (SR-55) South: Residential East: Residential West: Newport Freeway (SR-55) Other public agencies whose approval is required: o o o [2J Orange County Fire Authority Orange County Health Care Agency South Coast Air Quality Management District Other - State Department of Health Services o o o City of Irvine City of Santa Ana Orange County EMA 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 0 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. [8J 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 NEGA TIVE 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 I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described in the attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 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 NEGA TIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. and no further documentation is required. Preparer: Scott Reekstin --...., ,_/" . ..../ J) L ,:" V"?,,: 1/ /L .1 ts;'~4-A..-.o-~/ Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director Title Senior Planner Date 3. 2/. /' C. D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Directions I) 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 ifthere 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)(0). 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. EV ALVA TION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACTS Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 r8l 0 0 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings. and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 0 ~ 0 0 c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 ~ 0 0 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 0 ~ 0 0 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 Oept. 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? 0 0 0 ~ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 0 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 0 ~ III. AIR OUALlTY: 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 ofthe applicable air quality plan? 0 ~ 0 0 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 0 ~ 0 0 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)? 0 ~ 0 0 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 0 r8l 0 0 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 0 ~ 0 0 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact 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? 0 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 0 ~ e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 0 0 0 ~ I) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 0 0 0 ~ V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ~ 15064.5? 0 0 0 ~ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ~ l5064.5? 0 ~ 0 0 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 0 0 ~ d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 0 ~ 0 0 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact 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. 0 0 0 ~ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 ~ 0 0 iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 ~ 0 0 iv) Landslides? 0 0 0 ~ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 0 0 ~ 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? 0 ~ 0 0 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-I-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 0 ~ 0 0 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers arc not available for the disposal of waste water? 0 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 0 ~ 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? 0 ~ 0 0 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 0 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 0 ~ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 0 0 ~ Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an impact Incorporation Impact No impact adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 0 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 0 ~ VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 0 0 0 IZI b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially witb groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering ofthe 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)? 0 0 0 IZI 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 00- or off-site? 0 0 0 ~ d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course ofa 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? 0 0 0 IZI e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 0 0 0 IZI t) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 0 0 IZI 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? 0 0 0 IZI h) Place within a IOO-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 0 0 0 IZI i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure ofa levee or darn? 0 0 0 IZI j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 0 0 IZI k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff trom construction activities? 0 0 0 ~ Less Than Significant Potential(v With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact I) Potentially impact stonnwater runoff from post- construction activities? 0 0 0 IZI m) Result in a potential for discharge of storm water 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? 0 0 0 IZI n) Result in a potential for discharge of stonnwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? 0 0 0 IZI 0) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stonnwater runoff to cause environmental harm? 0 0 0 IZI p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? 0 0 0 IZI IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 0 IZI 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? 0 0 0 IZI c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 0 0 0 IZI 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? 0 0 0 IZI 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? 0 0 0 IZI 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? 0 0 0 IZI b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? 0 IZI 0 0 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 ~ 0 0 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 ~ 0 0 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? 0 0 0 ~ t) 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? 0 0 0 ~ 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)? 0 0 0 ~ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 0 0 ~ c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 0 ~ Police protection? 0 0 0 ~ Schools? 0 0 0 ~ Parks? 0 0 0 ~ Other public facilities? 0 0 0 ~ Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than XIV. RECREATION - Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration ofthe facility would occur or be accelerated? D D D [8J 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? D D 0 ~ XV. TRANSPORT A TIONITRAFFlC - 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)? 0 0 0 ~ b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 0 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 0 ~ d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 0 0 0 ~ e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 ~ t) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 0 ~ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 0 0 0 ~ XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 0 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 0 ~ 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? 0 0 0 ~ Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 0 0 0 ~ 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? D D D ~ f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? D 0 ~ g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? D D D ~ 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)? D D D ~ XVII. MANDA TORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality ofthe 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? D D D ~ 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)? D D D ~ c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? D D D ~ ATTACHMENT A EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CONSTRUCTION OF A WATER WELL SITE 170 PASADENA AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project includes the development and equipping of a water well facility on a vacant triangular shaped site at 170 Pasadena Avenue (portions of AP. Nos. 401- 543-01, 03, 10, and 11) located in the City of Tustin. The purpose of the proposed new high capacity water well is to improve water services throughout the City's water service area. The Conceptual Site Plan, Floor Plan, and Elevations are provided in Exhibit 1. A Negative Declaration for acquisition of the site and preliminary design of the facility was filed with the California State Clearinghouse for review and comments in June of 2000. The site was acquired by the City; however, the construction portion of the project was put on hold because the facility was redesigned for maintenance and safety reasons. The City has since prepared revised site and landscaping plans and revised renderings for the architectural style of the facility. The project site is bounded by one (1) residential property to the south, Pasadena Avenue and predominantly single family residences to the east, and the Newport Freeway (SR-55) to the north and west. The property is zoned Multiple Family Residential and Public and Institutional (P&I) and is within the City's Cultural Resources Overlay District. The project site is about 16,500 square feet in area and is currently vacant. It contains no buildings. The following design features have been incorporated into the working plans: . The well equipment would be contained within an enclosed building, 1,450 square feet in size. The structure would have a twenty (20) foot front yard setback consistent with residential properties in the vicinity, and a twenty (20) foot setback from the adjacent property on the south for the main building and a ten (10) feet setback for the wall adjacent to the sand settling basin. . The sand settling basin would be located to the rear of the southwest corner of the building. Sand and other particulates that are extracted from the well water are deposited in the basin. An electrical transformer would be located to the north of the building within an enclosed service yard. Pumping equipment, a sand separator, electrical and chlorination equipment, a standby generator, control and monitoring equipment, and a chlorine scrubber system would be located within the building. . The exterior design and finish of the main building has been revised for maintenance and safety reasons. The building would be constructed mainly of two colors of split-face cement block and scored split face blocks for architectural accent. The overall height of the building is fourteen (14) feet which is compatible with the predominantly single story residential character of the area. Metal door and Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Pasadena Well Site Page 2 roll-up door openings would face north and west. The street facing elevation (east elevation) and adjacent residential elevation (south elevation) would not include any openings, which would allow more opportunities for landscape screening. . The proposed paved service yard used for parking maintenance vehicles and installation of an above-ground transformer cabinet by Southern California Edison would be enclosed by a six (6) foot tall block wall and a vehicle gate. The wall would be designed to be compatible with the architecture of the building. · Additional landscaping including trees, bushes, vines, and ground cover would be planted to enhance the appearance of the building and to complement the residential character of the area. There are three (3) existing mature trees on the site, two (2) of which would be preserved. · The proposed building and landscaping would soften the appearance of the existing 13-foot tall Caltrans sound wall located along the west side of the site. The total construction period of the entire facility is estimated at approximately sixteen (16) months. Well drilling, testing and well construction operations will take place over a period of about nine (9) weeks. While the majority of drilling activity will occur during the day, a limited number of activities will be conducted throughout the night. The following activities will occur 24 hours per day for a total maximum of nineteen (19) days (non- consecutive): . Pilot borehole drilling (six days) . Borehole reaming (six days) . Well casing installation (two days) . Gravel packing (two days) · Constant rate discharge test (three days). The remaining fourteen (14) months of construction activity includes the installation of security fencing and the temporary 24-foot noise wall, the construction of the masonry structure, the installation of utilities, permanent pumping and chlorination equipment, and the planting of landscaping. 1. AESTHETICS Items a throuah d - "Less Than Sianificant Imoact with Mitiaation Incoroorated": The project is a water well facility including a perimeter wall and an enclosed structure to house the well, chlorine room, the emergency generator, and the chlorine scrubber. The proposed site is approximately 16,500 square feet in area. Less than twenty (20) percent of the site would be enclosed with a block wall and a steel security entrance gate which would contain the well structure, a settling basin, area for the parking of maintenance vehicles, and an electrical transformer. The parking area for maintenance vehicles will be located to the north of the building, within an asphalt paved parking area, and be properly screened from neighboring properties with landscaping and a block wall. The remainder of the Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Pasadena Well Site Page 3 site outside the block wall includes two mature trees and would be landscaped with additional trees, shrubs, vines, and ground cover to improve the aesthetic appearance of the site. The proposed structure is a one story building of approximately 1,450 square feet in area constructed mainly of two colors of split-face cement block and scored split face blocks for architectural accent. The building will have a twenty (20) foot front yard setback consistent with the required front yard setback for Single Family (R-1) residential properties The overall height of the building is fourteen (14) feet, which is compatible with the predominantly single story residential character of the area. Metal door and roll-up door openings would face north and west. The street facing elevation (east elevation) and adjacent residential elevation (south elevation) would not include any openings. The paved service yard used for the parking of maintenance vehicles and installation of above- ground transformer cabinet by Southern California Edison is enclosed by a six (6) foot tall block wall and a vehicle gate. The relative size and limited mass of the structure and the landscaping were chosen to minimize any potential aesthetic impacts to the existing historic resources within the neighborhood. Lighting during construction of the facility would need to meet the minimum requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA); however lighting would be shielded from residential properties and the adjacent SR-55 Freeway. Permanent security lighting for the facility would be designed to appear residential in character and would be directed downward. With mitigation incorporated, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, would not substantially damage scenic resources, would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, and would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Sources: Tustin City Code Section 9223 Residential Design Guidelines Tustin Historical Survey Conceptual Plans and Elevations Field Observations City of Tustin Public Works Department Mitiaation Measures: · The City shall install a variety of landscaping including 21 new trees, approximately 150 5-gallon shrubs, and groundcover to complement the residential character of the neighborhood; · The City shall require the contractor to install temporary construction light fixtures that direct lighting downward to prevent any spill and glare on neighboring properties and the SR-55 Freeway; and, Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Pasadena Well Site Page 4 . The City shall install security lighting fixtures that direct lighting downward to prevent spill and glare on neighboring properties. 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Items a throuah c - "No Imoact": The project site for the water well facility is located on a vacant site within a developed urban area. The proposed project will have no impacts on any farmland, nor will the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. The project will not involve any changes in the existing environment and could not result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. No impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated. Sources: Public Works Department Field Observations Mitiaation Measures: None Required 3. AIR QUALITY Items a throuah e - "Less Than Sianificant With Mitiaation Incoroorated": The project involves the construction of a water well facility with a gas chlorination system. Emissions related to the construction and operation of the site are calculated based on the type of construction vehicles, average number of daily trips, average daily soil removal, and number of drilling days. Construction of the water well will include the drilling of a 42 inch diameter borehole to a depth of 50 feet and the installation of a 36 inch diameter steel conductor casing pipe. A 12 to 18 inch diameter pilot borehole will then be drilled from the bottom of the 36 inch diameter pipe to a depth of approximately 1 ,200 feet during a period of six to eight days for an average of 240 cubic feet of soil removal per day. The pilot borehole will be drilled out to a diameter of 30 inches, and an 18 inch diameter stainless steel well casing pipe will be installed from the bottom to the top of the well. The drilling operation will be performed in accordance with the City's project specifications, and the requirements of the California Department of Water Resources, the California Department of Health Services, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project would be constructed with a limited number of heavy equipment, including a drill rig, backhoe, crane, and other construction vehicles such as trucks and loaders and an average of 1 0 or fewer daily trips. The construction site is approximately 16,500 square feet in area, and paved roads are available to the site. A diesel powered emergency generator is included as part of this project. The generator will be sized to provide electrical power to all on-site equipment in the event of a SCE power failure. The generator will be housed in a sound attenuated room and will not be in operation during normal facility operations. Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Pasadena Well Site Page 5 The generator will be tested once a month during the daytime for a 15 minute period. The chlorination room will be isolated with no open access and will be designed to contain any potential leaks. A chlorine scrubber will be provided to neutralize and contain gas in the unlikely event of a leak. The proposed chlorine facilities will not result in the creation of any health hazards or expose people to hazardous materials. Risks from a chlorine leak contained in the air tight building with a scrubber are very minimal. Any potential leakage would be contained within the confines of the proposed structure. Grading activities for construction of the project will be conducted in compliance with the City of Tustin Grading Manual and the SCAQMD. The project would specifically be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). SCAQMD Rule 403 does not require a permit for construction activities, per se, but rather, sets forth general and specific requirements for all construction sites (as well as other fugitive dust sources) in the South Coast Air Basin. The general requirement prohibits a person from causing or allowing emissions of fugitive dust from construction (or other fugitive dust source) such that the presence of such dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emissions source. SCAQMD Rule 403 identifies specific dust control measures that must be implemented to reduce emissions. Any potential impacts related to air quality will be reduced to a level of insignificance. The SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for construction activities and for project operations. The following table shows SCAQMD's thresholds of significance. Carbon Monoxide Reactive Organic Com ounds Nitro en Oxides Sulfur Oxides Particulate Matter 550 75 100 150 150 550 55 55 150 150 Note: The SCAOMD no longer requires construction activities to be evaluated by quarterly significance thresholds (SCAOMD. 2001 b). With regard to CO emissions emitted by vehicle trips associated with project operations, the SCAQMD CEQA handbooks considers the following concentration increases to be significant: . 1 hour = 1.0 part per million . 8 hour = 0.45 part per million. Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Pasadena Well Site Page 6 Due to the small scale nature of the project and very limited numbers of heavy equipment that will be present on site on any given construction day, project emissions would not exceed the air quality thresholds established by SCAQMD and summarized in the above Table. Furthermore, the project does not have the capacity to conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air plan, violate any air quality standard, result in a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria pollutant as applicable by federal or ambient air quality standard, nor will it expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules & Regulations City of Tustin Grading Manual City of Tustin Public Works Department Conceptual Plans and Elevations Mitiaation Measures: · The City shall require the contractor to operate all construction equipment, and the emergency generators for construction activities in accordance with SCAQMD rules and regulations. This requirement shall appear conspicuously on final construction plans and/or working drawings. · At the time of plan check, the City shall ensure that the specifications for the chlorine scrubber system meet all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations. · The City shall require the contractor to comply with all City policies pertaining to short term construction emissions, including periodic watering of the site and prohibiting grading during second stage smog alerts and when wind velocities exceed 15 miles per hour. This requirement shall appear conspicuously on final construction plans and/or working drawings. · The City shall require the contractor to implement dust control measures during site disturbance activity, including, for example, regular watering in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. This requirement shall appear conspicuously on final construction plans and/or working drawings. · Prior to putting the project out to bid, the Public Works Department shall submit the construction drawings to the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) for their review, approval, and stamp. · Prior to start up of the chlorination facility, the Public Works Department shall obtain approval from the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). As part of this approval, a hazardous material and inventory disclosure form will be prepared including an emergency response/evacuation plan for the facility. Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmentallmpacls Pasadena Well Site Page 7 · The construction documents and plans shall specify that the facility shall be designed for detection and containment of any potential leakage. . A Risk Management Plan with specific provisions regarding the procedures and responsible parties shall be prepared by the Public Works DepartmentMIater Operations or an assigned contractor, and reviewed and approved by the OCFA. Appropriate education and training of the Risk Management Plan shall be provided to all staff responsible in the operation of the site. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items a throuah f - "No lmoact": The proposed project site for the water well facility is located in an urban area with no unique, rare, or endangered species of plant or animal life identified 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 impacts to protected wetlands, native or migratory fish, or wildlife corridors are anticipated. Development of the site does not conflict with any local policies or ordinances for tree preservation, or regional or state habitat conservation plans. Sources: Public Works Department Field Observations City of Tustin General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element Mitiaation Measures: None Required 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Items a and c - "No lmoact": The project site is located in an urbanized area with no identified existing historical, archeological, or paleontological resources on the property. The site is located in the City's Cultural Resources Overlay District. There are three historic buildings listed in the City's Historical Survey that are within 300 feet of the site. However, the project would not cause a "substantial adverse change in the significance" of any of these buildings. CEQA defines "substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as the "demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the resource would be materially impaired." (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (b)(1)). In this case, the project would not materially impair any of the nearby buildings. The small size and limited mass of the proposed facility complements the general size and massing of the residential structures in the neighborhood as discussed in Section 1, Aesthetics. In addition, the project site will be extensively landscaped to minimize any remaining visual impact on the neighborhood and any potential incompatibility with nearby historic resources within the neighborhood. Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Pasadena Well Site Page 8 Sources: Tustin City Code Section 9252 Public Works Department Field Observations City of Tustin Historical Survey CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 Item band d - "Less Than Sianificant Impact with Mitiaation Incorporated": Construction of the water well will include the drilling of a 42 inch diameter borehole to a depth of 50 feet and the installation of a 36 inch diameter steel conductor casing pipe. A 12 to 18 inch diameter pilot borehole will then be drilled from the bottom of the 36 inch diameter pipe to a depth of approximately 1,200 feet during a period of six to eight days for an average of 240 cubic feet of soil removal per day. The pilot borehole will be drilled out to a diameter of 30 inches, and an 18 inch diameter stainless steel well casing pipe will be installed from the bottom to the top of the well. The excavation and grading activities associated with surface improvements would be in accordance with the City's Grading requirements. It is highly unlikely that archeological resources could be encountered. However, if archeological resources are discovered during excavation, they are to be handled in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other applicable regulations. Mitiaation Measures: . In case of an accidental discovery of historical or unique archeological resources, the contractor shall immediately halt construction activity and promptly notify the City of the discovery. The City shall then retain a qualified archeologist to evaluate the discovery. If the find is determined to be a unique, historical or archeological resource, appropriate protection and preservation measures shall be taken in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Public Resources Code Section 21082. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Items a (j). (iv). b. and e - "No Impact": The project site is not located in proximity to a known earthquake fault (Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map). The project will not have substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death because of proximity to a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, landslides, or unstable soil for waste-water disposal. No impacts from construction and operation of the site are anticipated. Sources: Tustin General Plan Public Safety Element Preliminary Seismic Map Mitiaation Measures: None Required Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Pasadena Well Site Page 9 Items a (ii), a (iii), and c - "Less Than Sionificant With Mitioation Incorporated": The project site is in proximity to an area that is designated as a liquefaction zone in a Preliminary Map released on October 15, 1997 by State Department of Mining and Geology. Construction of the project will require preparation of a soils report and structural calculations for the proposed structures in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and other related codes. With adherence to accepted building practices, no impacts are anticipated. Construction of the water well will include the drilling of a 42 inch diameter borehole to a depth of 50 feet and the installation of a 36 inch diameter steel conductor casing pipe. A 12 to 18 inch diameter pilot borehole will then be drilled from the bottom of the 36 inch diameter pipe to a depth of approximately 1 ,200 feet during a period of six to eight days for an average of 240 cubic feet of soil removal per day. The pilot borehole will be drilled out to a diameter of 30 inches, and an 18 inch diameter stainless steel well casing pipe will be installed from the bottom to the top of the well. The excavation and grading activities associated with surface improvements would be in accordance with the City's Grading requirements. Sources: Preliminary Seismic Map Uniform Building Code Tustin Grading Manual Mitiaation Measures: . At the time of plan check, construction plans shall be prepared to ensure conformance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and all other applicable state and local laws, regulations and requirements. 7. HAZARD AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Items a, c throuah h - "No Impact": Construction and operation a well facility does not have the capacity to cause significant hazards such as explosions, hazardous material spills, interference with emergency response plans, or wildland fires, etc. The project is not located within an airport land use plan or in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Sources: Tustin General Plan Public Safety Element City of Tustin Public Works Department! Water Services Division Orange County Fire Authority Orange County Health Care Agency Mitiaation Measures: None Required Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Pasadena Well Site Page 10 Item b - "Less than Sionificant With Mitioation Incorporated": The well operation includes a chlorination system that would use chlorine. The chlorination system would have the capacity of 50 pounds each day with two 150 pound cylinders with a directly mounted vacuum regulator on each cylinder. The chlorination room would be isolated with no open access and be designed to contain any potential leaks. The chlorination system would be connected to an emergency scrubber system that would act as a chlorine neutralizer and air remover to exhaust the flow of gas from the enclosed space through the system in the unlikely event of a leak. Operation and maintenance of the chlorine scrubber system would be closely monitored, and all operations would meet the Orange County Fire Authority requirements. The materials for construction of the scrubber are required to comply with all applicable federal, state and local ordinances. The proposed chlorination equipment is unlikely to result in the creation of any health hazards or expose people to hazardous materials. Any potential risks from a chlorine leak would be contained in the air tight building with a scrubber and contained within the confines of the project site and mitigated to a level of insignificance. Sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department / Water Services Division County of Orange Environmental Health Division Mitioation Measures: . Prior to putting the project out to bid, the Public Works Department shall submit the construction drawings to the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) for their review, approval, and stamp. . Prior to the start up of the chlorination facility, the Public Works Department shall obtain approval from the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). As part of the OCFA approval, a hazardous material and inventory disclosure form shall be prepared including an emergency response/evacuation plan for the facility. . The facility shall be designed to reduce any risk and potential human impacts to a level of insignificance by appropriate detection and prevention of any potential leakage. These prevention measures shall be incorporated in the construction plans and documents subject to review and approval of the Orange County Fire Authority, and County of Orange Environmental Health Division. . A Risk Management Plan with specific provIsions regarding the procedures and responsible parties shall be prepared by the Public Works DepartmentlWater Operations or an assigned contractor, and reviewed and approved by the OCFA. Appropriate education and training of the Risk Management Plan shall be provided to all staff responsible in the operation of the site. Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Pasadena Well Site Page 11 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Items a throuah P - "No Impact": Construction and operation of the water well facility is unlikely to affect standing or moving bodies of water, or create significant runoff water. During drilling, water quality testing, construction, and operation of the well site, all requirements of the Clean Water Act and National Pollutant Elimination Discharge System (NPDES) shall be adhered to by the Public Works Department or the assigned contractor. All drill cutting, rotary fluid, and other by- products are to be retained on site to be transported and disposed of in accordance with the applicable regulations. A maximum of approximately 1,500 - 2,000 gallons per minute are expected to be withdrawn from the groundwater table. The development of the water well will not have a significant impact in lowering the local ground water table level nor will it deplete ground water supplies or interfere with ground water recharge that would result in a net deficit in aquifer volume. In fact, the capacity of the groundwater basin beneath the City of Tustin's water service area is more than sufficient to sustain the pumping levels contemplated by this project. This fact is based on current information about the condition of the Lower Santa Ana Groundwater Basin (Basin) provided by the Orange County Water District (OCWD), and implementation of key Basin resource management programs by OCWD over the next 20 years. OCWD is the groundwater management authority for'the Basin, including that portion of the Basin which underlies the Pasadena Well project site. Regarding overall Basin conditions, a January 2006 report by OCWD indicates that groundwater levels rose significantly [between 20-40 feet on average] throughout the Basin from November 2004 to November 2005. In fact, Basin water levels are at near historic highs due to the extraordinary amounts of rainfall and subsequent runoff received during this same period of time. Given its nearly full condition, OCWD has identified the possibility that additional storage capacity may exist within the Basin---which would benefit all groundwater producers including the City of Tustin. Further engineering analysis will need to be done by OCWD in 2006 and beyond to ascertain the feasibility of establishing a new benchmark to determine the Basin's ultimate capacity. Construction of the water well would require approval by the Orange County Water District and an amendment to the City's Water Supply Permit Number 04-89-001 issued by the California State Department of Health Services (issued on February 1,1989). Sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department! Water Services Division Orange County Health Care Agency Orange County Water District Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Pasadena Well Site Page 12 Mitiaation Measures: None Required 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING Items a throuah c - "No Imoact": The project site is located in the City of Tustin Multiple Family Residential and Public and Institutional zoning districts, the Cultural Resources Overlay District, and has High Density Residential and Public/Institutional General Plan land use designations. There is one Victorian Italianate historic structure on Pasadena Avenue; however the remainder of the houses are stucco finish, ranch structures. The facility shall be designed in consideration of the adjacent properties in that adequate landscaping will be provided to screen the building and perimeter walls. The building will be setback twenty (20) feet from the easterly (Pasadena Avenue) property line and the proposed fourteen (14) foot height would be compatible with the adjacent residential structures. The proposed project does not conflict with the Tustin General Plan, zoning ordinance and other policies or regulations applicable to the area. The project will not physically divide an established community, nor conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan. Sources: Tustin General Plan Land Use Element Tustin Zoning Code Sections 9226 and 9245 Submitted Plans Field Observations Mitiaation Measures: None Required 10. MINERAL RESOURCES Items a and b - "No Imoact": Construction of a water well facility will not result in loss of a known mineral resource, or availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on the General Plan or other applicable land use maps. Sources: Tustin General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element Mitiaation Measures: None Required 11. NOISE Items a. e. and f - "No Imoact": The project site is located adjacent to a residential neighborhood and the SR-55 Freeway. Operation of the well would be within an enclosed building that would be constructed of masonry to minimize noise levels to the outside. A diesel powered emergency generator is included as part of this project. The generator will be sized to provide electrical power to all on-site equipment in the event of a SCE power failure. The generator will be Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Pasadena Well Site Page 13 housed in a sound attenuated room and will not be in operation during normal facility operations. The generator will be tested once a month during the daytime for a 15 minute period. The maximum allowable exterior noise level for residential districts is 55 dB for day time hours and 50 dB from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. These noise levels are adjusted when ambient noise levels are high, which is the case at the project site primarily due to the proximity of the SR-55 Freeway. Although Tustin City Code Section 4617 exempts public agency and public utility projects from the established noise limits, the limits were used to evaluate the project's noise impacts and to establish mitigation measures. Based on the findings of the Noise Assessment for the Pasadena Avenue Water Well dated January 11. 2006. the only potentially significant noise emissions would be from the exhaust fans, and potential noise impacts from long term operation of the well would be less than significant provided that the exhaust fan does not face the residence at 270 Pasadena Avenue. According to the Noise Assessment, assuming that the well structure is similar to the well structure at 17575 Vandenberg Lane, operational noise levels are projected to be around 54 dBA, which is less than the adjusted evening noise standard of 55 dBA. The well structure at 17575 Vandenberg Lane is constructed of concrete masonry block. The proposed Pasadena Avenue well will also be constructed of concrete masonry block, but will also feature sound absorbing perforated aluminum panels on the interior walls and ceiling, heavy gauge steel doors with insulation and rubberized door jambs, a roof ventilation system (which results in lower noise levels at ground level when compared to a wall mounted system.) With the masonry construction, sound panels and insulation, and no exhaust fans on the south side of the structure, the operation of the facility will not expose persons or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the general plan, noise ordinance, nor will it expose persons to excessive ground borne vibrations. The project is not located within an airport land use plan or vicinity of a private airstrip. In addition, the well facility is not a sensitive noise receptor and is not impacted by aircraft noise. Sources: Noise Assessment dated January 11, 2006 Tustin City Code Sections 4611 - 4625 Tustin General Plan Noise Element City of Tustin Public Works DepartmenU Water Services Division Mitiaation Measures: None Required Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Pasadena Well Site Page 14 Items b. c and d - "Less than Sianificant With Mitiaation Incorporated": The proposed project will be constructed in three phases. During the first phase, the well will be drilled to a total depth of 1,200 feet below ground surface. During the next phase, pumping development and well testing will take place utilizing a portable testing pump. During the final phase, the permanent masonry structure will be constructed, followed by the installation of utilities, water pumping, water treatment equipment, and landscaping. Well drilling, testing and well construction operations will take place over a period of about nine (9) weeks. Drilling operations will occur 24 hours per day for a total maximum of sixteen (19) days (non-consecutive). Most of the drilling activities must proceed continuously to keep the drilled boring open. Specific drilling activities will include pilot borehole drilling, borehole reaming, well casing installation, gravel packing, airlift swabbing, test pumping, and constant rate test pumping. Based on the findings of the Noise Assessment for the Pasadena Avenue Water Well dated January 11, 2006. with the temporary soundwall in place, only the constant rate discharge test is projected to possibly exceed the noise limits in the City's Noise Ordinance on a temporary basis. Therefore, additional mitigation measures have been proposed. Construction of a masonry structure, installation of utilities, and installation of permanent pumping and chlorination equipment will follow the drilling activities. These activities will last approximately fourteen (14) months and will only occur during the daytime hours consistent with the City's noise ordinance (Tustin City Code Section 4617), which allows construction activity between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, excluding City observed federal holidays. Because noise generated from these activities will only occur during the least noise sensitive daytime hours and will cease upon completion, these impacts are considered less than significant. The operation of the proposed well may generate a negligible amount of noise that is audible within the surrounding neighborhood. However, the facility has been designed to meet the standards contained in the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance.. Adequate interior insulation, as described above, would be installed to ensure that any operational noise generated from the facility is less than the ambient adjusted nighttime standard of 55 dB and the standard of 55 dB during the day. Furthermore, the contractors for construction and operation of the project would be required to schedule deliveries to the site of equipment and chemicals during normal City working hours Monday through Friday to mitigate any potential noise impacts. Sources: Noise Assessment dated January 11, 2006 Tustin City Code 4611-4625 (Noise Ordinance) Tustin General Plan Noise Element Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Pasadena Well Site Page 15 City of Tustin Public Works DepartmentlWater Services Mitiaation Measures: . During well drilling, well installation, and test pumping operations, approximately 250 feet of temporary noise attenuation wall, 24 feet in height, shall be in place along the northern property line of 270 Pasadena Avenue between the SR-55 Freeway sound wall and the sidewalk and also along the western edge of the sidewalk as far north as the south side of West Second Street. . The contractor shall use a drilling rig that is equipped with a hospital grade muffler such that the drilling rig is capable of not exceeding a steady noise (L50) of 64 dBA at 100 feet (if no soundwall were present). . During construction, noise monitoring shall be conducted at nearby residences to confirm that the actual noise levels are consistent with the levels predicted in the Noise Assessment For the Pasadena Water Well dated January 11. 2006. . Pumping development and step drawdown tests and well structure installation activities shall be restricted to the hours exempt from the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance, that is, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, excluding City observed federal holidays. . Noise levels shall be monitored at the start of the short-term constant- rate discharge test. If the noise level exceeds the ambient adjusted noise standard between the hours of 6:DO p.m. and 7:00 a.m., the City shall give the residents of 235, 255, 265, 270, and 310 Pasadena Avenue the option to temporarily relocate to reasonably priced local hotels until the tests have been completed. . Noise generating well maintenance operations shall be restricted to the hours exempt from the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance, that is, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, excluding City observed federal holidays. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING Items a. b. and c - "No Impact": The proposed project for construction of a water well facility on a vacant site zoned "Multiple Family Residential and Publicllnstitutional" does not have the capacity to increase population in the area or displace existing housing or people. The water pumped from the well is necessary to serve the existing population. Sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department Water Services Division Mitiaation Measures None Required Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Pasadena Well Site Page 16 13. PUBLIC SERVICES Item a - " No Impact": Construction of a water well facility will not create significant additional demand for, or alteration of, government facilities or services (fire and police protection, schools, parks, etc.). The City's Capital Improvement Program includes funding resources for construction of the facility. The City's Water Division Operating Budget includes funding for the operation and maintenance of the facility. Sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department! Water Services Division Mitiaation Measures: None Required 14. RECREATION Items a and b - "No Impact": The proposed construction of a water well facility would not impact neighborhood parks or recreational facilities. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element Mitiaation Measures: None Required 15. TRANSPORT A TIONITRAFFIC Items a throuah a- "No Impact": The proposed construction and operation of a water well facility will not significantly affect traffic in the project area. The project would be conducted with a drill rig, backhoe, crane, and other construction vehicles such as trucks and loaders and an average of 10 or fewer daily trips. The well site would operate without on-site staff. There may be 1-2 trips a day to and from the site for monitoring which would have a minimal impact on traffic in the area. The project will not result in a change in air traffic patterns, inadequate emergency access, inadequate parking capacity; nor will it exceed a level of service standards established by the county congestion management agency for designed roads or highways or conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. Sources: Tustin Public Works Department Tustin General Plan Circulation Element Mitiaation Measures: None Required Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmenlallmpacts Pasadena Well Site Page 17 16. UTIL TIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Items a throuQh h - "No Impact": No impacts to water treatment, wastewater treatment, or solid waste disposal are anticipated in conjunction with the construction of the water well facility. The storm drain facilities have recently been constructed in the area, which will be sufficient to serve the proposed project. The proposed improvements will meet all the requirements of the City's NPDES permit. No stormwater treatment control would result in significant environmental effects. The proposed project will result in an increased water supply and reliability to the area, as well as improved water quality and pressure. The additional water supply will reduce the City's dependence on imported water. Sources: NPDES Permit Tustin General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element City of Tustin Public Works Department! Water Services Division Mitiaation Measures: None Required 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Items a. band c - No Impact: The proposed project is the construction of a well facility to improve water services throughout the City. The project design, construction and operation will comply with the regulations of the City of Tustin, Air Quality Management District, Orange County Fire Authority, Orange County Water District, and State Department of Health Services which reduces any potential impacts related to geological problems, water quality, air quality, health, hazards and noise to a level of insignificance. As such, the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment nor achieve short- term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals. It does not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable or that would cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings. Sources: Tustin City Code Orange County Fire Authority Orange County Water District State Department of Health Services Exhibit 1 Conceptual Site Plan, Floor Plan, and Elevations I ", \ ; e 1,1 ~ I ' \,L i~111 ~ ! I , """-- ~ j' .1 I 1 111,li61i-:- i ~ ~I- 1 I r i II I,l! , III '" Co! lip I: j!!!!! , ~ I "e,[ ~;~. d I- I a I i I .,,"- ti . I I I 1 II I I - ~- - I ~ 'I I -. ;' i ~~ l ~ I i5i I r--- 1 II ", @ \ ;11 ~ . ~I ii ;Ii ~ ~ "", !I , I ~-- f '@ I t t , I' I ,! ii , il 'I Ii I II II I, i' ,I, , ~ ' I I I L I Iii ,I ~ n===nl-~': 1.11- , - I-., ~ <>: ~ ~ ~ '" ,,~ . "ij" . ~ n ~ t ~fo.!.. .-: .~. (7 te~ f. f f tf ~ ~ ~-- ,rJlltllt~/IO.JDII .. ~. M 1 ~~ <>:~ ~~ "- I II ~ Ii I!I il ! ! g!Jlli I' III ~! II Iii I: I!! I!! ! ~ . a I i I ~ ' I I II I I - i.11 i Iii ~I ~I ,I ~ l.dIE ~!. I ~ ~ i I , III Jr II ill j, .1 ~ i I ~ I Ii I I I ! .J.1 ! - - i I = i I I ~ ~ i I ' . i ~ i i ~ ~ i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i H~ $ $ i ! I i ~ i , , . i ~ i i ~ h ~ $ ~ ~ ~ I $ qi ~ .. .~ ;';, ~ . \ ~ 'f' I I ,~ " ' ~~ ~ " ~ i t '" ~ t : ! ~ ~~ ~lf i ~~~ I .~~ < . .~ . " I ii ~ ~. M M ~. , III ~! I'! .1 I! 1.1 ~ ~I. I \ i I II '" ill ~I ~ . ~ I a I . . I i i - ~ . i ~ I . ~ a - a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I a ~ I ~ a I . ~ ~ ~ a a ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , " ~ ~. :r: ~ V) , I I J M ~E M ~.. Response to Comments Pasadena Avenue Well Site Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH No. 2005031127 City of Tustin Water Services Division 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Contacts: Mr. Fred Adjarian (714) 573-3381 Mr. Scott Reekstin (714) 573-3016 July 6, 2006 Pasadena A venue Well Site Project Responses to Comments TABLE OF CONTENTS Section PaQe 1 I ntrod u ction ............................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Public Notification and Review Process ............................................................1-3 2 Responses to Comments ......................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Responses to Comment Letters Received ........................................................2-1 Table of Contents Pasadena Avenue Well Site Project Responses to Comments SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION The City of Tustin conducted an Initial Study (IS) for the Pasadena Avenue Well Site Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code 321000 et seq.) and in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, 315000 et seq.). In summary, the proposed project involves the construction of a water well facility housed in a 1,450 square foot structure, with a paved service yard surrounded by landscaped grounds. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(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 (April 26, 2006) 2. Department of Toxic Substances Control (April 24, 2006) 3. Department of Transportation, District 12 (April 14, 2006) REGIONAL/LOCAL AGENCIES 4. Orange County Fire Authority (April 17, 2006) INDIVIDUALS 5. Tina Slenz (April 20, 2006) 6. John C. Washington, Jr. (April 21, 2006) 7. Jim and Kelly Poissant (April 24, 2006) 8. Tina Slenz (April 24, 2006) 1-1 Introduction Pasadena A venue Well Site Project Responses to Comments 9. Tom Bode, P.O.A. for Nell J. Bode (April 24, 2006) 10. Alan and Patricia Britt (April 24, 2006) 11. Abel and Ana Carrillo (April 24, 2006) 12. David and Linda Chubak (April 24, 2006) 13. William Collins (April 24, 2006) 14. Loyd Dixon (April 24, 2006) 15. Nancy M. Edgell (April 24, 2006) 16. Greg Figge (April 24, 2006) 17. Walter and Margaret Graves (April 24, 2006) 18. Kristi Kertin (April 24, 2006) 19. Steven J. Long (April 24, 2006) 20. Brett Mcintosh (April 24, 2006) 21. Robert Nason (April 24, 2006) 22. Stephen Ostendorf (April 24, 2006) 23. Karen Petersen and Doug King (April 24, 2006) 24. Sandra and DRost (April 24, 2006) 25. Patricia Sutcliff Ferreira (April 24, 2006) 26. Reymundo P. Mcintyre (April 24, 2006) 27. Christopher Taylor (April 24, 2006) 28. Richard Vining (April 24, 2006) 29. Michael Zell (April 24, 2006) Twenty-three (23) comment letters presented identical issues; therefore, one master response has been prepared to address the issues presented in the 23 letters. The City has prepared a comprehensive response to the April 24, 2006 letter (Comment Letter No.7) that was submitted by Jim and Kelly Poissant. The comprehensive response is intended to address the issues raised in comment letter Nos. 7 through 29. 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 Comment Letter Nos. 1 through 7 are immediately followed by the City's response. 1-2 Introduction Pasadena A venue Well Site Project Responses to Comments 1.2 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW PROCESS Section 15072 of the State CEQA Guidelines states: "(a)A 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 Pasadena Avenue Well Site Project. The notice of intent was distributed on March 23, 2006, to various agencies, organizations, and individuals including the County of Orange Clerk/Recorder and property owners within 300 feet of the project site and others in the vicinity. The notice was also published in the Tustin News on March 23, 2006, informing all City customers and residents of the greater Tustin area of the availability of the MND. 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 March 23, 2006, through April 25, 2006 (the end of the review period as noted by the Office of Planning and Research). 1-3 Introduction Pasadena Avenue Well Site 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. 2-1 Responses to Comments 513266.1 ~;s.~~ ~"'-':d''> , ~~'\::,~i ~'tr~i ~-",=j..i.l-:}~,'/.;;;l '~- Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit ~-.. (~~.) "i..""~ Sean Walsh' Director Apri126, 2006 /y~c ~/'v 4PR' ~/ "1 28 ..I1.JI'hfl ?f1n '~I1U41i1 . .J ,,''1 !(:,-' (11;::1-... '</1..;", ......~, ""J{f.. Scott Reekstin City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Sl'bject: Paaadena Avenue Well Site SCH#: 2005031127 Dear Scott Reekstin: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state agenciea for review. The review period closed on April 25, 2006, and no state agencies submitted connnents by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse 1 review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Pleaae call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, pleaae refer to the ten-digit State Clearinghouse nwnber when contacting this office. Sincerely, ~~-a:- Director, State gearinghouse 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNlA 96812-3044 TEL (916) 446-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# Project Title Lead Agency 2005031127 Pasadena Avenue Well Site Tustin, City of Type Description Mitigated Negative Declaration MN o The construction of a water well facility, housed In a 1,450 sf structure made of split-face concrete block end 14 feet In height, with a paved service yard and surrounded by landscaped grounds, Lead Agency Contact Name Scott Reekstin Agency City of Tustin Phone (714) 573-3016 emall Address 300 Centennial Way City Tustin Fax State CA ZIp 92780 Project Location County Orange City Tustin Region Cross Streets Parcel No. Township Pasadena Avenue / Second Street 401-543-01,03,10,11 Range Sect/on Base Proximity to: Highways SR 55 Airports Railways Waterways Schools Land Use Vacant z: Multiple Femlly Residential, Public, and Institutional GP: High Density Residential, Public, and Institutional Project Issues Air Quality; Archaeologic-Historic; Geologic/Seismic; Landuse; Noise; Public Services; Toxic/Hazardous; Water Quality; Water Supply; AestheticlVisual Reviewing Resources Agency; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8; Department of Parks and Agencies Recreation; Native American Heritage Commission; Department of Health Services; Office of Historic Preservation; Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; Department of Water Resources; Califomia Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 12; Department of Conservation; Department of Toxic Substances Control; State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights Date Received 03/27/2006 Start of Review 03/27/2006 End of Review 04/25/2006 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. Pasadena A venue Well Site Project Responses to Comments Comment Letter 1 California Governor's Office of Planning and Research April 26, 2006 1. This comment letter acknowledges that the City of Tustin complied with the State Clearinghouse review required pursuant to CEQA. 2-2 Responses to Comments 513266.1 " I ~~ - - . e Department of Toxic Substances Control Dan SkopeC Acting Secretary CallEPA Maureen F. Gorsen, Director 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, Cal~omia 90630 Arnold Schwarzenegger Govemor April 24, 2006 RECEIVED 4PR 2 COI.fMtA 6 2Q06 W/rr OE'I6.ZQ,n IA/ENT Mr. Scott Reekstin City ofTustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 INITIAL STUDY AND NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) FOR THE PASADENA AVENUE WELL SITE PROJECT (SCH#2005031127) Dear Mr. Reekstin: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted document for the above-mentioned project. As stated in your document: "The construction of a water facility, housed in a 1,450 square foot structure made of split- face concrete block and 14 feet in height, with a paved service yard and surrounded by landscaped grounds". Based on the review of the submitted document DTSC has comments as follows: 1 ) The NOP should identify the current or historic uses at the project site that may have resulted in a release of hazardous wastes/substances. 1 2) The NOP should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the government 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 laws, regulations and policies. 2 * Printed on Recycled Paper Mr. Scott Reekstin April 24, 2006 Page 2 3) 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, including Phase I and II investigations should be summarized in the document. All sampling results in which hazardous substances were found should be clearly summarized in a table. 3 4) Proper investigation, sampling and remedial actions overseen by a regulatory agency, if necessary, should be conducted at the site prior to the new development or any construction. All closure, certification or remediation approval reports by these agencies should be included in the NOP. 4 5) If any property adjacent to the project site is contaminated with hazardous 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 Contaminated Property." Appropriate precautions should be taken prior to construction if the proposed project is within a Border Zone Property. 5 6) 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, properly dispose of it rather than placing it in another location. Land Disposal Restrictions may be applicable to these soils. Also. if the project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, proper sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soil is free of contamination. 6 7) 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 government agency should be conducted to determine if there are, have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may pose a risk to human health or the environment. 7 8) 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, Division 20, chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5). 8 Mr. Scott Reekstin April 24, 2006 Page 3 9) If during construction/demolition of the project, the soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area should cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. 9 If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. AI Shami, Project Manager, at (714) 484-5472 or at "ashami@dtsc.ca.gov". Sincerely, N4~ Greg Holmes Unit Chief Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch - Cypress Office cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 Mr. GuentherW. Moskat, Chief Planning and Environmental Analysis Section CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, California 95812-0806 CEQA# 1385 Pasadena Avenue Well Site Project Responses to Comments Comment Letter 2 Department of Toxic Substances Control Greg Holmes, Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch - Cypress Office April 24, 2006 1. The project site is currently vacant. Previous uses included two multiple family dwellings and a place of worship, both of which are not known to have resulted in the release of any hazardous wastes or hazardous substances. Based on a records search conducted by Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR), dated May 31, 2006, and as reported by The EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck, the project site is not identified in any databases for hazardous materials. 2. No hazardous material is known to exist on the project site. Based on a records search conducted by Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR), dated May 31, 2006, and as reported by The EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck, the project site is not identified in any databases for hazardous materials. 3. There are no hazardous substances on the site that require investigation, sampling and/or remediation. See Response Nos. 1 and 2. 4. See Response No.3. 5. Based on information presented in The EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck, the project site is within 2,000 feet of six (6) potentially contaminated sites. Therefore, the proposed project may fall within the "Border Zone of a Contaminated Property." The closest of the identified contaminated sites within 2,000 feet is approximately 1,200 feet from the project site. Furthermore, no impacts from contaminated sites are expected because construction of the water well would require approval by the Orange County Water District and an amendment to the City's Water Supply Permit issued by the California State Department of Health Services. These agencies would ensure that all appropriate precautions are taken prior to construction of the water well. 6. Prior development on the project site included a place of worship and multiple family residences. Based on a review of aerial 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. No backfill soil will be needed for the project. 7. Based on an investigation of the project site, review of applicable records for hazardous materials, and historic use of the site as a place of worship and multiple family residences, there is no evidence that the project site has been subject to improper handling or release of chemicals or other hazardous materials. The IS/MND identifies that the proposed project will include a chlorination system. However, with the mitigation measures incorporated, the potential impacts related to an unlikely chlorine leak would be reduced to a level considered less than significant. 8. The proposed water well project will not generate any hazardous wastes. 9. Based on an investigation of the project site and a 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 2-3 Responses to Comments 513166.1 Pasadena Avenue Well Site Project Responses to Comments health and safety measures would be implemented in compliance with applicable local, state, and federal requirements. 2-4 Responses to Comments 513266.] m:rE..QFCALlFOR"IA BtJSINESS TkA~SPURT^nON A.Nn HOllSING AGEN(",( ARNOLD SCllWARZENEGGER Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 3337 MICHELSON DRIVE SUITE 080 IRVINE, CA 926J2-1699 PHONE (949) 724-2000 @ Scott Reekstin City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA, 92780 RECEIVEf" APR 1 9 zr;a6 COMMJNITY D~V- Fle.t l'our power! Be energy {'Jlicient.' April 14, 2006 IGRJCEQA SCH#200503l127 MND/IS Log# 1539A SR55 Dear Mr. Reekstin: Subject: Pasadena Avenue Well Site Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft Mitigated Negative Decluation (MND) and Initial Study (IS) for the Pasadena Avenue Well Site, Capital Improvement Project No. 6130. The proposed project involves the construction of a water well facility housed in a 1,450 square foot structure fourteen (14) feet in height, with an enclosed paved service yard and surrounded by landscaped grounds. The project site is located at Pasadena A venue and Second Street. in close proximity to SR55 in the City of Tustin. Caltrans District 12 is a responsible agency and has the following comments: I. Due to the proximity to SR55 the Environmental Document should identify any and all potential permanent and temporary impacts to SR55, including but not limited to, visual (lighting, signage. etc.), traffic (access to ramps), grading and storm water runoff. 1 2. Traffic impacts, including mitigation shall require consultation with Caltrans for environmental compliance. 2 3. Any runoff draining into Caltrans Right-of-way from construction operations, or from the resulting project, must fully conform to the current discharge requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water quality Control Board to avoid impacting water quality. Measures must be incorporated to contain all vehicle loads and avoid any tracking of materials, which may fall or blow onto Caltrans roadways or facilities. 3 4. Previous comments from our letter dated April 2 1,2005 still apply. 4 5 "C,,/trnns /mpro.'Cs //lobi/m' ncrQSS CalIfornia" Scott Reekstin April 14, 2006 Page 2 Please continue to keep us infonned of projects that may impact our State Transportation Facilities. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Lynne Gear (949) 724-2241. Sincerely, Attachment: Comment Letter dated April 21, 2005 cc: Terri Pencovic, Headquarters Terry Roberts, OPR Leslie Manderscheid. Environmental Planning ''Cn/lrans ImproVl.'S m(Jhifih' acrt'1JS Californit/" ~ ,.".,...~""""",_..t:!: >M:'!'....~~~..--; .~.~- ~ .. ._...-.......-_...-....~ ....- - .... DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12 3337 Michelson Drive. Suite 380 Irvine, CA 92612-8894 . F'oyolll"~! Be l!n~ eJ]icknt! ApriI21,2005 Mr. Scott Reekstin City ofTustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA. 92780 File: IGR/CEQA SCH#: 2005031127 Log #: 1539 SR #: SR.55 Subject: Pasadena Avenue Well Site Negative Declaration Dear Mr. Reekstin Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Negative Declaration for tbe Pasadena Aveoue Well Site. The proposed project is for the construction ofa water well facility, housed in a 1,450 square foot structure made of split face cement block and 14 feet in height, with a paved service yard. , Caltrans District 12 is a reviewiog agency on this project, and has the following comments for your consideration. [.If any project work (e.g. street widening, emergency access improvements, sewer connections, sound walls, stonndrain construction, street connections, etc.) occurs in the vicinity of the Cal\rans Right of Way, an encroachment permit would be required and environmental concerns must he addressed. Please coordinate with Caltrans for street and transportation improvements on or near the Caltrans Right of Way. 4 2.Any work within the State Right of Way must confonn to Cal\rans Standard Plans and Standard Specifications for Water Pollution Control, including production of a Water Po1\ution Control Program (WPCP) or Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required. The applicant must provide the Permits Branch with a copy of the SWPPP or WPCP, including Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented for construction activities impacting the Caltrans Right of Way, as required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Statewide Storm Water Permit for General Construction Activities. The applicant must follow the requirements as described in the attached Water Pollution Control Provisions (please see attachment). 5 "C411rnns improves mobi/Jty acrtJu Ct1fi/onll(l" '. ',~ <'J , . . Mr. Scott Reekstin April 21, 2005 Page 2 We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Aileen Kennedy at (949) 724-2239. ~~IJ.t imift OS Chief of Ad coo PI District 12 c: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research Terri Pencovic, Caltrans HQ IGRlCornmunity Planning Gale Mcintyre, District 12 Deputy Director of Planning Isaac Alonso Rice, Traffic Operations "Coltrnns jmproW!S mobility across California.' r ~] F-.:' ,: r'. ~; '.i; .' l ATTACHMENT CAL TRANS DISTRICT 12 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROVISIONS Any runoff draining into Caltrans Right of Way must fully conform to the current discharge requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to avoid impacting water quality. Permittee shall fully conform to the requirements of the Caltrans Statewide National Po1\utant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit, Order N o. 99-06-DWQ, NPDES No. CASOOOOOJ", adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) on July 15, I 999, in addition to the BMPs specified in the Caltrans Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP). When applicable, the Permittee will also conform to the requirements of the General NPDES Permit for Construction Activities, Order No. 99-08-DWQ, NPDES No. CASOOoo02, and any subsequent General Permit in effect at the time of issuance of this Encroachment Permit. These permits regulate stonn water and non-stonn water discharges associated with year-round construction activities. Please note that project activities should pay extra attention to storm water pollution control during the "Rainy Season" (October 1st - May 1st) and follow the Water Pollution Control BMPs to minimize impact to receiving waters. Measuxes must he incorporated to contain all vehicle loads and avoid any tracking of materials, which may fall or blow onto Caltrans Right of Way. ~ For all projects resulting in 0.4 hectares (I acre) or more of soil disturbance or otherwise subject to the NPDES program, the Contractor will develop, implement, and maintain a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) conforming to the requirements of the Caltrans Specification Section 7-I.OIG "Water Pollution Control", the Department's Statewide NPDES Permit. the General NPDES Permit for Construction Activities, and the Storm Water Quality Handbooks "Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Pollution Control Program (WPCP) Preparation Manual", and "Construction Site Best Management Practices (BMPs) Manual" effective November 2000, and subsequent revisions. In addition, the SWPPP must conform to the requirements of the SWRCB Resolution No. 2001-046, the Sampling and Analytical Procedures (SAP) Plan. .For all projects resulting in less than 0.4 hectares (I acre) of soil disturbance or not otherwise subject to the requirements of the NPDES program, the Contractor shall develop, implement, and maintain a Water Pollution Control Program (WPCP) conforming to the requirements of the Department's Specifications Section 7-1-.01G (Water Pollution Control), and the Storm Water Quality Handbooks: "Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Pollution Control Program (WPCP) Preparation Manual" and "Construction Site Best Management Practices (BMPs) Manual" effective March 2003. and subsequent revisions. . Copies of the Permits and the Construction Contractor's Guide and Specifications of the Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbook may be obtained from the Department of Transportation, Material Operations Branch, Publication Distribution Unit, 1900 Royal Oaks Drive, Sacramento, California 95815, Telephone: (916) 445-3520. Copies of the Permits and Handbook are also available for review at Caltrans District 12,3347 Michelson Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92612, Telephone: (949) 724-2260. Electronic copies can be found at httD://www.dot.ca.lI:ov/ha/construclstormwater.html n_..;__ ,''' '....'n.. Pasadena Avenue Well Site Project Responses to Comments Comment Letter 3 Department of Transportation Robert F. Joseph, Chief of IGR/Community Planning Branch, District 12 April 14, 2006 1. Although the proposed project is adjacent to State Route 55, no potential permanent or temporary impacts to SR 55 have been identified. Temporary construction lighting shall be directed downward on the project site to prevent any spill or glare on SR 55 and all storm water runoff will be directed toward Pasadena Avenue. No impacts to SR 55 related to traffic or grading are anticipated. 2. As stated on page 16 of the IS/MND, the proposed construction and operation of the water well facility will not significantly affect traffic in the project area. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated, and no mitigation measures related to transportation/traffic have been proposed. 3. Significant runoff water from the project site (during construction or from the resulting project) is not anticipated. Any storm water runoff from the project site will be directed toward Pasadena Avenue. The City will comply with all requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board/Santa Ana - Region 8. *4. The City of Tustin will obtain any required encroachment permits from the Department of Transportation. However, the need to obtain an encroachment permit is not anticipated. *5. No work for the proposed project will occur within, nor impact, the State (Caltrans) Right- of-Way. * This is a response to a comment provided in a letter from the Department of Transportation, dated April 21,2005. 2-5 Responses to Comments 513266.1 ~ I ~-J .:. ~c!' ' ~ ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY P.D. Box 57115, Irvine, CA 92619-7115.1 Fire Authority Rd., Irvine, CA 92602 Chip Prather, Fire Chief www.ocfa.org (714) 573-6199 April 17, 2006 RECEIVED APR 1 7 7005 C0~MUNITY DEVELOPMEi~ I City ofTustin Scott Reekstin 300 Centennial Wy Tustin, CA 92780 SUBJECT: Pasadena Well Site MND Dear Mr. Reekstin: Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject document. Given the nature of the project, the impacts to the OCF A are insignificant. Please note that a CalARP report must be submitted to OCF A prior to chlorine use, and an approved CaJARP risk management plan must be 1 implemented prior to chlorine on-site. While no additional public safety resources are needed as 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. Serving the Cities of: AJiso Viejo. Buena Park . Cypress. Dana Point. Irvine. Laguna Hills. Laguna Niguel . Laguna Woods . Lake: Forest. La Palma. Los Alamitos . Mission Viejo. Placentia. Rancho Santa Margarita. San Clemente. San Juan Capistrano. Seal Beach. Stanton. Tustin. Villa Park. Westminster. Yorba Linda. and Unincorporated Areas of Orange County RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS AND SMOKE DETECTORS SAVE LIVES Pasadena Avenue Well Site Project Responses to Comments Comment Letter 4 Orange County Fire Authority Michele Hernandez, Strategic Services April 17, 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. As stated on Page 10 of the IS/MND, the Tustin Public Works Department/Water Services Division shall obtain approval from the OCFA prior to the start up of the chlorination facility and shall prepare a Risk Management Plan that shall be submitted to OCFA for review and approval. 2-6 Responses to Comments 513266.] April 20, 2006 r.(ECEIVED APR 2 4 2~~'j COMMUNITY DEVtLOfMENT BY Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Community Development Dept. 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Re: Pasadena Ave. Well Site Response to Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration Dear Ms. Binsack, This is our response to the above Draft dated March 21, 2006 and the stated Evaluation of Environmental Impacts. I have noted the corresponding issues in the study. I. Aesthetics: a. ) We disagree. This will have an adverse effect on a scenic vista. We currently have a small view of the San Bernardino Mountains from inside our home. We enjoy the openness on thai side our property. The well site would close in our property on that side. It would also create a 1 security issue for the neighborhood, since our street is secluded. We can see homes on the north side of our street from our home. c.) We disagree. It will degrade the existing characteristics of our neighborhood. Our neighborhood consists of 1950' s homes with a historic home. Our street is a one-way-in with a double cul-de-sac. The well site would detract from the beauty of that property as it would be the 2 first thing one would see upon driving onto our street. All other wells in the city of Tustin are located in commercial areas, parks, and busy streets. Home values would also be severely affected. IV. Biologieal Resources: e.) We disagree. It is proposed that a large ficus tree would be removed. This is in violation of the city's program to try and preserve its large trees. Removing trees affects our air quality, especially near a freeway like we are. 3 V. Cultural Resources: a.) We disagree. There would be a significant change in the historical resource of our neighborhood. Our neighborhood was in existence before the 55 freeway or the 5 freeways were built It went through a tremendous change during the building of the 5 and 55 freeways. During the recent widening of the 55 freeway we endured the mess, the noise and sleep deprivation. Then 4 our neighborhood was hit with street improvements! And. we went through all that again! It's important to preserve our architectura1 heritage through preserving our neighborhoods and their aesthetic qualities. 4 Furthennore, the pump house will be 1400 square feet which is almost as large as our house at 1500 square feet. It would also be concrete block, which is the typical public utility type building. Vll. Hazards aDd HazardoDs Materials: a.) We disagree. There will be two 1501b. cylinders of chlorine within 40 feet of our home. They will have to be transported by truck through our neighborhood. It is known that exposure to 5 chlorine can cause certain types of cancers. If a small bottle of Clorox comes with aU kinds of warnings then we should be notified of what hazards 150 pound tanks contain. c.) We disagree. There are three elemeutary scbools within a one mile radius of our location. There is St. Jean Lestonnac approximately .40 miles, Heideman Elementary, about I mile, and 6 Estock Elementary about .60 miles. We have children walking home from school through our neighborhood everyday. g.) We disagree. Our street bas only one-way-in and one-way-out by vehicle. We need to have emergency access at all times. We have several elderly neighbors that need medical services 7 delivered periodically. VIII. Hydrology aud Water Quality: b.) We disagree. 2005 was an lDlusually wet year. Our normal rainfall is 12-14 inches per year. During 2005, we bad near 30 inches. Out wet years are usually followed by drought years. The 8 pumping rate is estimated to be 1500-2000 gallons per minute. It calculates out to 2,880,000 gallons per day. d.) We disagree. We found out that there was a problem with some of the homes near I tt' and 9 Holt with a drain pipe leak. It created slab problems for some of them. IX. Laud Use aDd PlaJlJliug- a.) We disagree. Placing the well on the proposed site would prevent us from viewing the rest of the neighborhood. We are a secluded area. Thus in turn, it would create a security issue for the 1 0 neighborhood. b.) We disagree. It would impact our neighborhoods historical character. It would be the first thing that one wonld see driving onto our street. What one seeS in a neighborhood effects property 11 values. For example, graffiti causes values to decrease. XI. Noiae: b.) We disagree. The proposed pump house is located twenty feet from our bedrooms. 12 XII. Population and Housing- a.) We disagree. The lots are zoned Multiple Family Residential and Public Institutional. The 13 largest of the lots doesn't meet the minimum requirements in the city for a house. Then, the zoning is incorrect for the proposed use. If the estimated pumping volume is 15()()..2000 gallons per minute, then it is estimated that the volume wiIl be 2,880,000 gallons per day. There are only twelve homes on our street, 600 homes in Old Town Tustin, and Tustin Legacy win have Irvine Ranch Water. Then, obviously, there is an alternative plan for this high volume of water flow. There is a multi-story 14 medical/condominium complex proposed for First Street and Tustin Ave. It is located only a quarter mile away from our neighborhood. If that's where that water is going, then the wen site should be put there. XV. Transportationlfrafflc- a. ) We disagree. Our street's traffic flow is very light. We would have more service trucks in the area creating more traffic. With one way in and out, this can be an issue. 15 XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance. c.) We disagree. The project wiIl have significant effects on human beings. The aesthetics of the neighborhood will be severely affected. The charm of OlD" neighborhood win be lost. The values 16 of homes will drop. We'll have an ugly view outside our home. And above all, safety will be compromised. We hope the city win reconsider the site and place it where it is more appropriate. Sincerely, ..:J~ ^- ~"? Tina Blenz 270 S. Pasadena Ave. Tustin,CA 92780 Pasadena A venue Well Site Project Responses to Comments Comment Letter 5 Tina Blenz April 20, 2006 1. As stated on Page 3 of the IS/MND, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista. Although the proposed project may obstruct private views from the adjacent residence, impacts to private views are not considered significant environmental impacts; only impacts to publiC views, such as scenic vistas, are considered significant. Furthermore, the private view obstruction would be no greater than a view obstruction caused by an adjacent residence. In fact, the proposed building will be setback 20 feet from the southern property line, which exceeds the required 5 foot side yard setback for Single Family (R-1) residential properties by 15 feet. Although concerns about security are generally considered social, as opposed to environmental, issues and are not required to be addressed under CEQA, the City of Tustin recognizes that the safety of its residents is important. Therefore, in addition to the periodic patrols of the Tustin Police Department, the City of Tustin Water Services staff will regularly monitor and visit the site on a daily basis. 2. As stated on Page 3 of the IS/MND, the relative size and limited mass of the proposed structure, combined with the landscaping, will minimize aesthetic impacts to the neighborhood. The City will install 21 new trees, approximately 150 5-gallon shrubs and groundcover to complement the residential character of the neighborhood. Similar to security issues, CEQA generally does not require an evaluation of economic impacts unless such impacts create a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. In this case, there is no evidence that (1) the proposed project, in fact, would affect home values in the neighborhood; or (2) that any potential effect on home values would lead to some potentially significant physical impact on the environment. In addition, the City has historically constructed and operated water wells in or near residential areas and there is no evidence that the property values in these neighborhoods have actually declined since the wells were constructed. The fOllowing water wells are currently located in residential neighborhoods: Beneta Well Columbus Tustin Well Prospect Well Yorba Well 17'" Street Desalter = Wells #2 and #4 Walnut Well 18001 Beneta Way 14632 Prospect Avenue 14610 Prospect Avenue 13161 Yorba Street 18602 E. 17'" Street 1500 Walnut Avenue 3. As noted on Page 7 of the IS/MND, the proposed project does not conflict with any local policies or ordinances for tree preservation. Although the removal of one tree is proposed, 21 new trees will be planted at the site and two existing trees on the property and the existing street trees will remain in place. 4. As indicated on Page 7 of the IS/MND, the proposed project is located within the City's Cultural Resources Overlay District and is within 300 feet of three historic buildings listed in the City's Historical Survey, but would not cause a "substantial adverse change in the significance" of any of these buildings. CEQA defines "substantial adverse change in the 2-7 Responses to Comments 513266.1 Pasadena Avenue Well Site Project Responses to Comments significance of an historical resource as the "demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the resource would be materially impaired." (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (b)(1)). There is no evidence and none has been presented that the construction and operation of a water well in this neighborhood would have a significant impact on any nearby historical structures. Moreover, the project has been designed to soften its appearance in this neighborhood. The project incorporates split-face block in two colors and scored blocks for architectural accent and extensive landscaping to heavily screen the structures. The size, including height and massing, of the structure is compatible with the residential neighborhood. 5. As noted on page 10 of the IS/MND, the proposed chlorination equipment is unlikely to result in the creation of any health hazards or expose people to hazardous materials. Any potential leaks would be contained in the air tight building with a scrubber that would act as a chlorine neutralizer. Moreover, the Initial Study has identified a number of mitigation measures that are designed to reduce potential impacts relating to the use and storage of chlorine on site to a level of insignificance. A maximum of two 150 Ibs. chlorine cylinders will be transported at anyone time in one-ton utility bed trucks that feature lift gates, specially constructed tie-down brackets, and safety placards on all four sides. The drivers of the trucks are required to have drivers licenses with hazardous materials endorsements. The chlorine cylinders are seamless steel containers designed according to Department of Transportation Specification 3A480 or 3AA480. Furthermore, the valve is enclosed in a steel cap such that the cylinder will not leak if tipped over. 6. No hazardous materials will be handled within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, which is the threshold distance in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist used by the City of Tustin and as recommended by the State of California Office of Planning and Research. 7. It is acknowledged that vehicular access to the neighborhood is limited. However, the proposed project will not impair nor interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. 8. As noted on Page 11 of the IS/MND, the capacity of the groundwater basin beneath the City of Tustin's water service area is more than sufficient to sustain the pumping levels contemplated by this project. This fact is based on current information about the condition of the Lower Santa Ana Groundwater Basin (Basin) provided by the Orange County Water District (OCWD), and implementation of key Basin resource management programs by OCWD over the next 20 years. 9. The City is not aware of the problem described. The proposed project shall comply with all applicable building codes and is not expected to cause any structural problems at adjacent properties. 10 See Response No.1. 11. See Response Nos. 1 and 2. 12. During construction, all potential noise impacts will be mitigated. As stated on Page 14 of the IS/MND, the operation of the proposed well may generate a negligible amount of audible noise that would be below the City's ambient adjusted noise standards. 2-8 Responses to Comments 51]266.1 Pasadena A venue Well Site Project Responses to Comments 13. The proposed public utility project is a permitted use in the City's Multiple Family Residential and Public/Institutional Zoning Districts. 14. The proposed water well will supplement the City's overall water supply for existing customers in the Tustin Water Service Area and will replace older wells that will be taken out of service. 15. As stated on Page 16 of the IS/MND, there may be a total of 1-2 trips per day to and from the site, which would have a minimal impact on traffic in the area. 16. See Response Nos. 1 and 2. 2-9 Responses to Comments 513266.1 JOHN C. WASHINGTON, JR. 13812 Hewes Avenue Santa Ana, California 92705 April 21. 2006 To Whom It May Concern. My real estate career began in Tustin in 1973. 1 am familiar with property values in residential neighborhoods. A commercial structure on a residential block will reduce tbe value of the homes. This is a fact. Even a building disguised as a home. such as a well house. will devalue surrounding properties. For many years, as a hobby and part time work, I did down hole photography and video taping for my father-in-law's company. The scores of water wells that I examined for McCalla Brothers Pump and Water Well Drilling gives me first hand knowledge of projects like the one the city of Tustin is proposing. The noise, the incredible mess and inconvenience that drilling a water well entails is a total hardship upon neighbors for several blocks around the project. It is devastating to the nearby homes and their occupants. I, along with the neighbors of this project, strongly suggest that a new location be found immediately. This proposed project and site is not conducive to this or any residential neighborhood. Iffor some reason the city decides to proceed with drilling a water well in this unacceptable location then the city will need to make arrangements to temporarily relocate the surrounding neighbors to residences similar to their current living quarters. As you know, this is not an uncommon practice and must be addressed and executed. s~ John Washington 1 2 3 4 5 Pasadena Avenue Well Site Project Responses to Comments Comment Letter 6 John C. Washington, Jr. April 24, 2006 1. See Response 14 to Comment Letter NO.7. 2. The comment regarding the background of the commenter is acknowledged. 3. See Responses 15,16,25, and 25 to Comment Letter NO.7. 4. A large portion of the City of Tustin Water Services Area is located within an identified nitrate plume area that is the result of past agricultural activities in the area. The project site is located outside of the nitrate plume area and is anticipated to have a good production rate. These two characteristics make the site suitable for a new water well. Furthermore, there are a limited number of undeveloped sites remaining in the City's Water Service Area on which a well could be developed. Many water wells have been built in residential areas. In fact, the following Tustin water wells are located in or near residential areas: Beneta Well Columbus Tustin Well Prospect Well Yorba Well 17'" Street Desalter = Wells #2 and #4 Walnut Well 18001 Beneta Way 14632 Prospect Avenue 14610 Prospect Avenue 13161 Yorba Street 18602 E. 17'" Street 1500 Walnut Avenue 5. See Response 16 to Comment Letter NO.7. 2-10 Responses to Comments 513266.1 Jim and Kelly Poissant 265 Pasadena Ave. Tustin, CA 92780 April 24, 2006 Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY RE: Pasadena Avenue Proposed Well Site 170 Pasadena Ave., Tustin, CA Negative Declaration dated April 24, 2006 Dear Ms. Binsack: We object to the above-referenced Negative Declaration (the "ND') on the following grounds: 1. The proposed site has size irregularities and limitations thai only allow the well to be built in a specific appropriate area, which is right next to the owner- occupied residence at 270 Pasadena Ave. This area is approximately one third to one half the size of the entire lot All 100% of this specific area will be used for the water well treatment facility. The metal gates for the maintenance vehicles to have access to the proposed water well treatment facility will faCe the residences to the east on Pasadena Ave. Metal gates for access are not complimentary to the surrounding historic neighborhood and will stand out and be a permanent detriment. They will also label this site as industrial in use thus furthering the incompatibility to the culturally historic single-family neighborhood surroundings. The freeway wall now stands a significant distance from residences to the east and south. The split-face cement block and scored split face blocks to be used for the building construction will have the effect of bringing the freeway wall right to the sidewalk and will be directly adjacent to the property line of the residence at 270 Pasadena Ave, obscuring their current view of the mountains and replacing it with one of a 1450 sq. fl. water well treatment facility. . This site prior to the City of Tustin putting in new sewer lines was a greenbelt with trees. After the construction the city did not restore the site to its previous condition. So to say that the proposed building and new landscaping will soften the appearance of the existing freeway wall is disingenuous. If the City had restored the site to its condition prior to the construction of the new sewer lines etc. the citizens view would be one of a green belt with trees. Far more aesthetically pleasing than a 1450 sq. ft. 1 2 3 4 cement block water well treatment facility with metal gates. Furthermore this proposed structure is in no manner, shape or form complimentary to the historic single-family neighborhood in which it would be constructed. The permanent security lighting will be on all night long thus creating a new source of substantial light and glare and be incompatible with the current lighting which is old-fashioned replica gaslights that the City of Tustin put in throughout the Old Town commercial area and the Cultural Resources Overlay District neighborhood in which Pasadena Ave is located to specifically enhance this historic area and identify it by such with the replica lighting. Therefore the proposed construction of the water well treatment facility will result in a direct change in the environment, will have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, will permanently degrade the existing visual character and surroundings and will directly affect day and nighttime views in the area and therefore will be a permanent detriment. After all how scenic can a water well treatment facility be? 4 5 6 2. A single family home cannot be built on this site. The site does not meet the City's zoning and building requirements. 3. No matter how many trees, 5gallon shrubs (which will take a long time to mature) and ground cover the city uses to mitigate the structure, the structure will be still identifiable as a water treatment facility, incompatible with the surrounding historic single-family neighborhood. 4. The proposed project will involve changes in the existing environment. From a lot with a trees and soft gas lighting to one housing 1450 sq. ft. cement block water treatment facility with security lighting. 7 8 9 5. We request ongoing independent environmental reliable air monitoring system if this project is.still approved. With all the heavy equipment that will be involved we expect constant monitoring to ensure our safety and health during preparations, construction and after. Exposure to dust, mud and other particles etc will be continuous and cumulative. 6. This is a single loaded double cui-de sac street; there is only one way in and one way out. Thai one street, 2nd street will be overwhelmed with all the heavy construction equipment coming and going depriving the citizens of normal ingress and egress and parking. This project is not small in scale. It will be a continuous construction site for over 16 months, constantly disrupting the resident's quality of life, safety and possibly endangering their lives during construction and after. Will the lead agency pay for a medivac helicopter in the event of an emergency? 7. This facility will incorporate the use of the highly volatile chemical chlorine that is so hazardous as to warrant an Emergency Response/Evacuation Plan and a Risk Management plan. But this same facility is somehow compatible and safe enough to be constructed within a historic residential neighborhood with 10 11 12 hundreds of citizens? Within 20 ft of 3 citizens whose residence at 270 Pasadena Ave. will be directly adjacent, including an eleven year old girl? No matter how the well is designed to prevent and/or to mitigate leakage, this proposed well will still have a potentially significant impact on the environmental quality of the neighborhood with regard to noise, air quality (before, during and after construction) and hazardous materials contamination with the potentially lethal consequences in the event of leakage. I 12 *Thus the construction of the proposed well and other improvements contemplated by the NO will have a significant impact on the environmental quality of the area. Due to the drilling of the well, construction of the well and the chlorination system that will be used once the well is operating that will subject residents to possible degradation of air quality and contamination. As CEQA states: 15064 (d) (1) a direct physical change in the environment, which is caused by and immediately, related to the project. Examples of direct changes to the environment are dust, noise and traffic of heavy equipment that would result from construction of a sewage treatment plant (in this specific case a water well treatment facility) and possible odors from operation of the plant (chlorine). 8. The project would materially impair nearby buildings, as the size, shape and industrial use are incompatible with the immediate surroundings of the historic single-family residential neighborhood in which it would be located. Clearly the property values of the directly adjacent property and the other properties on Pasadena Ave will be negatively affected. And as CEQA further states 15064(e) '. If the physical change causes adverse economic or social effects on people, those adverse effects may be used as a factor in determining whether the physical change is significant... Further, NO IX (a) Pasadena Ave will become separated from the rest of the historic district due to the compromising nature of the water treatment facility and negative affects on property values. This facility will cause a permanent negative transition in the character of this historic neighborhood. 9, The construction and operation of the Pasadena water well treatment facility will cause noise that will exceed the Tustin noise ordinance. Mitigation measures based on the Noise Assessment for the Pasadena Avenue Water Well dated January 11, 2006 by Maestre Greve Associates are not compatible with the Pasadena water well treatment facility because the drilling sites tested by Maestre Greve Associates are not the same in depth, scope, size or intended purpose or location as the Pasadena water well treatment facility. The first one cited, Huntington Beach east well #1-33, is located in between the playing fields of the Pegusus School and Arevalos Park. Not a residential neighborhood let alone a historic one. The second one cited, Huntington Beach East well #1-35 is located within a nursery. Not a residential neighborhood nor a historic neighborhood. Even though the extrapolations are to be considered, the true excessive noise levels of the Pasadena water well treatment facility site preparations, construction and 13 14 15 operations cannot therefore be truly determined by Maestre Greve Associates. The comparison to the well structure at 17575 Vandenberg Lane is also false. The Vandenberg well is also located in a commercial parking lot not in a historic residential neighborhood. The Pasadena water well will be 6 times greater in size and scope and will also be a water treatment facility. *Therefore further studies must be completed to truly ascertain the noise impact of the preparation, construction and operations of the Pasadena water well treatment facility of this size, scope and purpose located in a residential neighborhood and directly adjacent to a single family home. Specifically regarding Test Pumping, Maestre Greve Associates, 4.1.2 Test Pumping pg 26 '..the constant-rate discharge test could exceed the noise ordinance and therefore the impacted residents of 235,255,265,270 and 310 Pasadena Ave should have the option of temporarily relocating to hotels. Maestre Greve Associates especially noted the residence at 310 Pasadena as more vulnerable during all phases of construction and thereafter operations since all the bedrooms reside on the second story. How the ND suggests that uprooting and relocating residents to hotels is not significant flies in the face of common sense. Especially when there are physically impaired elderly who cannot make the move and the residents who would not under normal circumstances stay in a local hotel were it not for their quality of life being adversely impacted by the construction and installation of a water well treatment facility. Family pets would have to be housed with their owners, narrowing the possibilities of hotels to relocate the impacted residents. Reasonably priced local hotels will be not be up to the standards to which the residents and their pets are accustomed to. Everyday work and after school schedules would be disrupted. Specific dietary needs related to health problems would be more difficult to maintain directly causing adverse and possibly serious health complications. Is the lead agency willing to pay for the food including specific dietary needs, transportation if needed, telephone, cable TV, and computer access for those most impacted residents at a local hotel? What geographic area is the lead agency referring to for the hotel? The mitigation measures are not sufficient and the project will cause the most significant environmental effects directly on the human beings who reside within the aforementioned residences. 15 16 Routine maintenance also requires a pump rig with a 20flmast to remove and treat the well, 1 to 3 times a year and last 2-3 weeks. Will there be sound attenuation walls and other mitigation measures such as noise, particle, and dust monitoring exercised in order to protect the health, safety and well being of the residents, as there will be during preparation and construction? This form of maintenance will also adversely affect the residenfs quality of life. 17 Additionally the 20ft mast visible for 2-3 weeks at a time will be overtly evident to the residents and general public. Thus the water well treatment facility will not blend in but will instead again remind everyone of the facilities obvious incompatibility with the surrounding historic single-family homes. . Maestre Greve Associates performed a previous Noise ASsessment for the Pasadena Avenue Water Well but that first one was rejected by the Planning Department. Why? . The Tustin Water Department by law has to have two alternate locations in the event this location is rejected. Where are they located? 17 18 19 10. This facility must be secured. That is why an Emergency Response/Evacuation Plan and a Risk Management Plan are necessary. Fire and police will be forced to give this facility high priority during construction and after installation any time the alarm goes off indicating a problem. This will have an impact on their response time to other situations in the surrounding streets. In the event of the alarm activating, the residents on Pasadena Ave will be subjected to sirens, fire trucks, police cars and possible evacuation at all hours of the day and night which will adversely affect their health, welfare and quality of life. Not to mention the constant fear of a chlorine leak and subsequent contamination. This is unacceptable and should not be expected to be tolerated by the residents of Pasadena Ave and the residents who live along the route emergency vehicles will take to reach the water well treatment facility when the alarm goes off, in turn adversely affecting their health, welfare and quality of life. 11. The preparation and construction of this facility will cause a substantial increase in vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on residential streets and new congestion in the residential historic areas with Myrtle essentially being off limits due to the heavy equipment thus diverting traffic onto their streets. Have the residents who reside on the streets of Main, Myrtle, First, Pacific and Second been notified about the water well treatment facility and how it will adversely affect them in regards to this16 month change? 12. Has St. Mary De Lestonnac School, 16791 Main SI. Tustin, Ca 92780 been notified? Has SI. Cecilia School, 1311 Sycamore Tustin, Ca 92780 been notified? 20 21 I 22 13.The facility, once completed, with the necessary 24-hour pumping, will generate audible noise in the neighborhood (see Page 12 of the Initial Study attached to the ND [the 'IS"]). Though the plan is for the noise not to exceed the allowable decibel levels in the Tustin Noise Ordinance, there is no guarantee. Additionally, the noise would be constant and therefore could have a potentially significant impact on the environmental quality of the neighborhood even if the constant noise is not at the levels prohibited by the noise ordinance (violations of which are typically not constant but rather one- time events). There is other equipment that would be at the facility that will 23 _..._ ..."" _ ~_,.,., _.___..._ H~_._""___"'_" "~__'_' _ ".____._ .___._"._~.._ emit noise as well, such as the sand separator and electrical transformer. And the 2-3 wks a year that the well will be removes and treated. This project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings directly and indirectly for all the above reasons. 23 14. Will the lead agency accept responsibility for any harm done to the interior or exterior of the residences on Pasadena Ave due to the vibratory impacts, possible water leaks and soil erosion during preparation, construction and operations? These houses are all on raised foundations and are more vulnerable to construction related damage. One of the homes closest to the 17th Sl. water well located at 14001 Windsor suffered serious damage during preparation and construction. Also from the home directly behind the well located at 14002 Stratton, you can hear the constant hum of the facility 24f7/365. The noise of the generator when activated is loud and invasive. Land erosion, sink holes and cracks in their foundation were a direct result of a cracked discharge pipe during operations. 15. Will the lead agency accept responsibility for the damage of dust, dirt, mud particles etc. to the residences, vehicles and plants during preparation, construction and operations of the water treatment facility? And thereafter if there is a leak that contaminates the neighborhood rendering it unfit for human inhabitation? 16. Will the lead agency accept responsibility for the health, safety and welfare of adults, children and pets that reside on Pasadena Ave that the preparation, construction and operations of the facility could have an adverse affect upon? Including but not limited to: heart, respiratory, circulation, asthma, allergies, and cancer? That responsibility would include repairs, reparations and all costs associated with any harm or injury to persons, pets or property during the preparations, construction and operations of the facility. And if the lead agency declines to accept responsibility to whom do the residents have redress? 24 25 26 17. The site is within a Cultural Resources Overlay District in the City of Tustin pursuant to Tustin City Ordinance 9252. This means that the city council identified this neighborhood as having significant cultural value to the community. When the ND states the contemplated facility will have no impact on historical resources that makes a mockery of the city council's choice to designate the neighborhood as a Cultural Resources Overlay District rather than simply designating the "historic-looking houses" in the neighborhood as cultural resources individually. The city council clearly thought of the entire neighborhood as a historically and culturally valuable resource when it placed this neighborhood within the framework of Ordinance 9252. Therefore, the assertion that placing a modem block water well treatment facility in Pasadena Avenue will have not have a significant impact on historical or cultural resources is erroneous. 27 18. Additionally, allowing the City of Tustin to build the contemplated facility without applying for and receiving a Certificate of Appropriateness is prohibited by and directly in conflict with Tustin City Ordinance 9252. The ordinance requires a Certificate of Appropriateness for any proposed new construction in the Cultural Resources Overlay District requiring a building permit. The City is not exempt from applying for the Certificate of Appropriateness and obtaining the same before proceeding with the project. Therefore, the assertion at IX(b) of the NO is false. 28 Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the Negative Declaration should not be adopted and the lead agency should require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. 29 19. Additionally, the project should not even be at this stage. Because the site is within a Cultural Resources Overlay District (see pages 1 and 7 of the IS), the City of Tustin is required to apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness before proceeding to CEOA The City has not complied with the framework of Ordinance 9252 and is not exempt therefrom. The City is required to obtain the Certificate of Appropriateness prior to its complying with CEOA. If the City does not comply with Ordinance 9252, we will pursue all available legal remedies. Please also be advised that we are in the process of retaining legal counsel and request an extension of the public comment period. 30 Before we purchased our home at 265 Pasadena Ave. 5 yrs. ago we picked up from City Hall and read "A Guide for Old Town Residential Property Owners 2001" see attached. in which was listed specifically to "preserve the small town atmosphere and cultural resources of Old Town. To enhance, protect and preserve the district. The advantages of owning property in a locally recognized historic district that is protected from incompatible development and other changes." These advantages included: 1. Neighborhood continuity 2. Community pride 3. Preservation of resources for future generations 4. Unique atmosphere and ambience 5. Increased property values 6. Official recognition and status 7. Access to historic resources, including churches, businesses & residences 31 Naturally we actively sought to live here in a city that is obviously so committed to preserve the quality of lite of its residents that this same city (City of Tustin) would enumerate that commitment into a brochure to be widely distributed to all. Therefore for all of the above reasons including those stated by the City's own above mentioned brochure a water well treatment facility should not be built on Pasadena Ave. 32 Please contact us with any questions. ~ '.:~ ' Kelly Poissant ~ &-Pc~ 4\u~ lj/CH/u0 '" ;; Co Q .~ f'"~ .. Q'< Q Q o~....,,....'"'t~Q~ O_.....__~NM .,~r:' ";", r-;. ro;. '":' f? ..... ....,r"'. .....~,,.... M '" ro_ r. t. r~ ,.. ,..., ..... r. ~,?V]V;'''7'''.'1~'? ...,..........................t-... t:~;::r::~~r::~ :: , ;; i : ~ , Ii. . i i.~ i~:i :~Q d.5.r ." :;'" g.i~ ......'" 'Q.5.: c-- U~~ " :; E ~ ~ ~ ~~5" .: e Q. 5' "'''CU .5 ~ u "" :!< Jl .~ .il .- 15- r:;; :sulJS c t:I c: c: ..::, '= ',C '':; ~~~~ 0. .. ::is ~ 'Q C ~ ;; '5 ~. ~ ...- 15 ., . ~ ,. 0 ~ ~ e ~ .E Ll ... " y... .. .~ :l ... 0-- W) '" .. .. c:::C - ..... f' .. -1: : .. - ;. (jO ~. ... .... ~ .. .. -;. ~ ;;- ... .. N ... - '" " '" N ,.. .... ". ,.., .... N ~ ~ '^ ;!!! ~ '^ "1 "\' M .;. ~ ,... ~ N ,." '" .. ~, .. ~ '" .... ~ ." V;, .., ":' "'i <'; r;> r;> "I .. .. .. '" ~ '" ~ :::: ,.. ,.. ,.. i '^ 1 .. 1 ! ,., .a " 1i e ~ " 'u ... " ~ " ~ . ;;, >- !! .~ '" . :il u 0 e ~ <J. ] '" .. 5 .~ 5 .; c '" ;; ~ 0 u y U .~ " ." g ] X " 3 X .5 y 0 > '" w i :: a .~ ..!! ~ € ~ ~ e .!j e 0 E " 11 g 0 .. X :: e .S! ~.- " u s~ .~ .S .. ,..;; Ci " . U 's 'au <J: ::. 0" e " c ul ~ .;l ~ !i n ." '; "i c ~ .- ,t ;I " .. 8 ~ " " (; l .... .... II I I .... ;>- " .l5 .:; .~ ~ I IrI. ;u~ De ro'!~ 1-0 "0: -.,. In ~ ----, ~ . ... .... t:E i e ",,,, ~$ .. j!i: ~ ~g /l<:i: :I::e! ~&~ J ~ = a !5~ E-":' -= .;::. a i- ~2g -"':."" .. ...... "; 0':: "'~ <:51 ." .. c::: ~ ~ ;:; " t: << C5~ t~ ." . OJ " ..cj =8 ~'= ,,- ti3~ ~ ~ ~ ~.J - .::: "::;'i::- c; ~ ~ "" ~ " ~:a ::. ... Co o ~.~ :o-~ 't: - - ;:::;c. ~ .~ ;:: !l ~ " "'d %'0 ,,- e-- e~ ~ v .r. C .... ~ -~ ~ ~ "'- 'S: .... }J'::; ..... ~ - g -5 'f ;: e,~"-;:-~ ~ .~ ~ .... C ~ ~ ~ 'a :::. ':= ~?,...;!",.; - ,,=-:: ~ \; ~ '!o ~j -r....;.s: 'P '" .." ~: ~ ~ - ~ ~ e '-:- - C v:. .~ - - " g. " -- v .- 'e " u - ~ p - .~ :.; ~:-:: <:;' " ~,;. ~8 :..e~ -~ .~ ... ':.t~ '1'. :::. ~ fj ',E ~ ? S-; ~ .J II - - g !~..- ~ ~ ~~..-t ... ~ ;:!: fi~-a- ".0 "" V ~_ n lJ~% ~ ; " ;. J;: " ;.; .e j-.... :, ? ~.~ i ~.;: .~ " ;! =~""== .... "'= ?l == :::. t,:.~ :C - " ~~ ~;;, ~ c.;~ - ~ .,.,. -::: ! ;: \l"" ;:: -.... ~ ';:-:: '1.'~ ; ":;~~ ':,.l a 'S";;~ :c~::f -:; ~.~ ~ .;:: ? .~~::: ~ ~::;~a~ ...:;:..... 0;..0 ~. ~ ~-~ - .- ~---= ... r:; :; ~ 'J'. ~... -J',. ~_ -.i.1 % ~ ~:~--.~ ~", :... ; 2 ~ '.. -. 6 .~ ~U .= ;t 1-:: .... ~ ,... ~ .0 ~~ ~~ :;--c '::j ~ ~ ~ c ... <- ~--::: .". ... a.~ ~~ " '. " ~ .;. n -x- wi a g~ ~.t: ~ c.. "'% e -Q:" -:j c.. ::::..-: .:: ... \ ;-.- ::-:: ~ ~~~~ ~ '~.;:: ~ ;.~)!. :::"G e "\" c ~ ..... "'"' . - ". :>._'~"" :c v ~ :J t:i 100..9. -"0 ~ t-'~ ::;. 1l~ " :: .,. G ~ - .- " ;:g c .... ~ .~:;: C i .~ ~~ ...J~~ - . -5C ..0 1: ~ :..:: .. .S './l i;. ~ e Ej ~] ~_ .r..::..~ .r, :.i ? '.1: ~ ~ ...... ..t. ~ 1%;%- _ ~ i-1~-f!~ ~~~ ~~'.~:;:'~ '"i .~.~ 7 ~ ~ ~ .~ ;,~'qf~:._.=..e'~2 :::: ~ ~ .g_ ~ .s 'f_' ;. ~ ? _,_ .:.t, !..:-;: ._.. ".;:. ~;: i1. ... -:.- . .,. ~- ~ .... .~ it.; ... e ~ ''J :.: \-0 ~.: ~ .... v ~ ;z. ';.J ~ :t....,.;:;....,. <:: ~ " -~ -~ ~....- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ % ~....- '5 - u J'g t w -e. Co }. ,Q >- ,..V .~ ~~;: %~ > ::: -- - <u .; :: 4'i! - ~ .s. - ......~ 'g _ 1.i ; )l: :: "" IU;- .c::. 3 S C u!j~ ..;.; ~ - ~ ~ - !~~l \~ ~ ::"':: = a..,:: '" -:::t;':;'~ ~~ ~.s ,L-o C :< r::;-- - ~ o;:S ~ ~ '" ~ ,.":_- ' ..:. -':: ::: _':: _ u"S;:"'C c..::. :r.n~';' ;! _ .... V~_. ".- f- ~ ,~:.t_ V;;. 1""'0 '-'- =,-==~- ~ .~ .;. " " i -a. !! :; '" - ~ \\ "'. " '" ... w '5--i. .e "!; ~ ,: .,.. .- -- ~~ _;9 -.:: " ~ ,.. -:=. ~~ 'J .; '- .;~ . ,,- .. :.t t:Z ;:--;:: E.~ ~~ ~ -~ ;... ":f:, -:.~ ~ -.., "s-= ",- -", c . ;,-1.. ~ >-:! 'oJ ~ ::: ai:ci: ~::>1\! ~u e 'c g."; S ~.,. .~ ,,-e,- l:~-- 8. :;I ",0 e e. 0 ["0- .- . ., '" ~:;<,...., ;j~ ~ 'c - e;:: ft g tQ'::"':- <II ::~- ~:2:::.r- c;i~" ";t "to! 5:0 us. ~=-5-;: ,...... ~ ~!~ :; t--t-~~ ..~:!~E.~g~ .... c -,::. :::.,,; ~ -s ~ ." .g ~ ~ _;1!! ;;: -'- ... ~~i~~%i3 ~~~.; ~z& . . N" tl::: ~ 0 !;!... <,; Il - ...... ~ ",_ 0 C l::.lft'i!- ~; aE~::~ a.:lc~o=,e" 0..... -0 e:::. 'C; o >- 1ft O'~ E ~ _-=~o.::.ow- _-::,S-;"'iii r-- ;; ~,.'1<'C;;: "';; -=_ o~""'''Ci'''' =~_rIl~_::e:CJ _ 1Ii?;-'" ~...... - c ~ 'oJ 0 :::'1.0-0 ";: :-" s i:l~ % u:: ;.~ ~ ~ :~ ;:c-::;..~Y&-O;: ~....-sg.~~~ _ J!""_c.~ u,):!:.s~ c: tS': S 1-.-.... ~ ~ St~Qb~~~fr ~::::eu""E-;:f;;.oC ... >.}'- ~ U t :t s,~,~ ~ :_" ~ ~,?;'i ~ g,-:l ..,~,..~;: ::: !!l :,) -;"o",g ~ "" .~- :t~ :,;.r: -;: '"' '? ~ ... - __ ~"'eos'"'Cr.:. tt(':~ " ~l.Ja.~U-= .::. ."g ;:; '0 !l OJ " - - ~ ~_ '" ",,!l <: ;; _ ._...... Clo-- c.. ... "=' ,.. ~ 2::5" -~ li-- " :..= 1C :S ~ - -~ !' ~ ~ ~ ~ ::;" ~._ ~ tj_ .... 1:"'- "" ,._ ~ J ... .. - v ,.. \J ,5 .~ ~ u ~ i ~ .-~- ~ s- ~ ~ :J ;:: %.:: '-00 ~- - ::;:. '-' "- :;.;I: _ ... '- r.. ...:.)....- """ -~..s "'".S ;~ '" i ~,::._ .,.v"-" g ::: _ ~ ,.:..g'~ c. S ..c .., - ? v ,:a ....,c: -= - ;;:::_ -". " 'J! -"'-:::~Ii'~"'~ ~. :-; lor.'1""! ~ ... ~ ,.. - g .:;:~~. -~:~- .,.::;.;:=_~_ _ 4 ~';a " ;- ::- ~ '" !l .,,:. ..I-~'-AP~~"::'''::':!P; '" b --:- 'C -;!' ....s " ~~ ':. ~ $ ~ <. _ u iC >- :!:! .;=..~ ... ... ....;: ,3 "'" ... .,., ';: S cc $ '5.C::.r.~;l"l!..!;!-':'~'C -;.... ... ~ ~ .~ e c ~..:; z; ~ "";: i-.~..!< S 5 s,,,,, '" ~ ~ j;' .'to ,. ~ <: ~ S 'S ~.~ ~ :'i. ~,.e.s~~~ ~e ~ ~-::: ~.~ a:~ "~'~ \"C ",~l"i c :vQ~ ..a. o""'....."'O~~ tCJ'C, s'= 'S_ ~..e ._!!~~\m::"'" -e~~~' ~~ ~~ ~Eb~~ ..:; .c, t.t ~.~ '% e .- ':2'" u... t: " .. ,::: _ Cl ",- je.~-e ~t::. ro;...~-::ta~.v ~ ? ~ .= IJ :n ,- ~ ~ ~ ~ ::: ~. .:.J. 't: ... ;':\- ~.- .! ~ r; .,J.i '...) -:c, ..., '..I .:: f ~ s.;~ --'" ~ ~ '% ;: ~ .,. ::- ;! ~ .;-' 0:.. _~r.__ ~,..; S "/ _ 2.-- ~-.=. '- ... ; ( - ~ .... ::.. ... - or. " ~ ;: i -> c::; ~ ~ '-' . - i< .r. ~ ~ 'il ..: ~e- :::.:~ "'"-4 \.00; V .... c-.:< c::; .~ 'C ~ .~ .' ..:.a. 9. ~ -- ? ~~.;: sa ~...,..... ~ ~ ~_.g _ "'C;::; tit -:3 :;--:::c ~\:::-;':J -;..';: ~-.::. ~ ~ e ij .... -:c:-e;:.t;::~ ~'~ ;:.. t: ~ c~.El~ .. - r - ',..::; ::: ~ ~ -J: .:..::t i-e\l ~o."~ 't:l:,.....I %_ ~- ~ ...... ~.';:;.~ ._~ 5~ ~ ..- .~ ti.B~ -~-- :---. t: 1;::....... _~_ ."...::; ';Ii! ~ 'C'"= -':.I~""?._- ~~~s..._~ ":i. ~ ';.l'~ ~ - ~.....~ 1;:.;..... "'~~S'-s~ ~ -;: -:.- ..1 ~ c~.:::: ~:",,'-, :::=: ..,,-:"" .' :'!)>. ,\ ;, -' " Pasadena Avenue Well Site Project Responses to Comments Comment Letter 7 Jim and Kelly Poissant April 24, 2006 1. The comment regarding the limitations of the site is acknowledged. 2. As noted on Page 3 of the IS/MND, with mitigation incorporated the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings. Metal gates are commonly found in historic and non-historic residential neighborhoods, would provide secure access to the parking area, and would not be obtrusive nor incompatible with the neighborhood. 3. The proposed building will be setback 20 feet from the southern property line, which exceeds the required 5 foot side yard setback for Single Family (R-1) residential properties by 15 feet. The front yard setback along Pasadena Avenue will be 20 feet, which is equivalent to the required front yard setback for R-1 properties. Although R-1 setbacks are not required of the proposed project, all setbacks will meet R-1 standards to be consistent with surrounding properties. See Response 1 to Comment Letter NO.5 for a discussion regarding potential impacts to private views. 4. The comment regarding the previous condition of the site is acknowledged. However, pursuant to CEQA, the proposed project must be compared with the existing physical condition of the site, not a previous condition. See Response 4 to Comment Letter NO.5 for a discussion regarding potential impacts to historic resources. 5. The proposed exterior security lighting will consist of three wall mounted light fixtures placed above doorways facing the service/parking area and the freeway sound wall only. Additional light fixtures will be installed, but used only when additional light is needed for Water Services personnel. As noted on Page 3 of the IS/MND, permanent security lighting would be designed to appear residential in character and would be directed downward. 6. See Responses 2 through 5. 7. The comment regarding the site is acknowledged, but it does not pertain to a substantial adverse impact subject to CEQA. 8. The proposed project is a water well facility that will not be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. See Response 2 to Comment Letter NO.5 for a discussion regarding compatibility with the neighborhood. 9. See Response 5 regarding security lighting. The existing street lights and trees along Pasadena Avenue will remain in place. See Response 3 to Comment Letter NO.5 for a discussion regarding landscaping. 10. As noted on Page 6 of the IS/MND, due to the limited amount of grading and the small scale nature of the project and very limited numbers of heavy equipment that will be present on site on any given construction day, project emissions would not exceed the air quality thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Nonetheless, the Initial Study identifies numerous measures that are designed to reduce pollutant emissions during construction, including measures that 2-11 Responses to Comments 5]3266.1 Pasal!Jena Avenue Well Site Project Responses to Comments specifically address dust and mud emissions. Note that all construction projects within the South Coast Air Basin must comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which contains a comprehensive list of pollutant control measures that must be adhered to during grading and construction activity. With mitigation measures incorporated, all potential air quality impacts will be less than significant. 11. It is acknowledged that vehicular access to the neighborhood is limited. As noted on Page 16 of the IS/MND, the project would be conducted with a drill rig, backhoe, crane, and other construction vehicles such as trucks and loaders and an average of 10 or fewer daily trips. All construction vehicles will be parked on-site from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Construction vehicles may be temporarily parked on Pasadena Avenue adjacent to the project site. Based on site observations, there is no evidence that the parking of vehicles during the day on the street adjacent to the site will result in inadequate parking capacity in the neighborhood. In addition, during construction the site will be fenced for safety reasons. Because there is no evidence that the project would have a significant public health or safety impact during construction, no additional measures, such as City coverage of payments for future potential medivac helicopter expenses, are required. 12. See Response 5 to Comment Letter NO.5 for a discussion regarding chlorine. 13. With mitigation incorporated, the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Pursuant to Section 15064(f)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "If the lead agency determines there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment but the lead agency determines that revisions... would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment then a mitigated negative declaration shall be prepared." 14. See Responses 2 and 4 to Comment Letter NO.5 regarding property values and historic resources. Regarding social or economic effects, Section 15064(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines states, in pertinent part that ["e]conomic and social changes resulting from a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. Economic or social changes may be used, however, to determine that a physical change shall be regarded as a significant effect on the environment." Therefore, economic changes such as fluctuations in property values would need to cause some physical environmental impact to be considered subject to CEQA. 15. The City retained Mestre Greve Associates to complete a comprehensive noise study for the Pasadena Avenue Well Site project. Based on the findings of the Noise Assessment for the Pasadena Avenue Water Well dated Januarv 11. 2006. with the temporary soundwall in place, only the constant rate discharge test is projected to possibly exceed the noise limits in the City's Noise Ordinance on a temporary basis during project construction. To make the findings in the Noise Assessment, Mestre Greve Associates measured actual construction noise levels at two wells under construction in the City of Huntington Beach. Although the settings of these wells are not the same as the setting of the Pasadena Avenue site, the noise consultant was able to use the noise data collected and model it at the Pasadena site, taking into consideration the surrounding land uses and ambient noise levels. 2-12 Responses to Comments 5]3266.] Pasadena Avenue Well Site Project Responses to Comments The comparison with the Vandenburg Well is provided on Page 13 of the IS/MND to show that the operational noise level of the Pasadena Avenue Well will be well within the City's noise standards because the Pasadena Avenue Well building will feature more noise insulation than the Vandenburg Well. The land use setting and size of the Vandenburg Well is not a consideration in the comparison because the amount of operational noise is a function of the equipment and the insulated structural enclosure. Additional noise studies of the Pasadena Avenue well project are not necessary because the Noise Assessment for the Pasadena Avenue Water Well dated Januarv 11. 2006. comprehensively studied the potential noise impacts of the proposed project within the context of the existing neighborhood. 16. As noted on Page 26 of the Noise Assessment for the Pasadena Avenue Water Well dated Januarv 11. 2006, the constant rate discharge test may exceed the ambient adjusted noise standard for nighttime hours. Although, it is not anticipated that this exceedance will occur, noise levels will be monitored at the start of the test and if exceedances do occur at 235, 255, 265, 270, or 310 Pasadena Avenue between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the City will give those residents who may be impacted the option to temporarily relocate to reasonably priced local hotels until the tests have been completed. The relocation of impacted individuals is adequate CEQA mitigation and would avoid the temporary noise impact altogether. Specific requests regarding the potential relocation will be accommodated on a case by case basis to address individual needs. 17. It is anticipated that routine maintenance of the well facility would occur about once every five (5) to ten (10) years for a temporary period of about four (4) to five (5) weeks and during day time hours only. Routine maintenance would not generate any significant dust or other particulates. A crane of approximately 25-30 feet in height would be used during routine maintenance. 18. The Mestre-Greve Associates' Noise Assessment for the Pasadena Avenue Water Well, dated Januarv 11 , 2006 ("Noise Study") was made available for public review in conjunction with the release of the IS/MND. Drafts of the document were independently reviewed by City staff for completion and to ensure that the analysis was adequate, but no tinal document was rejected. 19. The City is not aware of any law that requires two alternate locations for the proposed well in the event the Pasadena Avenue site is not approved by the City Council. 20. The City of Tustin Water Services staff is not aware of any emergency alarm call outs to any water well facility that required the assistance of emergency personnel. As a normal practice, Tustin Water Services staff responds to all equipment failures and alarms. However, the alarms are silent so that residents are not disrupted. See Response 5 to Comment Letter NO.5 for a discussion regarding chlorine. 21. See Response 15 to Comment Letter NO.5 and Response 11 for discussions regarding temporary construction trips and long-term operational trips. The Notice of Intent to Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period was mailed to all of the property owners and residents on Pasadena and Myrtle Avenues between First Street and Main Street and to those on Second Street between Pasadena Avenue and Myrtle Avenue. 2-13 Responses to Comments 513266.1 Pasadena A venue Well Site Project Responses to Comments 22. The Notice of Intent to Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period was not mailed to the private schools at 167g.1 E. Main Street or 1311 Sycamore Avenue because the proposed project would not cause any substantial adverse impacts to any schools. 23. As documented on Page 14 of the IS/MND and in the Noise Study (pps. 23-24), the operation of the proposed well is projected to generate a negligible amount of noise; however, the projected noise levels would be below the City's ambient adjusted noise standards. Therefore, no permanent long term operational noise impacts have been identified. Furthermore, neither the Initial Study nor the Noise Study identified any potential noise impact from the electrical transformer. The transformer will be located within the enclosed parking area and more than 90 feet from the nearest residential property line. See Response 17 for a discussion regarding routine maintenance. 24. The IS/MND analyzed the potential for all environmental impacts and did not identify any potential environmental impacts related to vibration, water leaks, or soil erosion. The City is not aware of any land erosion or structural damage to the residences located on Windsor Place or Stratton Way associated with the construction or operation of the Desalter Facility located at 18602 E. 17th Street. There is no evidence that the project would result in any significant adverse impact on the structural integrity of any nearby residential property. See Response 23 regarding long term operational noise. 25. As stated on Page 5 of the IS/MND, the project would be required to comply with applicable SCAQMD Rules and Regulations, including those related to dust control. With the implementation of dust control measures, any potential impacts related to air quality will be reduced to a level of insignificance. 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. See Response 5 to Comment Letter NO.5 for a discussion regarding chlorine. 26. 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 that 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 dust and noise. Other construction related impacts, including impacts from construction emissions from heavy equipment and dust, would be less than significant. Pollutant emissions generated during construction would be below applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District significance thresholds (see Page 5 of the IS/MND). 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 "repair, all costs, and reparations" is not required under CEQA. 2-14 Responses to Comments 513266.1 Pasadena A venue Well Site Project Responses to Comments 27. See Response 4 to Comment Letter NO.5 for a discussion regarding cultural resources. 28. The Tustin City Code requires a Certificate of Appropriateness for any exterior improvements for which a building permit is required in the Cultural Resources Overlay District. Although the proposed water well project is a City facility that is exempt from the requirement to obtain building permit and otherwise applicable zoning requirements, including obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness, the City has carefully designed the project to be compatible with the existing residential neighborhood. As discussed in the Initial Study (pps 2-3), the size and massing of the structure is generally consistent with single story residential structures in the neighborhood. In addition, the project complies with the residential zoning setback requirements and includes extensive landscaping to reduce the potential visual impact of the facility. 29. As documented in the Responses to Comments and the IS/MND, none of the issues raised constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is required for the proposed project. 30. See Response 28 for a discussion regarding the certificate of appropriateness. If a certificate of appropriateness were required for the proposed project, it would be considered after the CEQA review process because it requires a discretionary action which is subject to CEQA. 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. Public comments on the IS/MND will be accepted until the City Council considers the IS/MND. The City of Tustin has solicited input from property owners in the area surrounding the project site and will continue to accept and consider comments from any interested parties. The City will implement a public outreach program for the project to maintain communication throughout the project design and construction phases. 31. The comment regarding the advantages of owning property in a locally recognized historic district is acknowledged. 32. The ultimate decision making authority for the proposed project rests with the Tustin City Council. 2-15 Responses to Comments 513266.1 The following individuals signed letters that were identical to Letter No.7. The actual letters submitted by these individuals are on file at the City of Tustin Community Development Department, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780. 1. Tina Blenz (April 24, 2006) 2. Tom Bode, P.OA for Nell J. Bode (April 24, 2006) 3. Alan and Patricia Britt (April 24, 2006) 4. Abel and Ana Carrillo (April 24, 2006) 5. David and Linda Chubak (April 24, 2006) 6. William Collins (April 24, 2006) 7. Loyd Dixon (April 24, 2006) 8. Nancy M. Edgell (April 24, 2006) 9. Greg Figge (April 24, 2006) 10. Walter and Margaret Graves (April 24, 2006) 11. Kristi Kerlin (April 24, 2006) 12. Steven J. Long (April 24, 2006) 13. Brett Mcintosh (April 24, 2006) 14. Robert Nason (April 24, 2006) 15. Stephen Ostendorf (April 24, 2006) 16. Karen Petersen and Doug King (April 24, 2006) 17. Sandra and DRost (April 24, 2006) 18. Patricia Sutcliff Ferreira (April 24, 2006) 19. Reymundo P. Mcintyre (April 24, 2006) 20. Christopher Taylor (April 24, 2006) 21. Richard Vining (April 24, 2006) 22. Michael Zell (April 24, 2006) Exhibit B to Attachment C Mitigation Monitoring Program PASADENA AVENUE WELL SITE 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 Pasadena Avenue Well Site 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) and standard conditions (SC), as shown in the attached matrix. The City of Tustin, as lead agency for the implementation of the Pasadena Avenue Well Site Project, is responsible for implementation of the MMP. The MMP for the Pasadena Avenue Well Site 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. (!) ;!'.... Q:z> ow.... ....:;;- zw::! oum ::sQ:Ci) zOz o~~ -W(II ~cw (!)zQ: f=c( i w U Z c(> :a.- Q..:J :;;- o~ Oz ~o ....0.. ....(/) c(W (!)II! E :;; c " E t '" a. Q) o '" -t: o S .S1 :c :J CL <5 13 ~ C o U 13 Q) .0 0: z o ~ .... z w :;; W ..I Q. ;!i C Z <( (!) z i f= ~- 00 13Q) ~ u ~ C C '" 8 ~ .'1 C O.s '" C ,Q Q)~- E 0.'- ~ rJ) E ._ C Q) :J0a. g:ai C) .... u.!: ~!€~ ._ U l:: Q;~O) >"'''' W II! :=) !Ii w ::s 5 5 ~ ~ :.oU.Qlt= 2216 ~~~5 00 Q) UlJ....>. 7ijo-g~ 0)- ctI 0 ~ ~ ~.fJ Q.l 0 - a. . a.ro2~~ o WO 0.5 .sc-=::()~ ....OJ..::: ctI o C'lO ....-0 ~ ~t3 *- g' ~ lG(/) o..:.i2 o C)..c co 0 ()Q;~-?; mE -.... =\1l~~Q ~Q.lc(l)-g '-..c ('IJ co 5--"ECI/l Q)"O 8 Q) S ....c()E~ rororo~c.. .c. - c'5 c (/J C'- 0-2 >.<1.looQ.)() ," E.!!! ~ 2 U .9-:S; t) 1? 5-UE a I-a.>col-u ~ 0; :J~ 0"" ~u <C(II c Q) E t '" a. Q) o '" 0< <5 S .S1 :c :J CL 1" Q) E t '" a. Q) o '" 0< <5 S .S1 :0 :J CL '" C .~ " C o "" .$ 6 ~t5 E 2 ~t) a.c E 8 ~- o 0 13Q) g g C '" o :J U '" '" C .- o.s cis Q) .- E c..:!::: ~ en E "5 6 ~ g~ C'J .... ~.5 ~!€-g .;:: ~ C, ~ g- rn Q)- ='" mID .<::Q) ~ E Q) " E '" Q) lGi -'" ro~ '<::Q) "'.c ~-g .- tl u'" '" C o ~ "5 Q) '" :5 Q) ~ C " ~.~ c 1rl::2 co ..c () 13 uQ)2 c.<:: ",- 0 c......:2: _..2 a o(/)c5 Q)cen .52 Q) -ro:c Q)~ ro .c.'- .~ -~a. ~g-g. N "" (.) en 1" Q) E t '" a. Q) o '" 0< <5 S .S1 :c :J CL <5 13 ~ 1" o U 13 Q) .0 0: ~- 00 13Q) '" u "" C C '" o :J U '" c .!!! 00 "'~ cO 0)";::- E a..E Q) '" ~ ~ C Q) 'S 0 0- cr:.;::::l C) ~ B.5 0:" ~'u ~ Q.i8.0> >"'''' '" .s " " c o 25 c; Q) U E 2 ~1ii a.c .s8 ~uig'1firog' ua:a:2I1l'- .- co (J a.~ ro.~ ~~ g- ~ .,s_Ee>>= - Q) C co.... 3: :;:::;u..cQ c:.c.5 tJ>-o ~.QE 3:1:: ffi Euec<l.l 82a.1?E~ ~ -g 3: .~ ~ .88 CO-o 5-0- .... Q) C CD C o :=:cu....o 13 E (/) CI') +=i ~(fiQ)~Eg -c+-':6..9:!I-.; 8 t- ctI ~ 000)""':8 Q)J::e>o:::l =CI)'EE~_ Q)o$!(/)....~ .=..... (lJ Q) Q)tt= 6-rn$:O>Q. Q)cu'sCI)c .....c:.a 1J'J..9:! 0 ro ~ .g -g OE ~ ..cQ.lQ.lO III III 0.. o..~ ~ 6 ' ~1Ilg>1Il a~ () Q.l:C Ol -g '0.. 05 Q.l;g~.~~~~ ~ 8.0~ -5 ~ 8-c M "" :;: :;: c Q) E t '" a. Q) o '" 0< <5 S .S1 :c :J CL <5 13 ~ 1" o U 13 Q) "i5' 0: ~ - 00 13Q) '" U ""c C '" o :J U '" C ,!a o 0 ",- cO Q.l'C .'t:: E a. E Q) '" ~ ~ C Q) '5 0 0.. 0":';:;: Ol " '" C L.... 0._ .2"~-g 'C g C, Q)a. >"'''' oCi..9:?ct1 J=;......~c 5 _0::: \i= o 010 C _ .5 :2 0 ~-ga.2- "C13<(1Il c: ,5 () 6 Q) en:J E :>...c'~ ..9:? 'S::S; ~ 0..:,;:::1 ;> C vi E U Q) 8 '" .- ctI 0 C .8 ffi ro o~ 0~"EQ)~ uffiS8:"C ~-eoctl~ c~ro=~ 8 .~ ,5 ~ Ci "C Ollll 3: Q) C ~ .:; Q)'C c..e Q)~Q)Q)"C L....1Il1UEC 05 3: Q) ro g~L.... '5 ~ L.... 'C ~ 0" ro 1tI-6&~a. "5i ~.!a 5 en _..c:,;:::l .?:-~J!n-U .- ~ 0.. 2 ()enE - Q)mctlC"".i~ ~E~~8 ..- "" :;: :;: c " E t '" a. Q) o '" 0< <5 S .S1 :0 :J CL 1" Q) E t '" a. " o '" 0< <5 S .S1 :0 :J CL '" c .~ " C o -.;:; Q) $ 500' ffi u a. E2,g ~1i)L.... a.cO .E8& " :is 13 C,,>, ~.:;:e U 0 2~= - E:J ~.a<( 8 ~ ~ Q)=iL =~.?:' L.... en C 0 o :Ja. e._OE "Cffi()JY :.cEQ)en t "''' o ctl C C - 0..ct1 ro Q) ~ "50000"" o Q) ~ Tl' en..c L.... u~ - 0.. Q) a. '0'00 ro ~s- - a. "''' Q),~ g>o~ -5:C05~ ~ ~ L.... Olo.. L.....::: C "Q) ~Q)c-fi 0..= ~.8 o ~ g- -Q)'L....<( L....(/)1i)u.. .Q ctl C () L......coo 0.. Co 0_ on "" ::;; :;: c Q) E t '" a. Q) o '" 0< <5 S .S1 :c :J CL 1" Q) E t '" a. Q) o '" 0< <5 S .S1 :c :J CL C o ~ C .c o :c U Q) = - o a. :J t '" 1;5 o -~ ,2 :0 ~ '" CL_ (/)Q)(/)"CQ) ~ ,::: ~ Q)..c ou.. 0 L...._ $:>>"E[L.... c~~.g ,g6~o..c .g () Q) is! 0.. Q) ro.a 0.. Q) ~-""- C -= ~ ~~.Q -0 e 1U ~Q)8:Ei3 '0= ctI 0 ~ ~E(/)"""J!:! 5.g~~~ ._ ~ C roroo~f:'! c> - 'C e t ~ lfi .Q 0.. ctI ,- L.... -5g.0.."C>> Q)C(/)2:'O ':;'(ij<(,gffi _15 c~ OO..-:..~Q) o..=ffi <(.5 E :J..cLL. Q) t(/)()"C Sc8ffiffi '" Q) o E~cti ~ -to'c:c.i- o [= .S:! ~ ;: 0;:: Q) :J ro g ~ o..o<(E.__ CD "" ::;; :;: c Q) E t '" a. Q) o '" 0< <5 S .S1 :c :J CL 1" Q) E t '" a. Q) o '" -t: o S .S1 :0 :J CL ~- 00 13Q) '" U -Effi o :J U '" c .!a 00 ",- CO Q)'C .'t:: E a. E Q) '" ~ ~ C Q) '500.. C"'-.;:; C) Q) '" C L.... 0._ 0:" ~'o ~ a;~C) >"'''' Q)>, =ffi ~- j!lo ~1" ~~ U c ~S C 108 .<::" '" C '" '" C C ~.Q ,,13 c2 '" Q) " '" ~ c.g Q) E "Q) :J U C o .gl "C ~ , c" Q) ~Q)g> u.co< S=ffim "'.<::- C(/)"ffi 8 >,"" :!::;:c Q)= Q) ..cOo I- ~ 0.. r-- "" :;: :;: 1" " E t '" a. Q) o '" 0< <5 S .S1 :c :J CL <5 1" Q) E t '" ~ a.o Q)13 o~ ~c 08 S" " }f5, -g .~ CL'" '" C '0 '" C, '" '0 1l c '" :J '" .'1 .s o 'E &~ Q) Q)"c ,- ==~~ffi C) >> C)() E c.c.in 0 !!! ~"C~ ~ ctI Q) Q) C C) ro c..c ro ~ 0.. ctI -:2 ~ ~ 0 ~~ ,9 Q) III n:: .~ .a 5 -g Q) 0=:,;:::I>..c o.~ ~ e- ~ (/) ~~o oo:fio ctl Q ~ t L.... "C ,~ (/) ro.S:! C ,- ..c o..ro ctI ~ .~~~"C;; C .- C Q) C ctI ~ Q) 3: CO - EQ) 0.. 8. t os: 5 c (/) CO Q)+:l Q)~g.L....B EQ)"Co"C~ c C" g>co(/)coQ) C -t: Q) CO ID 0...:_ ~L....$:o.~ ~-50~Q. '" 1l= '" ~E! O::o-gc <( 0.0.. 8 <( "" "" :;: :;: (!) :!...... Il::z>- OWl- I-:li- -W..J Zom ~ll!:ii) ZOZ 0"-0 !=ffi5i <COW C)zO:: E<C :Ii W o ~~ ~.- Q...J :Ii- o!!! ou) Z zo OQ. -U) ~w (!)o:: 6 :Ii Z o ~ Z W ::!5 W ;;.J Q. ~ o Z <C (!) z ~ i= - o e ~ ~ " a. o " ,s .~ " :c .in e o a. '" l!! '$ '" ~'iij ::l.s ~h W:-Q :Ii> Ie a. " .0 OJ . ~2 c"w ro " a::-5 - " " E 1:: ro a. " o '" '" 1; 5: .\1 :c ::> "- .\1 :c ::> 1<:_ ~ e .9" " E ~1:: - ro Co. 0" Uo 13", "'" '0'0 0:3 ~- 00 13" jgg e ro 0::> " '" .!Q e 0.9 0> e .~ '" e .02 E 5 c:.;::; " " E 2 ~1i5 o.e E 8 Co E.~:!: ~ (/) E '5 5 ~ (J.- ~ 16 ~ ".- '" '" ~'u ~ lii~c> >",ro (l)~Q)O --c..c~ ::Jco.c-Q)c:::~ .g-..c-t) s-ro~""'" C >-_ "0,"2 c >. :J$o.Q:J.Q~'ffi o .~ z.. ~ ro g ~ ::J "C'-..c Q).......-cO -roQ)Uu..co..... N uE mOc..8CiiaJ "i:: E Q) ....... u 'E 0 o.-..c"O"'C Q) co; CD..... 1i5=-~~.]! EN 1: ~ ~~ "j:: 0..5 c 5 _ V,l+:l:J t: e e:.;:::s o 0 C'" Q) c.. C._ () at: -a.Q)>(l) >-,,_ <<I Q.l rn"::':: Coo ~- u >. c "'C en W ~ g a 'a;.!a ai""'" m ~ 8 c E 1i5 "C e ~ '2 8 .!a8e~~~_.Q(/) "CQ)Q.Q)Q.)rn-ro=Q) _..c ';;=~..c~e S"""'''C___(Il :J CIlfCro-B.oo(l)O Q) Q.l ctI..c: .._".<:; '" "Cu (I)~C)......_Q) '0 .... >. Q) 0 :J _ n:::: U55~:>OI/JOU ('IJ(I):.;:::IOOQ)(lJ = ell U U J:: Q.) l.O.c C .... m Q).!a e E.q: :J 00_ ..c"'O (tI '" a. _Bcl-Q)....cO'O o._o...cooLOc g>i3~;_~'I"'"m ~o2g!ro.~C:6~ BQ)"(j)O:JoQ):;;:;O "5c~ro1i)IDuw 0c....O.->._....(1)0 CLl - m U"O Q)..c Q.W ~ " ~ ::J o "' " Il:: "i'!..... .au) :;u ou) (l)(l)"o e(l)>' Ul(l)Ul"C(l) ro(l)(l)C(l)(l) .c-5~ g=~ ~~5~= :';::;ro~.Q=~ ~~(l) ~=~ ~bi~o i'~~E~~ -;i2<<i ~~i( .~sttlc.- Q.Q..I/Jro 53-1i5 :J :CO..c e: "'CQ.~5>- I/JEw 81/J~ :J0mw~ e:mmueo e: "o..w...co.m>,xa. m~:C w=~ wm- x..cm~o.b a'5~ ..cctl~ ..ce:~=e: .~ ~_ctle: C"':= - ..c.....- - m 01! 0 '- W e: "'C :J e: w a. <5 00 S ,.: ;i>o c. 00 10 >, U (ij'- c: 0 0'-0. ~_OE= a. :J c:C:~"'CmU ~~~~ ~~~!j~:~~ ~~e-i~.I~ ~.<:;_~w ..c-m~c:E~u-~ :J 0.0> ~'--E '- ~ w "'C'~ o.wctl o3:ow .s~ffiffiBeowl/J w~>''-8~- U w _ .= ID '- - ctl ::: :s c: ~.- c: 0 b g(ij~ ~OO(ij.~~~~R s_m.~-.c ~ctl"'C~ 0 ID~OO-~I/J "'C0~Q)~~.~ 16l=e:'- t>~.c:c.::Ec.~I/J~ alai ..c,~'So .cl:::m"'C w>::-guo.t::ii e:>e:=..c<('oo "Sewi '~OOctlIDmm >, '~~.Q~~ 'S '-$:- -= e: o.~g - 0.- C:O~I/J a. 1/J~_'ffil/Jow Q) e:I/JI/JW ctlUOe: w,gm~o:E<('E~ ~mwl/J'E'=:E aIDU.Q .c-,~>o.o WID 9:!:oa;~ID~m ,. ~m~0-~3:~:J '>E ~-'-:JE w -I/JC:-- ~m =?c: =.^a.~:J_~I o e:'- ~ (U me.. c ,= t:: ctl....... ,- ID ctl ~ '" u e w~~.~,~ ~~Si~~ .cu~IDO:J(ij ~o'5,-S~Q)e:-1/J_0e:ffi l/J~ffiE~o'E ~-COIli(U o.=.Qo~iji_ctl bE e:~U w "0 :: :iE 13' ...- - E b- m -= ,- C:.Q e: E w ~ E ~ 0 .s af 2 ;;( .e t:: .;:: .m,~ ....: g c: E 'E m ~ 6 .cctlO_~'-I/J-~,-ctlOw"O~-ctlUWI/Jc:'- -~~ctlOom~Uoa.=-~~wE2a;e:ctl'S _,-e:U~';::.c:OO';::ID:JctlUU.c:Jw,-ctl'-e: <( a.:J.Q;0.. a.u~e..o<( E,~~I-.c:'O a.ao W N ro I "C e ro "' "E~ ..~ l;j:;; I:;; " " E 1:: ro a. " o '" '" 1; 3:: .\1 :c ::> "- 1; " " E 1:: ro ~ 0.0 ,,- 0" ~ "'- ",e ~ 0 0" 5:", " " e =m -g .~ "-ro E :;; a. 0> e '5 ro 1;, - o " " e ro ::> '" .!11 .s 1; it "' .0 U) '" e ro I ~'7 0"" "U C)(f) " " E 1:: ro a. " o '" '" 1; 5: .\1 :c ::> "- " " E 1:: ro a. " o '" '" 1; 5: .\1 :c ::> "- .9 :; o 13 " .0 c. " ,s 0> e '= ::> a. .9 1; (t~ " " E 1:: ro a. " o '" '" 1; 5: .\1 :c ::> "- 1; " " E 1:: ro ~ 0.0 ,,- 0" ~ "'~ '" e ~ 0 o " 5:'" " " e = CJ) .0 .- ::> '" "-~ e o ~ e '6 :E " " ,s '0 a. ::> 1:: ro 1;; .eb .Q :0 ~ ro "-- N ~ :;; :;; " " E t ro a. " o '" '" 1; 5: .\1 :c ::> "- " " E 1:: ro a. " o '" '" 1; 5: .\1 :c ::> "- 1; 1; " " E t ro ~ 0.0 "13 o~ "'~ ",e ~ 0 0" 5:'" " " e = CJ) .0 .- ::> '" "-~ " " E 1:: ro ~ 0.0 ,,- 0" ~ "'~ ",e ~ 0 0" 5:ijl " e = CJ) .0 .- ::> '" "-~ ~ E :;; a. 0> e '5 ro 1;, - o " " e ro ::> '" .!Q .9 1; it ~ E :;; a. 0> e '5 ro 1;, - o " " e ro ::> '" .!11 .9 1; ;r ~~~<i'E~ --c:lL.We: m>,CJ)U E 0 e: ..0'-0 w:.o:; .- 00 CJ) ctl "E'O~ ctlw ctl W Q) e: a. m(ijc:.cctlo ~a.ctl-~w 00 ~ '-0 >'x = c: Q. ..0 00 o .- e: .- w 00 0::.- '~..c e: '0 w ~_.Q~~:C ~o.ro 1U 0 - '00 .c '- '- c: UI/JIDo.'QO q:;:; 0.. a. a. 'u 000 ctl CJ)I/J 2t~'-'O'~~ 00 ctl.sa e: ,_lI= ..ca.ctlctl~!9 "'''~ -'" ==:0$'0'0= c: .- c: ID c: m ro "'e w 3: ctl 0 - E" - 0.. 0 t::.- e: "0 ""~~~~~ '- ID U > ~'OO'O:Je CJ) e: 00 ffi ~ a. ctl ctl~ ID c: 00 5 w..c ctl ID> "':1U- ~ ~>.s,;::(ij . ..x: "0 U a...c W ,~~g~e~~ 0:: 0 -g e: l5::.!!:! Q) <( 0..0.. 8 <( 0.. -= '" ~ :;; :;; ... ~ :;; :;; " " E 1:: ro a. " o '" '" 1; 3:: .\1 :c ::> "- ~ iJ ~ " o o 13 " .0 ct Q; ~ 0> e ~'a. =E ~5. 1;; -2 Q;", ~ e ro .8 ,2 ~ o]! it ,5 N CJ)Q)WW e:1/J..c..c 'a.'o -- Ee:CJ)C: ::> e" 0.~.Q ~ roro-", _ '- W W 1/J0u..c "o.ro" -Ei5.:J -g ~.5 53- ctl_ w; o.o~ - - ro a-me .- W..c W xg ~ 00. ~ $901.::00 00 LO CJ) (tl .5 N '(i) 0.. .<:;0 = >, e I'-- W Qj ,_ C\I ~~Q)'O - E~ ID m'- e: .5 ~~ = '" c. -~ '- a. - '- "'roOj~ ~ 0 ~ ~.~ 5. 0- e CJ)~ ~ w .5 ~ e..c '-wwt:: :J a.:::: 0 Oome: '7 C1>~ "'~ .0 :;; Z:;; " ~t- 0::2:>- OW... t-:s- zW:::! 0l;1!!! :SO~ ~!i~ j:.I..L1U) <tOW t!lZO:: j:<t :& E Q) E t '" a. Q) o '" -" 5 s: .2 :0 ::J tl. w (.) ~~ ~~ :s::i O!!! O(/) 2 20 00. -(/) !;;:W (!l0:: j: is 5 13 ~ E o o 13 Q) '0 a: E Q) E t '" a. Q) o '" -" 5 s: .2 :0 ::J tl. 5 E Q) E t ~o Q)- og '" ~ ~c 00 s:0 ,,13 :..=Q) -g'e tl.tl. '" ~ .;; n '" co o t3 S '" co o " '" co .~ o E Q) E t '" a. Q) o '" -" 5 s: .2 :0 ::J tl. E Q) E t '" a. Q) o '" -" 5 s: .2 :0 ::J tl. E Q) E t '" a. Q) o '" -" 5 s: .2 :0 ::J tl. 2 o ~ ... z W :s ~ a. ~ o ~ C) z :& i= '" @ ~ '0 E Q) E i'l co Q) E E 8 '" o Q) .Q~ ~ " tl.", 5 13 ~ E o o 13 Q) '0 a: 5 'E Q) E t '" ~ 0.0 Q)- 0" '" '" ~ ~'E 00 s:'; " " :..= Q.l .0 .~ ::J e tl.tl. 5 E Q) E t '" ~ arB 0" ~ ~c ~ 0 0" s:'" Q) g~ .g .~ tl. '" '" Q) ., .;; 13 '" co o U 2 1;) co 8 '" c .~ o , E .l!l '" co o " E (jj "T t_ 0'" ""Q) ",- Q) Q) ""e> -", -"" 0" t:: .~ "'''' 1;) Q) -15 <t~ Q) " co '" co Q) E 'm E a; ;; '" c .~ o cu: (Uo~ co~1: Q5f!?ui..cCli E~8lC.i.9l1.l .8mo"'Ccu coo~..c rolll ~~._~~ Q)_..M ~ ~9S~Q) _0 ~_Q)-Q) "O_E >o_o~ro ~Nc _'5w~._ ro~ Q.lw..em "'C ~~ o~ Z ~ ~~~ UQ)~ "'C ..c~~ t::"'Coo~c ro "'CE~ g l? "'C 0.0 :::l > co ffi ~ - - 1U ~ ~ Co :J ~:S ffi rci ...... ro- WOOQ ~~~~ -ID~~ oou~20oo 00 ~ "COO ~()T"" omoq:OjBoo"Cc: Q)~5~jg]! ~~E8~ ern 's.~1U ()'~l1.l~~-i~o S_..c~_2 o-~~~ ro..c g.~< Q.lg~ -ic~' _~Q)~ ~ ~Oo_B ~t:: ~m D_~~CU~.~ OQ)..c~~ro ~~OOO - 0 .!a C) -0 = ctI <...1 ~ > '_co 0 E Co - - - Q) C () Q.l .... ~c C :::l:> .... Q)O c.'0-r:-.:~>. >.... ~.__~ CU_m 000 cia CUQ.lC..c - 0 ::J- Q) w ..cu_(U......Q) a -CIlQ.l-> -0- eu ..c~W CIlro~~~""~a" ,CIl'5Q)Q.l<U ~o..cU ~; --c- ~> .-a~~Q.lc!> B Q.l-C/l co C) 0 ~~.5~~~~~"'C~s Q)'~ro.c u-....Q)C) Q.l 'c~S 'c_-c_"'C_ "'Ci~_1D_~a. 5E5S.5 ..c..::i:, OJ-an .91U<LlCi)a.roc:c C5Ct1- ro-o>- cO..c -0 ;(6 ~1Ud '~~n~w~~ro~~~_~~ro~ w~ ~~ c~ ~=w o-~~~~~~roro~-~~~~ ~a~m~Q) ~ :g _ ~ ~ ,!Q ~ E E ~ :::: "0 m ~ . 0 lii .9 ..... C ~a.. 0 ro E >> ~~~wrouo-w~~~c~ mo"O._~BG ~ .Ew~m o::~ w ~cC~coo~ro'S~O"WC~oo om"O xW~co~ ~W~Woo w'-8-~ ~ om_O w~ww w~~>> ~(/)....."Oco~oo~~~~g ~~-co~~~o"OQ)E~~=MO~9ww~~ ro j1J. _ w m '::: 0 W <tI Q) 'u .- _ Q) ~"- .... _ s:.... w ~ ~ ~O"O=I:WI....l. ~_-:s 00002: roO;..... E ~..cCJ)~ .0 Cro-_ C w~EC ~W..c~cEcW o~- 5~w8~E~00~.Qm~~~gw~~00=u"O ,ro~8CJ)~~0~ >>O)woo mwnu-~Oro~~~..crooowro ~u Cw'-~ m"Ow~w S:~c~~W=-O .~O~~_ oOC~~~_ s:w_.9"O~=~w~~>BE~~ 00Q)~g~~~~-~>>5 wcooUm.-moo"Os:~WOO w_._~_._.,N ..c~.9~S w lii w ~ ~ -g s: a'li) _ ~"O.5 e ="0 ':: W ~ -g ~ ~~ w w w...... ~~~~_w~u~iQCJ)w-c~gl~_"o~'~>CJ)"Oug~oo It) ~o 8~ ~ 5 CJ)~,~~'5..3alB >>1S-;j ID ~N o~ w~~:2 ~~ It) ~ ~ w 00 .5 .... 00...... E u E ~ m ~ ~ ~ '.0- . - ~ ~ oo'C!;;;. "0 ~wwwoo_ ....roc~ 2w~"OTI'-cEEIt)E-'-~~Eg= w~~~~ggB~8~~~~~~~~8ro~~~2~~Oci~~ N , ~ ~ :2 :2 '? ~ ~ :2 :2 ... , ~ ~ "1 ~ ~ '9 ~ ~ :2 :2 :2 :2 :2 :2 E Q) E t '" a. Q) o '" -" 5 s: .2 :0 ::J tl. 5 13 ~ 'E o o 13 Q) '0 a: ~ 'u .$ - o co .Q 16 (jj a. o .9 5 ~ E Q) E t '" a. Q) o '" -" 5 s: .2 :0 ::J tl. 5 13 ~ C o o 13 Q) '0 a: co .Q 13 S '" co o " '" co '~ o E Q) E t '" a. Q) o '" -" 5 s: .2 :0 ::J tl. 5 'E Q) E t '" ~ ar.9 0" '" ~ ~~ 00 :;;:0 ,,13 :B ,~ ::J e tl.tl. ~ 'u .$ - o co .Q 16 (jj a. o .9 5 ~ s: 0 ~o w w- m--:E Cd> o~"O ~>'~~mc N8"8E;;'" 0)"0 0 w C 00 .!;;;c-E-S:w ~e2lij.g~ ,~ :~ ~ g> ~ CJ) C W .- ~ cmcoE '6. CJi ~ - g.~ m..c_~ .... "2- 0 '1:-;' 0 ~ 0 n u..c "C.c~rnW.c ffi 00 ~ ~:5'2' -cuc W og~8~c ro ro 'u c ~ 0)-5 Q.l -5 0 .~Lh_.c Q) (ijo:m-~(ij >It)C~:;"'C>> rn ~ ~ 'S X "0 = >>.- C"'~ C = c 12w~E:! ro Bw ~ ~.... E = _' ~ I .- E Q) = .!2>'0. ~.- " = 'x .;:; jg - ~ rn = u... 1!e'Eooc>~~.9 00 ~ w ";:o...Q ~ Q) 00 -c ~ ~ E :E::' 13 _ ~ ~ (ij .- '" Q) 0 2 c .-;; Ooo-g -w~Oc wwEw~a>~ws: ~ ~ 8 ~ 8 a.w ~ .g III " :;:; Q)~ J:,,- 1;;:2 .:'l:2 ~ ~ :2 :2 '" co . E ,~ "'t = W 130. Q) e ~~ - co '" .- ""~ -E "'-s ~ .~ ::J Q) X co "'c ",0 :S~ "".m .2'"0 ~~ 'co '" ::J_ ~~ '? ~ :2 :2 ., o o u E . ~ ~ m c ~ C o ~ c Q . .g ~ ~ . c . u ~ . '" " c . E ~ ., c 'i! 8 00 ATTACHMENT D Resolution No. 06-80 RESOLUTION NO. 06-80 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 06-013 FOR THE PASADENA AVENUE WELL SITE PROJECT. 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 06-013 is a City-initiated project that involves the construction of a water well facility, housed in a 1,450 square foot structure, with a paved service yard and surrounded by landscaped grounds; B. That a public meeting was duly called, noticed, and held for said project on July 17, 2006, by the City Council; C. That the proposed project is consistent with the Tustin General Plan in that the property is designated as "Public/Institutional" and "High Density Residential" which provide for the establishment of public facilities. In addition, the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub-Element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be consistent with the Air Quality Sub-Element; D. Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin City Code, the City Council finds that the location, size, architectural features, and general appearance of the proposed project will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, or the present or future development therein as a whole. In making such findings, the Council has considered at least the following items: 1. Height, bulk, and area of buildings; 2. Setbacks and site planning; 3. Exterior materials and colors; 4. Type and pitch of roofs; 5. Size and spacing of doors, and other openings; 6. Roof structures; 7. Location, height, and standards of exterior illumination; 8. Landscaping, parking area design, and traffic circulation; 9. Location and appearance of equipment located outside an enclosed structure; 10. Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood; 11. Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares; and Resolution No. 06-80 Design Review 06-013 Page 2 12. Development guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council; and E. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and recommended for approval by the City Council. II. The City Council hereby approves Design Review 06-013, subject to the Mitigation Measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is Exhibit B to City Council Resolution No. 06-79, and subject to the condition that all applicable State, regional, and local agency permits are obtained. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the 1ih day of July, 2006. DOUG DA VERT Mayor Pamela Stoker City Clerk Resolution No. 06-80 Design Review 06-013 Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 06-80 PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 06-80 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 17th day of July, 2006, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: Pamela Stoker, City Clerk