HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 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
Resolution No. 06-79
Page 1 of 91
finds that the project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or
cumulatively, on wildlife resources as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game
Code. The City Council hereby adopts the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
purpose of approving Design Review 06-013, and adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, attached hereto as Exhibit B.
DOUG DAVE
Mayor
ATTEST:
~lf). 0012 ~
PAM 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 17t1l day
of July, 2006 by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
Ha~en. Amante. Bone
Davert. Kawashima
(3)
(2)
(0)
(0)
v~
PAMELA STOKER,
City Clerk
Resolution No. 06-79
Page 2 of 91
Exhibit A to Attachment C
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Resolution No. 06-79
Page 3 of 91
Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal Appendix C
Mail to: Slate Clearinghouse, P. O. Box 3044, Sa<:rmnento, CA 95SI2-3044 (916) 445-0613
For Hond Delivery/Street Address: 1400 Tenth Street, SaCI1lDlento, CA 95S14 SCH" 2005031127
project Title: Pasadena Avenue Well Site
LeadAg"""Y: CityofTUIIin
Mailing Address: 300 Centennial Ww;
City: Tusdn
-----------------------------------------
Zip; 92180
Coo...t Penon: Sc:on ReekstIn
Phone: 714.573-3016
Collllty: Orange
Project Location:
County: <ll'qe
Cross StrcclB: P858denlll Avenue I Seocnd Street
A.....or'. Parcel No.: 401-5U1l1,03,10,1t
Wilhin 2 Miles: State Hwy #: SR-55
Airpona:
CitylNcarcst Community: T..ln
Section: Twp.:
WatCll'WIJ)'I:
Railway"
Range:
Zip Code; 92780
Bue:
School<:
-----------------------------------------
Docu....nt Type:
CEQA: CJ NOP
CJ Early Cons
CJ Neg Dee
iii Mit Neg Dee
CJ Draft EIR
CJ Supplement/Subsequent EIR
(prior SCH No.)
[] Other
NEP A: CJ NOI
CJ EA
CJ Draft EIS
CJ FONSI
Other: CJ Joint Document
CJ Final DOCWIlCt1t
[] Other
-----------------------------------------
Local Acl10n Type:
[] OenoraI Plan Update [] Specific Plan [] Rczooe CJ Annexation
o Oeneral Plan Amendment [] Master Plan CJ Prezoo. CJ Redevelopment
CJ Oencral Plan Elcmcn. [] Planned Unit Dcvelopmenl [] Use Permit CJ Coastal Permit
[] Community Plan [] Site Plan [] Land Divisioo (Subdivision, ct<:.) III Other......
-----------------------------------------
Development Type:
o Residential: Units_ Acres_
[] Office: Sq.ft._ Ac...,_ Employccs_
CJ Commercial: Sq.ft. _ Ac:rcs_ Employcc._
CJ Industrial: Sq.ft. _ Ac...._ Employees_
[] Educaliooal
[] Recreational
Total Acres (approx.)
II WIterFacilitics: Type.....
[] Transportation: Type
[] Mining: Mineral
CJ Power. Type
[] Waste T....tment: Type
[] Hazardous Waste: Type
CJ Other.
MOD
MW
MOD
-----------------------------------------
Project Iaue. DllIC.....d In Document:
iii AestheticIViaua1 CJ Fiscal
CJ Agricultunli Land [] Flood PIainlFIll<Jdinjj
III Air Quality [] Fo....t LandlFire Hazard
III ArcbcologicaJ/llislOrica1 III Geologic/Seismic
CJ Biological Reaource. [] Min.ralJ
o Coastal ZODe II Noise
[] Drainage/Absorption [] PopulatioolHousing Balance
[] Ecooomic/]ob. III Public ServicesIF.ciliti..
CJ RecreatioolParks
[J SchoolllUnivcnitics
CJ Septic Sy.tems
[] Sower Capacity
[] Soil ErosioolCornpactioolGradins
o SolidWute
III Toxilfllazardous
CJ Traffic/Cin;u\.tiOll
[] Vesetation
II Water Quality
iii Water Supply/Groundwater
CJ WctlandlRiparian
CJ Wildlife
CJ Growth Inducing
III Land U..
CJ Cumul.tive Effects
[] Otbcr
---------------------------------
P.....n! Land UHlZonlnglGo....' Plen De.llInoIIon:
Vacant. Zoned Muffiple Family Residential & Public and Institutional. High Density Residential & Public and Instllutional General Plan Designations.
-----------------------------------------
Project Do.crlptlon: (pieasa lJBft a ~ page if necasary)
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 asaian identification numbers for all new projcctl. If a SCH number already cxiltl for a
project (o.s. Notice of Preparation or previous draft document) please fill ill.
Revised 2004
Reviewing Agencies Checklist
Lead Agencies may nocommend Slale Clearinghouse distribution by marking agencies below with and 'X".
If you have already sent your doeumcntto tbc ageney plcase denote that with an "S'.
Air Resources Board
_ Boating.lt Waterways, Department of
_ California Highway Patrol
x Caltrans District # ~
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics
_ Caltrans Planning (HeadquarteJ'$)
_ Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy
Coastal Commission
Colondo River Board
_ Conservation, Department of
_ Corrections, Department of
Delta Protection Commission
_ Education, Department of
_ Energy Cornmi5sion
_ Fish.lt Game Region #_
_ Food.lt Agriculture, Department of
_ Forestry &: Fire Protection
_ GenCIlll Services, Department of
~ Health Services, Department of
_ Housing .It Community Development
_ Integnled Waste Management Board
_ Native American Heritage Commission
_ Office of Emergency Services
Appendix C, cOnlifflled
Office of Historic Preservation
Office of Public School Construction
Parks .It Recreation
_ Pesticide Regulation, Department of
Public Utilities Commission
Reclamation Board
~ Regionsl WQCB # ~
_ Resources Agency
_ S.F. Bay Conservation .It Development Commisaion
_ San Gabriel .It Lower L.A. Rivers and Mtns Conservancy
_ San Joaquin River Conservancy
_ Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
Stale Lands Commisaion
SWRCB; ClO8l1 Water Gl1IDts
_ SWRCB: Water Quality
_ SWRCB; Water Rights
_ Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
_ Toxie Substances Control, Department of
_ Water Resources, Department of
Other
Otbcr
-----------------------------------------
Starting Dale
Local Public Revl_ Parlod (to be filled In by I.ad agency)
Endinll Date
-----------------------------------------
L.ad Agancy (Complete If applicable):
Consulting Finn;
AddJas:
City/StatclZip:
Contact:
Phone:
Applicant: City of Tustin
Address: 300 Centennial Way
City/State/Zip; Tustin, CA 92780
Phone; 714.573-3016
-----------------------------------------
Signature of L.ad Agency Rap.....ntaliv.:
?/
......,.. / / /
"("'7 (/jt
.'J
..; b"u<,.;..z.t7)
Date: ..1.;21.0,6
Resolution No. 06-79
Page 5 of 91
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) 573-3/00
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.
[8J 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 detennination 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.
REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:00 P.M. ON APRIL 24, 2006
Date j'.ZI.()(j, ..S--;:~~d/- "J Kx.,!.:....~.I
Elizabeth A. Binsack
Community Development Director
Resolution No. 06-79
Page 7 of 91
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 TustinlWater 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-SS)
South: Residential
East: Residential
West: Newport Freeway (SR-SS)
Other public agencies whose approval is required:
o
o
D
[ZI
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
OLand UseIPlanning
o Noise
o Public Services
o Transportationffraffic
o Mandatory Findings of Significance
o Agriculture Resources
D Biological Resources
D Geology/Soils
o Hydrology/Water Quality
D Mineral Resources
o Population/Housing
D Recreation
D Utilities/Service Systems
C. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
D I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
~ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGA TIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
D 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 IMP ACT 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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, and no further documentation is required.
Preparer: Scott Reekstin
, -/ - i) zf-
,:;---:v~tf/d ,. ~:!-.L~"'_
Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director
Title Senior Planner
Date J?;Z/.,-rc;.
Resolution No. 06-79
Page 9 of 91
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 if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the detennination is made, and EIR is
required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect
to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-
referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR. or other CEQA process, an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)(D). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to infonnation 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 fonn, 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.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
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 ~ 0 0
b) Substantially damage scenic rcsourt:es, including. but not
limited to, tre~ rock outcroppings. and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? 0 I8J 0 0
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 I8J 0 0
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 0 181 0 0
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In detennining
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 Depl. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. Would lbe project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Fannland. or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Fannland). as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Fannland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? 0 0 0 181
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. or a
Williamson Act contract? 0 0 0 I8J
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature. could result in conversion of
Fannland, to non-agricultural use? 0 0 0 181
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 delenninations. Would lbe project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation ofthe applicable
air quality plan? 0 I8J 0 0
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation? 0 181 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)? 0 181 0 0
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? 0 181 0 0
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people? 0 I8J Resoh@n No. 06-7!{J
Page 11 of91
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 ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? 0 0 0 181
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensiti ve 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 IZI
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, ele.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means? 0 0 0 IZI
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 IZI
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resource~ such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? 0 0 0 IZI
t) 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 IZI
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a hislorical resource as defined in ~ 15064.5? 0 0 0 IZI
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to ~ 15064.5? 0 181 0 0
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 0 0 I2!J
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside offormal cemeteries? 0 IZI 0 0
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOl LS: - 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 ofa 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 liquefaclion? 0 181 0 0
iv) Landslides? 0 0 0 ~
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss oftopsoil? 0 0 0 181
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 defmed in Table 18-I-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or propeny? 0 ~ 0 0
e) Have soils incapable ofadequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or altemative waste water disposal syslems where
sewers are 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
environmenllhrough 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? 0 181 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 0 181
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 il create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment? 0 0 0 181
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 0 181
t) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Resolution No. 06-79
would the project result in a safely hazard for people residing
or working in the project area? 0 0 ~ge 13 of 9'181
Less Than
Significant
Potemially 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 0 181
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 0 181
VIII, HYDROLOGY ANDWATEROUALITY: - Would
the project:
a) Violale any water quality standards or wasle discharge
requirements? 0 0 0 181
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e,g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would nol
support existing land uses or planned uses for which pennits
have been granted)? 0 0 0 181
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ofthe sile
or area, including through the alteralion of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 0 0 0 181
d) Subslantially alter the existing drainage pattern ofthe 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 0 181
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stonnwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runofl'l 0 0 0 181
t) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 0 0 181
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 0 181
h) Place within a IOO-year flood hazard area structwes
which would impede or redirect flood flows? 0 0 0 181
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk ofloss,
injury or death involving flooding as a result ofthe failure ofa
levee or darn? 0 0 0 181
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunam i, or mudflow? 0 0 0 181
k) Potentially impact stonnwater runoff from construction
activities? 0 0 0 ~
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
I) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-
construction activities? 0 0 0 181
m) Result in a potential fot 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 0 181
n) Result in a potential for discharge of storm water to affect
the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? 0 0 0 181
0) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow
velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause
environmental harm? 0 0 0 181
p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site
or surrounding areas? 0 0 0 181
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 0 181
b) Conflicl 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 0 181
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan? 0 0 0 181
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability ofa known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the residents
of the state? 0 0 0 181
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 0 181
XI. NOISE-
Would the project resuit in:
aJ Exposure of persons to or generation ofnoiso levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 0 0 0 181
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbome vibration or groundhome noise levels? 0 181 0 0
Resolution No. 06-79
Page 150f91
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significarn
c) A substantial penmment increase in ambient noise levels Impact Incorpora/ion Impact No Impact
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project? 0 IZI 0 0
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? 0 181 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 ofa
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 IZI
l) 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 0 181
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an ares, either
directly (for example. by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example. through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)? 0 0 0 181
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? 0 0 0 181
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 0 0 181
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 ratio~ response times or other
performance objectives for any ofthe public services:
Fire protection? 0 0 0 IZI
Police protection? 0 0 0 181
Schools? 0 0 0 IZI
Parks? 0 0 0 IZI
Other public facilities? 0 0 0 181
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
XIV. RECREATlON- Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporation impact No Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and reginnal parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated? D D D ~
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion ofreereational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 0 0 0 181
XV. TRANSPORT A TIONlTRAFFlC - 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 0 181
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 0 181
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 0 181
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., fann equipment)? 0 0 0 181
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 181
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 0 181
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? 0 0 0 181
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS-
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regiona' Water Quality Control Board? 0 0 0 181
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 0 181
Resolution No. 06-79
Page 170f91
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 IZI
eJ 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? 0 0 0 IZI
f) Be served by a landfill with suffICient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 0 0 IZI
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? 0 0 0 I8J
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)? 0 0 0 IZI
XVII. MANDA TORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, suhstantially reduce lhe habitat ofa 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 resb'ict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory? 0 0 0 IZI
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incrementaleffec1s 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)? 0 0 0 IZI
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly? 0 0 0 IZI
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 whichds gp~JB"jg!lQ6-79
with the predominantly single story residential character of the area. r-.:1'€f~ ~eariPOf 91
Attachment A - Evaluation or Environmenlallmpacts
Pasadena Well S~e
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 SiQnificant Imeact with Mitklation Incorcorated":
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 selVice
yard used for the parking of maintenance vehicles and installation of above-
ground transformer cabinet by Southem 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 SUlVey
Conceptual Plans and Elevations
Field ObselVations
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,
Resolution No. 06-79
Page 21 of 91
Attachment A - Evaluation 01 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 Imaact": 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 connict 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 Incorcorated": 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 10 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, perse, 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.
SCAQMO' Th h Id f S' 'fi
f P
edP"cts
, ..
.r.1" '"
,
. .
i!. .
Carbon Monoxide 550 550
Reactive Organic 75 55
Comcounds
Nitrooen Oxides 100 55
Sulfur Oxides 150 150
Particulate Matter 150 150
Note: The SCACMD no longer requires cons1ructlon activities to be evaluated by quarterly
significance thresholds (SCACMD, 2001 b).
With regard to CO emissions emitted by vehicle trips associated with project
operations, the SCAQMD CECA handbooks considers the following concentration
increases to be significant:
. 1 hour = 1.0 part per million
. 8 hour = 0.45 part per million.
Resolution No. 06-79
Page 23 of 91
Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmentallmpacls
Pasadena Well sne
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 Environmental Impacts
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 ImDact"; 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 Califomia 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 polici~s 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. CUL ruRAL RESOURCES
Items a and c - "No ImDact"; 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.
Resolution No. 06-79
Page 25 of 91
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
CECA Guidelines Section 15064.5
Item band d - "Less Than Sianificant lmoact with Mitiaation Incorcorated":
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 10 eight days for an average of 240 cubic feel 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 Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CECA) and other applicable
regulations.
Mitioation 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 m. (iv). b. and e - "No Imoact": 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 Environmenlallmpacts
Pasadena Well Site
Page 9
Items a (ii), a (iii). and c - "Less Than Sianiticant With Mitigation Incarcorated":
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 ImDacf: 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
Resolution No. 06-79
Page 27 of 91
Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Pasadena Well Site
Page 10
Item b - "Less than Sianificant With Mitiaation Incoroorated": 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 lihe 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 I
Water Services Division
County of Orange Environmental Health Division
Mitiaation Measures:
. Prior to putting lihe 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 lihe start up of lihe chlorinatian facility, lihe Public Works
Department shall obtain approval from the Orange County Fire Aulihority
(OCFA). As part of lihe OCFA approval, a hazardous material and
inventory disclosure fonm 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 wilih 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 At4D WATER QUALITY
Items a throuah D - "No ImDact": 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 requiraments 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 2040 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
Resolution No. 06-79
Page 29 of 91
AlIachment A - Evaluation of EnvironmenlallmpaclS
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
ltalianate 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
Mitlaation 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 SpacelRecreation
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 Januarv 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 Departmentl
Water Services Division
Mitiaation Measures:
None Required
Resolution No. 06-79
Page 31 of 91
Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmenlallmpacts
Pasadena Well Sila
Page 14
Items b. c and d - "Less than Sianificant With Mitiaation Incoroorated": 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 Pesadena 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. 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 DepartmentiWater 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 JanualV 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 6:00 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 ImDact": The proposed project for construction of a water
well facility on a vacant site zoned "Multiple Family Residential and
Public/Institutional" 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
Mitioation Measures
None Required
Resolution No. 06-79
Page 33 of 91
Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Pasadena Well S~e
Page 16
13. PUBLIC SERVICES
Item a - " No Imoact": 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 WorXs Department!
Water Services Division
Mitiaation Measures:
None Required
14. RECREATION
Items a and b - "No Imoact": The proposed construction of a water well facility
would not impact neighborhood parXs or recreational facilities.
Sources:
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation
Element
Mitiaation Measures:
None Required
15. IRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC
Items a throuah a- "No Imoact": The proposed construction and operation of a
water well facility will not significantly affect traffic in the project area. The prclject
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 pattems, 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 progmms
supporting alternative transportation.
Sources:
Tustin Public WorXs Department
Tustin General Plan Circulation Element
Miliaation Measures:
None Required
Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Pasadena Well Sile
Page 17
16. UTIL TIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Items a throuah h - "No ImDact": 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 Imoact: 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
Resolution No. 06-79
Page 35 of 91
Exhibit I
Conceptual Site Plan, Floor Plan, and EI~vations
N
N
O
C_
N O
CO O
(D Z
W O
v '
00
T
10.7-A
�i.
®Swni
PASADENA AVENUE _ _ _ _ _ _ — _
®ss
w
S?E PLAN —
svcr-•
I
I
rrrrms
I
��
GENERQGR RQOY
\\
NSM
I
h "'Awl
�, 1=��ME=
WELL R"
FLOOR PLAN -rmm.-9-
. W-1
x
(D
N
O
C_
O
N �
C1
O Z
Cl) O
0 '
O T
m-4
�to
WEST 'JU.a TA01N
�=
F7-
- i
11a�1� AIR ♦YI'
EAST ELEVATION
SQVTH ELF'VATION
� re[ rm iWar
W'Y woW
ah v �ertv .erwW� ��rw mwunwo WWas
� 7r WW W��bF�WIW Ir
rIYt CY.pp� fW
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, Califomia 92780
Contacts:
Mr. Fred Adjarian
(714) 573-3381
Mr. Scott Reekstin
(714) 573.3016
July 6, 2006
Resolution No. 06-79
Page 41 of 91
Pessdena Avenue Well She Project
Responses to Comments
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section f!a!
1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................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 01 Contants
Pls8denl Avenue Well Sits 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 921000 et seq.) and in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, 915000 et seq.). In summary, the proposed project involves the
construction of a water well facility housed in a 1,450 square foot stnucture, 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(1) and the CECA 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 projecl 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)
REGIONAULOCAL AGENCIES
4. Orange County Fire Authority (April 17, 2006)
INDIVIDUALS
5. Tina Blenz (April 20, 2006)
6. John C. Washington, Jr. (April 21, 2006)
7. Jim and Kelly Poissant (April 24, 2006)
8. Tina BJenz (April 24, 2006)
,.,
ResolutidRt'fl/&'~. 79
Page 43 of 91
Papd&fy Avenue Wen Site Project
RO$pOnses to Comments
9. Tom Bode, P.OA for Nell J. Bode (April 24, 2006)
10. Alan and Patricia Britt (April 24, 2006)
11. Abel and Ana Canrillo (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 (AprlI24, 2006)
20. Brett Mcintosh (AprlI24, 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 ISIMND; 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
Intlllduction
PaN~na A\oIWnue Well Site Project
Re5pOfJS8S to Comments
1.2 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW PROCESS
Section 15072 of the State CEOA Guidelines states:
"(alA lead agency shall provide a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or
mitigated negative declaration to the public, responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and
the county clerk of each county within which the proposed project is located, sufficiently
prior to adoption by the lead agency of the negative declaration or mitigated negative
declaration to allow the publiC and agencies the review period provided under
Section 15105.
(b) The lead agency shall mail a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated
negative declaration to the last known name and address of all organizations and
individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing and shall also give
notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration by at
least one of the following procedures to allow the public the review period provided
under Section 15105:
(1) Publication at least one time by the lead agency in a newspaper of general
circulation in the area affected by the proposed project. If more than one area is
affected, the notice shall be published in the newspaper of largest circulation from
among the newspapers of general circulation in those areas.
(2) Posting of notice by the lead agency on and off site in the area where the project is
to be located.
(3) Direct mailing to the owners and occupants of contiguous property shown on the
latest equalized assessment roll."
The City of Tustin complied with the requirements to notify agencies and interested individuals
about its intent to adopt an MND for the 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
Resolutiorl'M1.'tllif.!79
Page 45 of 91
Pasadena Avenue We" Site Project
Responses to Comment$
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 comlT!ent number provided in the right
margin of the letters corresponds with the responses provided.
2-1
Responses to Comments
SI3266.1
e
Arnold
SChwmelleaer
Oovomor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
~~
(~.,
~..~
Sean Wallh'
Di1'1lC1Dr
Apri126, 2006
r:r~c
4PR' ~/V~l
''., 2 8
'l'k/tv,j;!lJ.'I1;:! 1fJ.~'i
oJ,;;.c: f"
.....,...'!/f.
"
Scott R.eebtin
city ofTuatiD
300 CCIllcDDiaI Way
TusliD, CA 92780
Sjlbjecl: Puadcua Avetl1le Wen Site
SCH#: 2005031127
Dear Scott Reebtin:
The State CIearlqbouse aubmilled the above JWDed Milip1ed Neplive DeclanlioD to ..Iected -
a8onci.. for review. The review period clOlOCl OIl April 25, 2006, 1IIIl11lO state ..eaci.. submitted
commeDII by that date. Tbilletter acknowlcdaea thai you bave compliod with the Slate C1eariJlshouse 1
review tequiremeDII for draft .......o6lDtDlIl cIocumcDII, pursuant to the California Bnvinmmenta1 Quality
Act
PI.... call the Slate Clearinghouse al (916) 445-0613 if you bave any quelliona reaordiDs the
enviroDlllOl1la1 revi.w pwceas. If you have a quealioD about the abov.-1IBIIlOCI project, pie... refer to the
leO-digil Sill. CleariDgbouse DIIDIbet when contacliD& tbiI om...
Sincerely,
~~~
Director, Stale ~us.
l~TENTH S'l'1lIImT P.O. BOX 3lUo4 SACIlAMENTO, CALIPORNIA 968~~olution No. 06-79
T!IlL(918)",,"18 l"AX(818)323-3018 ........opt....... Page 47 of91
Document DetaUs Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
SCHt 2005031127
ProJect me Pasadena Avenue Well SIIa
LNd A""ncy Tustin, City of
TW- MN Mitigated Negative Declaration
OescrlpUon D
The construction of a water waD facility, housed In a 1,450 sf structura made of spin-face concrete
block and 14 feet In helgh~ with a paved service yard end surrounded by landscaped grounds.
Lead Agency Contact
Name Scott Reekstln
Agency CIty of Tustin
Phone (714) 573-3016
.mII"
Add,... 300 Centennial Way
CIty Tustin
Flit
State CA ZJp 92760
Project Location
County Orange
City Tustin
Region
Cross S_,.
Parcel No.
TownshIp
Pasadena Avenue I Second streel
401~1,03, 10, 11
Ran""
SacUon S.s.
Proximity to:
HlghMya SR 56
AlrporlS
#lJJ/lwaya
w.tannya
Schoo,.
Land U.. vacant
Z: Mulllple Femlly R8sldentlal, Public, end Instllutlonal
GP: High Density ResldenUal, Public, and Instllutlonal
Project I..uss Air Quality; ArchallOloglc-Hlstorlc; Geologic/Seismic; Landuae; Noise; Public Servleas;
ToxlcIHazardous; Water Quality; Water Supply; AestheUcNlsual
RevieWIng RNOUrcea Agency; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8; Dspertmern of Perks and
1Igancle. RecreeUon; NaUve Amerlcan Heritage Convnlsalon; Depertmant of Health Servlcea; 0ftIce of HlsIorlc
P....ervaUon; Department of FIah and Game, Region 5; Departman1 of Water RNOUrcea; Callfomla
Highway Patrol; Caltrans, Dlatricl12; Departmen1 of ConservaUon; Department of Toxlc Subst8nces
Control; Stele Water ReeourCBs Con1rol Board, Division of Water RIghts
Dste Received 0312712006
Start of RevIew 0312712006
End o( #lJJvlaw 04/2512006
Note: Blanks In data IiekIa resull from Insufficient InfonnaUon provided by lead agency.
Pasadan. A...nue Well Site Projact
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
~1P~9
Page 49 of 91
513266.1
e
" I
..::~
-
':-
.
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Dan SkopeC
Adlng 8ecreloly
CaIlEPA
Maureen F. Gorsen, Director
579B Corporate Avenue
Cypress, CalWoml8 90630
AmOId ScIlwIIrZ8negger
Govemor
April 24. 2006
RECEIVED
~PR 2
C~ 62006
Vrr IJEVEt. OPNENr
Mr. Scott Reekstin
City ofTustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, Califomia 92780
INITIAL STUDY AND NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) FOR THE PASADENA
AVENUE WELL SITE PROJECT (SCH#2005031127)
Dear Mr. Reekstln:
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (OTSC) 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 DTSe has comments as follows:
1) The NOP should identify the current or historic uses at the project site that may 1
have resulted in a release of hazardous wastes/substances.
2) The NOP should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation
and/or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the govemment
agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If hazardous materials or
wastes were stored and used at the site, a Site Assessment could determine if a
release had occurred. If so, further studies should be carried out 10 delineate the 2
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 10
public health or the environment. If no immediate threat exists, the final remedy
should be implemented in compliance with stale laws, regulations and policies.
. Prinllld "" RocyOod Pop.'
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 3
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 clearty summarized In a table.
4) Proper investigation, sampling and remedial actions overseen by a regulatory
agency, If necessary, should be conducted at the site prior to the new 4
development or any construction. All closure. certification or remediation
approval reports by these agencies should be included in the NOP.
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 5
Contaminated Property." Appropriate precautions should be taken prior to
construction if the proposed project Is within a Border ZOne Property.
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 6
location. Land Disposal Restrictions may be applicable to these soils. Also,lf
the project proposes to import soA to backfill the areas excavated. proper
sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soli is free of
contamination.
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 7
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.
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 8
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).
Resolution No. 06-79
Page 51 of 91
__ u. . ___ __._ ..-._--~_.
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".
Si ncerely,
k4Y~ "'-
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
CECA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, California 95812-0806
CECA# 1385
Pasadena Avenue Wen Sits Project
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 2
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Greg Holmes, Southem 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
'RlInluUrtQlkJ(IllMJ't79
Page 53 of 91
5/3266.]
Pasadena AvenlJ9 WellSIt8 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
S1J266.l
SIAIE..DFCAUfnR."IA. RtJ~INF.~~ TkA~!WORTA.nOI'l ANn BOIIo:;,ING AGF.N("''i
ARNOLD o:;nrwAR1ENEOOER Oowmor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRlCT 12
lJ 37 MICHELSON DRIVE
SUITS elSO
IRVINE, CA 926J2-1699
PHONE (9491714.2000
@
Scott Reekstin
City of Tustin
Community Development Department
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA, 92780
RECEIVEr'
APR 1 9 'l5JO(,
COWJNllY D~V
Fle.ty(l&lrpowu!
B....l%I'rfficiro'!
April 14, 2006
IGRlCEQA
SCH#2oo5031127
MNDIIS
Lo&# l539A
SR55
Dear Mr. Reekstin:
Subject: Pasadena Avenue Well Site
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft Mitigated Negative
Deetuadon (MND) aDd Initial Study (IS) ror the Pasade.. Avenne 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 Avenue 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:
1. Due to the proximity to SR55 the Environmental Document should identify any and all
potential permanent and lemponuy 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. Ally runoff draining into Caltcans Right-of-way from construction operations, or from the
resulting project. must fuIly conform to the current discharge requirements of the Sants 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 21, 2005 still apply.
4
5
hC:"I,mn, I"'prtm:s mob/1m' <<nus CnliJ'umio"
Resolution No. 06-79
Page 55 of 91
Scott Reekstin
April 14,2006
Page 2
Please continue to keep us infonned of projects that may impact our State Transportation
Facilities. If)'Ou 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. Enviromnental Plannins
"elll,rll", 'fflP1"il1lN IffOhllitv tJt"'/~U Cnlifornul"
~
. '!l ...-... .A~.-
.~
. ..
_.._.~---_. .- -.-
~._---
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Diltricl12
3331 Micbellcm Dri... Suilc 380
Irvine. CA 92612-8894
.
FIa,..,. "...-1
81 -cr I/Ifdat!
April 21, 2005
Mr. Scott Rcekstin
CilyofTustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin. CA. 92780
File: lGRlCEQA
SCH#: 2005031127
Log #: 1539
SR #: SR-SS
Subject: Puadeaa A VeDue WeD Site Negative Declaration
Dear Mr. Reekstin
Thank yeu for the opportunity 10 review and commenl on the Negative Declaration for the
PasadeDa Avene Well Site. The proposed project is for the construction ora water well
facilily, housed in a 1,450 square foot sUUclurc made of split {ace cement block and 14 feet in
height, with a paved service yard.
,
Caltranl Dlltriet 12 II . reviewing ageney on Ihil project, and has the following commentS {or
your considemion.
1.lf any projcct work (e.g. street widening, emergency access improvements, sewer connections, sound
walls, stonndrain conslruclion, street connectiona, etc.) occurs in the Yicinity of the CallranS Riaht of
Way, an encroachment permit would be required and environmental concerns nmst be addressed. Please
coordilUlle with Caltrans for street and transportation improvements on or near the Csltrans Right of Way.
4
2.Any wolk within the Slate Right of Way must confonn to CallranS Standanl Plans and Standard
Specifications for Water Pollution Control, including production of a Water Pollution Control Program
(WPCP) or Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required. The applicant must proYide the
Permits Branch with a copy of the SWPPP or WPCP. including Bell Management Practices (BMPs) to
be implemented for construc:tion activities impacting the Caltrans Right of Way, as required by the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Statewide Storm Wakir Permit for General
Consuuction Activities. The applicant musl follow the requirements as described in the attached Water
Pollution Control Provisions (please see at\acllmeDt).
5
"CllllJUS ilrIprot1fJ -..bibtya<n:llf Calronll."
Resolution No. 06-79
.. Pllge 57 of 91
.'~. . _--0
,
I
.
Mr. Scott Reekstin
April 21, 2005
Page 2
We appreciBle the opportunity to comment on this document. If you bave any questions or need to
contact us, please do not hesitate to call Aileen Kennedy BI (949) 724-2239.
c; Teny Roberts, Office of Planning and Research
Terri Pencovic, Caltrans HQ IGRlConununity Planning
Gale McJntyre, District 12 Deputy Director of Planning
Isaac Alonso Rice, Traffic Operations
"c,',r."s ia(JtYwu IftObi/lty IIcrrtU ClIll/omin-'
.- _\
f.
.
i 0
l'
r.:
r.
"
ATTACHMENT
CAL TRANS DISTRICT 12
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROVISIONS
Any runoff draining into Caltrans Right of Way must fully confonn to !he current discharge
requiremenls of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to avoid impacting water
quality. Perrnillee shall fully confunn to the requirements of the Caltrans Statewide National PoUUtaJlt
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Pcrmi~ OrderNo. 99..06-DWQ, NPDES No.
CASOOOOOr,adopted by the State WaterReso~esControl Board (SWRCB) onluly 15,1999, in
addition to the BMPs specified in the Caltrana Storm Wat<r Management Plan (SWMP). When
applicable, the Perrnillee will also conform to the requiremenls of the General NPDES Permit for
Construction Activities, Order No. 99-oS-DWQ, NPDES No. CASOOOOO2, and any subsequent
General Permit in effect at the time of issuance of this Encroachment Permit. These permits regulate
storm water and non-storm water discharges associated with year-round construction activiti....
Please note that project activities should pay extra attention to slonn water pollution control during the
"Rainy Season" (October 1st - May 15t) and follow the Water Pollution Control BMPs 10 minimize
impact to receiving waters. Measures must be incorporated 10 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 (1 acre) or more of soil disturbance or olherwise subject 10 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
7-1.0IG "Water Pollution Control", the Department's Statewide NPDES Permit, the General NPDBS
Pennil 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 Novemhcr 2000, and
subsequent revisions. In addition, tho 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
Waler Pollution Control Program (WPCP) confonning to the requirements of the Department's
Specifications Section 7-1-.OlG (Water Pollution Control), and the Storm Water Quality Handbooks:
"Stonn 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 Quslity 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 lU'C also available for review
. at Caltrans Dislricl12, 3347 Michelson Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92612, Telephone: (949)
724-2260. Electronic copies can be found at htto://www.dot.C8.l1Ovlha/construcfstormwater.html
Resolution No. 06-79
Psga.59>of-S-t
PasadeM Avenue Well Site Project
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 3
Department of Transportation
Robert F. Joseph, Chief of IGRlCommunity Planning Branch, District 12
April 14, 2006
1. Although the proposed project is adjacent to State Route 55, no potential pennanent 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 stonn 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 penn its from the Department of
Transportation. However, the need to obtain an encroachment pennit 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
Resp0n$8s to Comments
'13266.1
~
K~, '-,~
~
ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY
P.O. Box S7/1S, Irvine, Cd 92619-7JJS.J FiredulhorityRd, Irvine, (:..j 91602
Chip Pralher. Fire Chief
www.ocfa.org
(714) 573-6199
April 17, 2006
RECEIVED
APR 1 7 1006
COMMUNITY nEVELOPME1i I
City ofTustin
Scott Reekstin
300 Centennial Wy
Tustin, CA 92780
SUBJECT: Pasadena Wen Site MND
Dear Mr. Reekstin:
1bank 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 CaIARP 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 wilI be applied to the project during
the nonna! review process,
Please contact me at 714-573-6199 ifadditiODal information is required.
Sin rely
Miclle dez
Strategic Services
1T\1...h,..lp.h",,",~nr1"7@nC"fA t'll'i
Servin, 1M Cities of AJilo Vi~ . 8..... Pwk . Cyprus . Dana foUI'_ lriiDe. J..I&unl Hills. I.Acuu Ni.pcI. L.... Woock. LUc: Fot'CIl. La Palma.
Los AllmitOt . MiUiofl Viejo. PlKenIia. R.lDlObo Santi Mwprill . SIn CIememe. SIn JUUI ClpillrlnO. Seal Bach . Stan1on. TlUtin _ Villa Put.
Wcstmiasta. Vorba Linda.1ftd UnmolJlOf*d Area ofOnnac County
RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS AND SMOKE DETECTORS SA VI LJV!S
Resolution No. 06-79
Page 61 of 91
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 DepartmentlWater 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.
2-43
Responses to Comments
SIl266.1
April 20. 2006
RECEIVED
APR 2 ~ 2'~~)
COMMUNITY DMLOfMENT
IY
Elizabeth A. BiIl5ack
CommWlity ~elopment Director
CommUDity ~e1opment Dept
300 Centconial Way
Tustin. CA 92710
Re: P?RA"""" 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 eonapondina issues in the study.
L Aesthetics:
a) We disagree. This will have an adverse effcc:t on a 8Cenie vista. We cwrently have a smal1
view of the San Bernardino Mountains &om inside our home. We cqjoy the opesmeas on that side
our property. The well site would close in our property on that Bide. It would also ctea1e a 1
security issue for the oeishborbood. since our stn:et is secluded. We can see homes 00 the north
side of our street from our home.
c.) We disasree. It will degrade the existing characteristics of our neighborhood. Our
neigbborhood consists of 1950' s homes with a historic home. Our stn:et 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 oDe would see upon drivina onto our street. All other wells in the city of Tustin are
located in commercial areas, paIb, and busy streets. Home values would also be severely
affected.
IV. Blololical RCIOurca:
e.) We disasree. It is proposed that a larse ficus tree would be removed. This is in violation of the
city's Jl108I'8DI to try and prcseIVe its large trees. Removing trees affects our air quality, especially
near a freeway like we are.
3
V. Cultural Resources:
a) We disasree. There would be a significant chanse in the historical resource of our
neighborhood. Our neighborhood was in exiSlellCe before the 55 freeway or the 5 freeways were
buill It went through a tremendous chanse during the bui1dins oCthe 5 and 5S freeways. DurinS
the recent widenins of the 55 freeway we endured the mess. the noise and sleep deprivation. Then
4
Resolution No. 06-79
Page 63 of 91
our neighborhood was hil with street improvemenlBl And. we went through all thIIl apinl It'.
important 10 preserve our architectural bcrilllie through preserving oW' neighborhoods and their
aestheti~ qualities.
4
Furthennore, the pump house will be 1400 sq~ feet wbi~h is almost as large as our house at
1500 square feet. It would also be OODCrete block, wbich is the typical public utility type building.
VlL Hazam ud B_nioDl Matcrlab:
a.) We disagree. There will be two 1501b. eyliDden of chlorine within 40 reet of our home. They
will have 10 be ttansported by trut:k tbrouah our neighborhood. It is known thaI exposure to 5
chlorine can cause =tain types of canccn. If a smaIJ bottle of Clorox comes with allldnds of
warnings then we should be notified of what hazards I SO pound tanks contain.
c.) We disagree. Thctc are three elementary "boob within a one mile radius of our location.
There is St. Jean Lcstonnac approximately .40 miles, Heideman Elementary, about I mile, and 6
Estol:k EletneDtary about .60 miles. We bave childmt walking home from school through our
neighborhood everyday.
g.) We disaaree. Our street has oaly ooe-way-in IllId one-way-out by vehicle. We need to have
emergency access at all times. We have several elderly neighbors thaI need medical services 7
delivered periodicelly.
VOl. Bydrolol)' Hd Water QaaUty:
b.) We disagree. 2005 was lUllD1u.sua11y wet year. Our normal rainfall is 12.14 inches per y......
During 2005, we bad near 30 inehes. Our wet years are usually followed by drought yeatS. The 8
pumping rate is estimated to be 1500-2000 gallons pel" minute. It ~culates out to 2,880,000
l!IIllons per day.
d.) We disagne. We found out that there was a problem with some of the homes near It" and 9
Holt with a drain pipe leak. It created lIIab problema for some of them.
IX. Ltmd Use ad Plulli...
a.) We disagree. Placing the well on the proposed site would prevent us from viewing the rest of
the neighborhood. We are a IICCluded area. Thus in tam, it would creaIC a security issue for the 10
neighborhood.
b.) We disa&rCC. It would impac:t oW' neighborhoods histori~el character. It would be the ftnt
thing that one would see driving onto our street. What one sees in a neighborhood effects property 11
vsIues. For example, pffiti causes values to decrease.
XI. Nobe:
b.) We disapce. The proposed PIIIIlp bouse is located twenty feet from our bedrooms.
12
XU. Populatioa ud Houalag-
a.) We disagree. The lots an: zoned Multiple Family Residential and Public IDstitutiooa1. The 13
largest oftbc lots doesn't meet the minimum requirements in the city fora house. Then, the
zoning is incorrect for the proposed use.
If the estimllled pIIIIlping volume is 1500-2000 gallODS per minute, then it is est;moted that the
volume will be 1,880,000 pOoo per day. There are only twelve homes on our street, 600 homes
in Old Town Tustin, and Tustin Lepcy will have IrviDe Ranch Waf<<. Then, obviously, there is
an altematlveplan for this blah volume of water flow. There is a IDuld-ltol')' 14
medicallcoodominium complex proposed for Fint Street and Tustin Ave. It is located only a
quarter mile away from our neighborhood. If that's where that water is 80ing, then the well site
should be put there.
XV. TraDlpOrtatlO..rrnmc-
a.) We disagree. Our street's traffic flow is very light. We would have more service trucks in the
_ creaUnll more traffic. With OIIC way in and out, this can be an issue.
I 15
XVII. Mudatol')' FIIIdinp of Slplfteanee.
c.) We dissp:e. The project will have significant effects on human beings. The aesthetics of the
neighborhood will be severely a1fcctcd. The chum of our neighborhood will be lost. The values 16
of homes will drop. We'll have an ulllY view outside our home. And above all, safety will be
compromised.
We hope the city will reconsider the site and place it where it is more appropriate.
Sincerely.
..:J--.:. A- ~~
Tina Blcnz 0
270 S. Pal~"""" Ave.
Tustin,CA 92780
Resolution No. 06-79
Page 65 of 91
Pasadena Avenue Well Site Project
Responses to Comment5
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
17th Street Desalter = Wells #2 and #4
Walnut Well
18001 Beneta Way
14632 Prospect Avenue
14610 Prospect Avenue
13161 Yerba Street
18602 E. 17th 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
:UJ266.1
Passdena Avenue Wa" Site Project
ResponMS 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 safely 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
~~
Page 67 of 91
~1l266,1
Pasadena Avenue Well Site Project
Responses to Comm&nt.s
13. The proposed public utility project is a permitted use in the City's Multiple Family
Residential and Public:llnstitutional 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
SI:l266.1
JOHN C. WASHINGTON, JR.
13812 Hewes Avenue
Santa Ana, California 92705
April 21. 2006
To Whom It May Concern.
My real estate car_ began in Tustin in 1973. I am fanuliar with property vlllues in
residential neighborhoods. A commercial structure on a residentia1 block will reduce tile
value of tile bomes. This is a met. Even a building disguised as a home. such as a well
house, will devalue surrounding properties.
1
For many yean. as a hobby and part time work, I did down hole photography and video
taping for my filtber-in-Iaw's company. The scores of water wells that I examined for
McCalla Brothers Pump and Water Well DriI\ing gives me first hand knowledge of
projects like the one tile city of Tustin is proposing.
2
Tbe noise, the incredible mess and im:onvenieoce that drilling a water well entails is a total
hardship upon neighbors for severa1 blocks around the project. It is devastating to tile
nearby bomes and their occupants.
I, along with tile neighbors of this project, strongly su8llest that a ~ location be found
inunediately. This proposed project and site is not conducive to this or any residential
neighborhood.
3
4
If for some reason the city decides to proceed with drilling a water well in this
unacceptable location then the city will need to make ammgements to temporarily relocate
the surrounding neighbors to residences similar to their current living quarters. As you
know, this is not an unconunOll practice and must be addressed and ellecuted.
5
John Washington
Resolution No. 06-79
Page 69 of 91
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
1 B001 Beneta Way
14632 Prospect Avenue
14610 Prospect Avenue
13161 Yorba Street
18602 E. 17th 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 Dect8f'lltlon 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 that only allow the well
to be built in a specific appropriate area, which is right next to the owner-
occupied residence III 270 Pasaden8 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 SU'l'OIJr1ding 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 OON standS a signiflC80l 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 adj~ to the property line of the residence
at 270 Pasadena Ave, obIcuring their CUfT8I'lt view of the lTlO\.I'\lains and
replacing it with one of a 1450 sq. ft. 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
landllcaping will soften the appearance 01 the existing freeway wall is
disingenuous. II the City had restored the site 10 lis condition prior 10 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
Resolution No. 06-79
Page 71 of 91
cement block water well treatment facility with metal gales. Furthennore
this proposed structure is in no manner, shape or fonn 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 aJJTent 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 I1JCI1 with the replica lighting.
Therefore the proposed consIruction of the water well treatment facility
will result in a direct change in the environment, will have a substantial
edverse effect on II 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 wat.r 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 II long time to
mature) and ground cover the city uses to mitigate the structure,
the structure will be still identifiable as a water traabnent facility, incompatible
with the surrounding historic single-f."ily 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
wa expect constant monitoring to ensure 0lX safety and health cUing
preparations, construction end 8fI8r. Expoe~ to dust, mud and other particles
ete will be continuous and cumulative.
6. This is a single loaded double cul-de sac street; there is only one way in and
one way out. That 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 S!l1all 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. Willlhe lead agency pay for a medivllC 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 ResponselEvacuation 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 013 citizens whose residence at 270 Pasadena
Ave. will be directly adjacent, including an eleven yetJI 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 \Yell and other improvements
contempleted 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 \Nell is operating that will subject
residents to possible degradation of air quality and contamination.
As CECA states: 15064 (d) (1) a direct physical changa in the envirorment,
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 sewBgelrealment plant (in this specific case a
water well treatment facility) and poaible odorll from operation of the plant
(chlorine).
a. The project would materially impair nearby buildings, as the size, shape and
industrial use are incompetible with the inmediate surroundings of the historic
single-family residential neighbortlood 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 socI8I effects on people,
those adverse efJecla may be used 88 a fec:lor in detarmlning whether the
physical change is Significant... Further, ND 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 8Ifec:ls on property values. This facility
will cause a permanent negative transition in the character of this historic
neighborhood.
e. The construction and operation of the Pasadena water well treatment
faellity will cause noise that will exoeed the Tustin noise ordinance. Mitigation
measures based on the Noise)l..1 ssment for the Pasadena Avenue Waler
Well daled January 11, 2006 by Maestre Greve Associates are not
compatible with the Pasadena water well treatment facility because the
drilling sites tested by Maeslre Greve Associates are not the seme in depth,
scope, size or intended purpose or loadion as the Pasadena water well
treatment facility. The first one elted, 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 aJone a historic one. The second one
cited, Huntington Besch East well #1-36 ia located within a mnery. 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 treatmant facility site preparations, construction and
13
14
15
Resolution No. 06-79
Page 73 of 91
_ ,_.. _ _ m." _. ____.
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 101 not in a
historic residential neighborhoqd. 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 PO 26
'..the constant-rate discharge tast 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 hoIeI.. Maestre
Greve Associates especially noted the residence at 310 Pasaclen8 as
more vulnerable during all phases of construction and thereafter
operations since all the bedrooms reside on the second story.
How the NO 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 th8 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 8 walei' well treathl8llt 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 end their pets are
accustomed to. Everyday wor1t 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 leed agency referring to for the hotel?
The mitigation mellS... are not 8llfficient and the project will cause the
most significant environmental effects directly on the human beings who
reside within the aforementioned residences.
15
1F
Routine maintenance also requires a pump rig with a 201t.mast to remove and
treat the well, 1 to 3 timel a year and lest 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 CUing preparation and construction? This form of
maintenance will also adversely affect the resident's quality of life.
17
-- - -.. .~- --... ..- ...-.'. ..'~ . -,'''' .... .... _.. --.. . .
Additionally the 20ft mast visibla 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 Sl.mlI.Ilding historic single-family
homes.
. Maestre Greve Associates performed a pravious Noise Assessment for
the Pasadena AlI8nue 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 evenlthis location is rejected. Where are they located?
10. This faclllty must be secured. That is why an Emergency
Response/Evacuation Plan and a Risk Management Plan are necassary. Fire
and polica will be forced to give this facility high priority during construcIion
and aftBr Installation anY time the alann goes off indicating a problem. This
will have an impact on Ihair 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 81 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 01 Pasadena Ave and the
residents who live along the route emergency vehicles will take to reach the
water well treatment facility when tha alarm goes off, in turn adversely
affecting their health, walfare and quality of life.
11. The preparation and construction of this facility will C8UII8 a substantial
increase in vehicle trips, the voll.l11e to capecity ratio on residential streets
and naw congastion 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 I"8lllde on the snets of Main, Myrtle, First,
Pacific and Second been notified about the water well tr&8tment facility and
how it will adversely affect them in regards to this16 month change?
12. Has SI. Mary De lestonnac School, 16791 Main SI. Tustin, Ca 92780
been notified?
Has St. Cecilia School, 1311 Sycamore Tustin, Ca 92780 been notified?
13.The facility, 0I'lCB completed, with the necessary 24-ho11 pi.mping. will
generate audible noise in the neiglilortlOOd (see Page 12 of the Initial Study
attached to the NO [the 'IS"]). Though the plan is for the noise not to exceed
the allowable decibel levels in the Tustin Noise Ordinence, there is no
guarantee. Additionally, the noise would be constant and therefore could
have 8 potentially significant imp8cl on the envirormental quality of the
neighborhood even if the constant noise is not allhe levels prohibited by the
noise ordlnanca (violations of which are typically not constant but rether one-
time events). There is other equipment Ih8t would be at the facility that will
17
18
19
20
21
I 22
23
Resolution No. 06-79
Page 75 of 91
-...- .'P'" . ._... -..--..- ..--------~-.,.... ---.-. - .--.- -----.-..-
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? 1l1eae houses are all on raised foundations and are more
vulnerable to construction related damage. One of the homes closest to the
17th SI. water well located at 14001 Windsor suffered serious damage during
preparation and construction. Also from the home direclly behind the well
located at 14002 Stratton, you can hear the constant hum of the facility
24f713a5. The noise of the generator when activated is loud and invesive.
Land erosion, sink holes and creeks in their foundation were a dlreet 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 ther~er if
there is a leak that contaminates the neigNlomood rendering it unfit for
human inhabitation?
18. 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 Ihe 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 injJry 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
2E
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 signiflC8nt cultural veIue to the community.
When the NO states the contemplated facility will have no impec:t 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 slmply
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 Ordil1&1C8 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.
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.
28
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 Appropri8teness before
proceeding to CECA The City has not complied with the framework of Ordinance
9252 and is not exempt therefrom. The City is required to oblsin 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.
Before we purchased our home at 265 Pa~ Ave. 5 yrs. ago we picked up
from City Hall and read
'A Guide for Old Town Residential Property Owners 2001' see aUached.
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. Neighbort1ood continuity
2. Community pride
3. Preservation of resourcas 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
30
31
Naturally we actively sought to live here in a city that is obviously so commitled to
preserve the quality of life of its residents that this same city (City of Tustin)
would enumerate that commitment into a brochure to be widely distributed to all.
Resolution No. 06-79
Page 77 of 91
- - ..~'.. .~~- .- ._- -- -
.. _... ~__"R____'.___ .____
... _ __. M_..... .., __'. .,..-.
Therefore for 1511 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.
I 32
Please contact us with any questions.
~
. . ,
'.;' ..
Kelly Poissant
t2J.cS ~Pc~ ~V~
lj /CH /vb
i
;l
m
N
O
C
y o
CD Z
-40
to ,
0 0
91
CD
to
CuRural Rewumn District Boundary Map
18JQortanl'rdeDtione
rlulnbefa
Chy of Tustin_.................._.._..............714-571.3000
Tustin Piaming/Redevdapneal ............
714-5'.3-3140
Zada Building Drvisim......... ..... ........
.714-571-311:
711-571-11.12
-Palin Building larpoa sass...._.___........714-573-311:
Tustin Code 81trarea e......._...-_...._.714.537.3149
'
Testa Police l3Cpelmeol .............._........714-573-3200
'
Tattle SeniorCealar ......... .......... _ ....
_.._714-5733340 ,
1 Tustin Library... .. ......... .... ..................
714..%44.772.% j
' Tw6x"tnbwotCanerwce_...__..___714-5M-5341
'
Twlda Area Ilbtwical Swicly
and Maanre...... ........ .......................714-731.5701
Onags Cooay Historicel Socivy.-..-....714-543.5262
Slee Office dHietork
Preeanatiao......................................01"53.6624
i
Wank Pravvadon Foaadatiun ........510,163-0972
califomiman B&Mptogorn ... ..........
916.322.3520 ,
California Hioardmi Smiely..............
..... 415-357.1&a ,
I fialkrstd7tud for Hisrordc
j
Poaarvadoa..............................
.....415.956-0610
Hill Hock*&M John Sauets
Shaba Aueuat ]ones Guy Smith
Nsilltft Monanl
i
Gonna nky D dooment Staff
Eimabeth A. BitSgMdt., Dimkrr
Scott R=katin, Suror P latuaa
H
Cultural Resource
Overlay District
1 A Guide for Old Town
Residential Property Owners
2001
I
Alsess�aa ltc as
`� Ilw County lis Irrtgss'ty tax
lcte, an ed 75 Is cent Nctwever` has
ircd Circ cntttutd Iiyll as 75 l,cr s11casst if aw ►volley
army 11sis Istnccs, is j.,i temiit twill ht Icss SVII
f.
R 1xtiWitryt I rtdndier iin, anal iU
its 117 raq dntt11 ' t ti;Vicw or t{ cswscrsl»i
tri, leay in llkl'1'oaiilustiu,)aiu l vridt dcsi>p ncttclsAttsA' trial
dr COY dart aon_umtuH! dilGcdl latl is
.\.:.n,niltB•,fl 1 to r.-es 1 .fie lxcKtsl n Ella otic Inttne or nxttvtc to
an' Ix•'Ivs1dY ,`rare of some asl Ju ctfoAs the cif die cytk:tiax li 70%, rnvn an Hist
Ilk 1011 scv'cr•J )cul it chits.NAY Itr. ct�
n duai'se Atcrc yul atddnal P� let cn3an:Iltat . I, as, rias reap in •i'uain, ri1y .
ltss nndrnas.' tvttxlatl" imc withal Ila Dill Btti4. .
(;ity s P1aclUeReatattc
lnudl un�tt unmsl tnxudiisK us atul Iltr Lit ds
tirc.atir Ak . 'naiad knouts asl a strut of the sUtKiura•. strlieipuc Hitt
rwrda til rinr:uter Wwam called dcc l'ust{u Aro is ui ieco6rtiue
ir,.•un'es cd' Ok1 '1'-%q oldc 1 lite Itinun'ic the laftlic,
,111,1n�,KY :IIID rncrn.rynnl{ lite 1P ttarldduvi'lwwt. •IlK'rc tx mt lit kN a (aLN'dIK3aC cs( Ilittrltose of the voluntary 1
11+1xDlsiatcnas. s hiAoriu. ptol,eAies, alt�rrc perticsOW lurxtceoJ
husvta•"�•x indtr ana tdhnnl '1'xiidlistori t
ropeAt 1° inesense ia'h ittlerest in e 'rhe
tlx C IIY
Council Ci ctilt Wan i a5 nttay :slwnir •1 ts( mn At h
In l hi8, lhati„y [Yiurid in lite arca krttr �, 1M nuc xrcr . iyoric ptontote comttvtsN Y Pr'd ' may Ix
lics,s:utts s bostridasjeS l n a 4+u t , ttpr,ten ' _ lslatlues ptsrchasecl dtrestd4*�pProlscrly owuUm
111,1 '1'anrn 'l'u1tm. T1te tad l!tY7 a ktett rcurt n7enmpad 1 m tom— iitoatnal ax set CAI Atcul • reslumsadc fcx
fdksr sste r Illaltdep"'I" in 'r .rest u von aec tAiriltatc a�
district roiitdb' v elf the whit vrexkl lila: to P°
nKcxltasnticnt lioutularie • ttckrir.
insIATIA cni ntul maintcuancc cd t ,c
lktsit'1 1111 arntt luso 1111 111x6
this Guislc . idtalucs• of
diluut. the > N6011an111MM11't93I1'llllly iIle Lyt[nnndN,n dale
dtc tlitcriel, p C<mmndri4• pride acs will display aal wilt lx
xca:rve 11K ►daq, of text,
tnsra-t:vtsl I . atfosis Once ut�;ot,of syaasncslbr utute His u, tin, 1na.` �1•pstict Ilistoric
l'o c'dcuKc' { u 1 live fdksvitw ' p Pre. 1111 htnkln>h the
tgtscnuiti s ideodl'ted ,x alncvial by
C'a1 .its acerniplisl " t'nu, 4Ibeiv atul :aniticacc Repslcr hutttitatlicni lixn'S. lO(owmKlee, tnAY
It ptalt p ihti9tta :. v duc.•1 flt:s<turce:s Advre°ry . pavektptnent
1 Acbiart'ti p hunau'cl ryr,lWely ' lite Cukntst
> (pTuiJra'aaP,isi,m:.mietants 11'rotn die Counnan,uy
FAIX4\shell it (�11{tlnill ittsaanre. ai,,ittdtltg {� it)a•,yma
('autanattac Stroll' p Actcssu�lieaurirn:I,suh, 1)Cixiff"Witt.
l'unld, tavltltc '1'ttmitlliv rltuaiKl,l,tssi,u•sasantl scsale,scxs rvir+e t, v: City,s
y Rcnldtirac{ ns a C;crtifal Ltc'al xtiam s siiruss
. ,tint (flY is asnumua{ tap 1'rx a any NC
C:an'rAnuK•nt fair lii.'ncsic PTS d>at Isis ;m A, ltilu+x r�rnuus. StUAII l YpU ()jd '1 Wnl ,x Jtc
acta•d gana in
dir ()k/ 7onA ghruit+„•nl t ttsalctttial prc4teAy SttveY. rgFvutEg 411 CW s utat0>t� Pfacess• a' sis1, to
Contl 1f you own • city's ned
1 Nlrr, Dads+ . or .0 rautig at dtc'fnsdn liktat mtY of die doccurIC" ntrn.
Jx Xt �it -WA ➢• he e1ilplit to ludic{ in the ode CpiiftcaVC c>< A f 23TY Nctnvsutson
l)r\d r{n� YMI OUT Ad s1 is in a misY mite
Gpick/roes 11v,t�tm '1111 Mies aim cr a Tustin Historic 1tirfe M
n sulk hd PcoRrarss yfilk Ad s far rtJttced isnsls�y �sna cpdact a Comm
bill tutittd sur I�•am ktPslµicm l{tat Psrivtck rt if line prWsaty Fain, P� net at 71hs73414d.
> }cwtued a ltl ,,,u daatFv ma dttilsie hisadc Prof Y e dM DCliartment Plan
meed thc'fltdtrt Histetic Rcliiacr un ,ii sintntn and P1 seve us or an Dk{ Town
t hwlctin8 s °N°e 'for Isrecs lduoric:d inform�io"
rtcrr slrrtcturer �crpeAY for n nudauom CA 10, ftt°paty is 1. O tibc3dn "tt(1 %C S>°irrq �
del. ymt maY wudr to
{11 Acl cv dic aiiu,act is Snotty x101
it' con air tkitking r exlerior z0fi c s dna trnnn of a M' Area
1 islnricat
on y0nr lsatst7eAy MAing ;ntAtucs ytkl dttrisK dna lcnn <d' dw aoar ew �terili• 11te rte the 1-sins^ 1,
cxialing t (at o6laii a (oily d on ds (tit 11 KAY � reclttaksn is Marcum al 71 d 791•.
vir,co rx to a»Y ntra,n,A01Y°s 91tis vItotnati 1' Pssi
f,iix,rny. the Csty Dcsi>P. .®.lidAvlets esad ansvuu of 1•.v: 1 '°l
u
,if %isc linodeaial witidt al
i a,grl.tiux an rz mkr'm
cl,siutic,u in 't�it J% til
til• litys i lrtect
Pasadena Avenue Well Site Project
Response5 to Comment$
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 ISIMND, 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 nol pertain 10 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
~fl(ffOlil9.l~9
Page 81 of 91
3"13266.1
Pas8fJena Avenue Wen 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(1)(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 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 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
Response. to Ccmments
513266,1
Pasadena Avenue well Site Project
Reaponses to Comments
The comparison with the Vandenburg Well is provided on Page 13 of the ISlMND 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 w~hin 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 CECA m~igation 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 ISlMND. Drafts of the document were independently reviewed by
City staff for completion and to ensure that the analysiS was adequate, but no final
document was rejected.
19. The City is not aware of any law that requires two altemate 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
~e",~~9
Page 83 of 91
513266.1
Pasadena Avenue Well Site Project
R8~seS 10 Commenl$
22. The Notice of Intent to Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period
was not mailed to the private schools at 167901 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. 17'" 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 ISlMND, 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
$13266.1
Pasadena Avon.. Wall Sill> Proj<<:t
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 3D-day review period provided by the City of Tustin
was in compliance with CEQA requirements. Public comments on the ISIMND 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
~~~
Page 85 of 91
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 Bleoz (April 24, 2006)
2. Tom Bode. P.O.A 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 Kertin (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
Resolution No. 06-79
Page 87 of 91
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 (Se), 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.
......... _. - - .. - ..
_ - ..
...
MITI"TION mONITONNG
Mfl'IGATLON COMPLIANCE
AND ENFORCEMENT
MEA%ME
ntmNG AND IMPLEMENTATION
RIM" INSil lL1TY
MPONSIBIL rry
AlrOuallty
SC 3.1
The City shall require the contractor to operate all construction
Verify requirements on contractor
Project Contractor
Public Works Department
equipment, and the emergency generators for construction
specifications prior to issuance of
activities in accordance with SCAQMD rules and regulations.
a grading permit
This requirement shall appear conspicuously on final
construction plans and/or working drawings.
Implementation during
construction
SC 3-2
At the time of plan check, the City shall ensure that the
Verify requirement on contractor
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
specifications for the chlorine scrubber system meet all
specifications prior to issuance of
applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations.
a grading permit
MM 3-3
The City shati require the contractor to comply with all City
Verify requirements on contractor
Project Contractor
Public Works Department
policies pertaining to short term construction emissions,
specifications prior to issuance of
including periodic watering of the site and prohibiting grading
a grading permit
during second stage smog alerts and when wind velocities
exceed 15 miles per hour. This requirement shall appear
Implementation during
conspicuously on final construction plans and/or working
construction
drawings.
MM 3-4
The City shall require the contractor to implement dust control
Verify requirements on contractor
Project Contractor
Public Works Department
measures during site disturbance activity, induding, for
specifications prior to issuance of
example, regular watering in accordance with SCAQMD Rule
a grading permit
403. This requirement shall appear conspicuously on final
construction plans and/or working drawings.
Implementation during
construction
MM 3-5
Prior to pntting the project out to bid (for the construction
Prior to project bid
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
phase), the Public Works Department shall submit the
construction drawings to the Orange County Fire Authority
(OCFA) for their review, approval, and stamp.
MM 3-6
Prior to start up of the chlorination facility, the Public Works
Prior to start up of the chlorination
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
Department shall obtain approval from the Orange County Fire
facility
Authority (OCFA). As pat of this approval, a hazardous
material and inventory disclosure forth wHI be prepared
including an emergency response/evacuation plan for the
m
facility.
N
3-7
The construction documents and plans shall specify that the
Verify requirements on contractor
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
ofacility
shall be designed for detection and containment of any
specifications prior to issuance of
Zpotential
leakage.
a grading permit
3-8
A Risk Management Plan with specific provisions regarding the
Prior to issuance of a grading
Public Works Department or
Public Works Department
0)
procedures and responsible parties shall be prepared by the
Permit
assigned contractor
mPudic
Works DepartmentMater Operations or an assigned
contractor, and reviewed and approved by the OCFA.
Appropriate education and training of the Risk Management
0
z
~I~ c: c: c: c: c: c: c:
" " " " " " "
t:: ':I € € € € € € €
il!i .. .. [ .. [ [ [
0. 0. 0.
~ ~ ". ~ " " ~
c c c
z I .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
'Oirr .' -l!! -l!! -l!! -l!! -l!! -l! -l!!
0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0
10m i: i: i:
.~a: .!.! .!.! .!.! .!.! 0 .!.! ,!.!
]5 ]5 ]5 ]5 '8 ]5 ]5
" " " " " " "
a. a. a. a. a. a. a.
. w ::; ::; ::; ::;
I u Ii c: c: c:
~ .!.! c: " " "
ii15 ]5 E ~ E E E
" t t t t
%- .. ~ [~ [::; ~o
sa! " g.~ ~ ,,~ "tl "tl ~
ill ~~ c.. c.. c.. c~ ~
", ~'~ ~1i ..~ c "-e "'-E I!
-l!!" '" .."
' :.D.;. "0. 08 ~ 58 58 58 c:
I;::'" 0" 0
~II! Uc i:i i: i:~ i:~ i:i U
'0.. ,\!~ .!.! ~& 1;
IE .H gO) .!.! '" "
~'In ]5 .Q .- :is .- .Q .- '0'
" " .. " .. ,,"
:E o:i: a. 1; 0..1; a. 1; 0..1; ~
a. a.
! ::;'0 .2 " - - l
l 0 j; 'j;
~g '5 '" ~ ~
,F; ..
'I( 0 " Ol
"~ ." . "
... Ol 'g 0 Ol Ol Ol'-
z 8.. " ti " " ~~
:w .. ~ -2' '6 '6
~ ,,'- .~ l! I! I! =E~
og '" 0. '" '" ,,0.
- ~ '0 " - '0 -.s
a. i.g " ,5 '0 0 =.!
!!! " g 1l 1l
E 0.:1:: " '" 0. n
Q i!!~E 0 " " " Ii
.- 8. '" .. ! t .. ..
z g..2 J!l6 " " "
.~ .. ~ .. '" og
i!! - Ol " .- ,!II .!II .!II
i rl.5 ,,'0 -,-
f!E-g ~s .2 g .2~ g .2 ~
I ~ . 8. 5> - .. ::; ~ ~ .- ::; ::; 019
H 0 o~
it .,,~ ." &: 'C 'C ..
>.... <L' <L_ a. a..6
'0 """0 .i~tl 1l.n i~~ ~iq~~ U ~~~ 2\ ~"~.-'O .nu
"",5=~ . <C ,5 ,Hi
C .~.s::. w cr -.. ..l~ ri>[8 ti
i 5fo'~'~ ~ CD~ ~~s ~~j~.Q i o.j!: ..~g Et:Ql::
" ""
. ~.. ..-" ~hgh Q. ~~ J
5-,d~j..c5 ijii giili!! .- il 0. ~h~~ ~
I ~~u~.Qel_~ ..~" ~'; ".1l! -;; 5 1l.8
~ " - w=LL ~~j~ ~~ 8 ~ h ~~ ~ Q) 0.. co Q)
sa. s !~.Q .2! Ol- -E1i:l
~~~n,'J ~N 'S rl =.. -: ~ U.~
.~ 5 ~~ ~~i!i ~h'~~8 .- 1l" a::.- "O.!lc:C
;to 8:" - .!II "1 J/ c: .- CD
J/ 2:~f~f~'= 5.5 co '0 .8.i:
",' ~ 131:1 (0 u:i g-e 8 E :81!"~Q B~~lli hi ~~
'0 ""'* u~ "" -m . -..
J .5-.....- 25 € ~" -< > c_Cii c:
," ~l~""i~tlJ ",,5.2!ii 5 ~u. " t"8.8:'58. B$""-8
8 'n ~ ., 8~~ j-~ ,..f . . ~0"0l~ ..- ..
~ at ~ ~ .~ ~ .l! [g Ii = .C'lJ
"" BE ",,1ljU ~'iii's ~~ -- 2! " .l!~ li.~.l!.~ "d~h !oE;
!ii '6"h"'~= 1l l~~~ i"~ I '!l~~~ f " ~1ljl" .6 ~ .~a.
.. h~n~ ",,0
II! 10 -,5 =lj~.l!u~ ,[50" 1iii'O'C~ .U~iil ~ = >. c: f'-
~ .'2=~5 In :J oCI:I~ ~ ,~ [ ~ ~ C'- I: ~ c: co ~;;.- '"
'::l .l! t:G.lCU i: - . f0Cl) ClIO ftj-o
i i -8 ~..~ "-'~~ ~ Ii 8'8 II! lj.!l r,i ~~ ~J ~ -8 "....i!! 8.{!.!I! 5 ~ . E.M "
.~ ~ ~f" cr: (QGJcnc-.fi tJ).- c
I 5&~ m~~ ~CDO.Q 1l.l!B~U:.. I"~~"" c::x~=
_ 5 0)19 ..! ~. l!! l!! 13'5 .. e",.f.
C~~". h~~ o ~.E ~ tI 2'0.. ~ .t j1O<.= ~ ~..o."~~f ~c""g, 'C 8:-'
cu .J::"Oca :!i! .., ""u. ..H~ S~ tJ)carnii ~"l~
~ ~'S s i "" 00O'Bc::
1l -~"~l!~~ -g ~r: 4)COcalll 2! .. -l!! ,,1l 'ij ." ~
t~ iii ~ii'~~~ ",-all~ ',2 ""~~ ~.E!5~~ ~ .. e?~ "'l= :t ~.2
- _ Ol :E" i ~. O)~ '&j E
.l!j :;;: .l! f2!',~
l!ILg !if J!! lii!l ~ ~.e ~l!.! ~ .~ c::CQ::J~
I. " .. '" ~.;djw !i i!.= "l '-:c c en .t; ! i 1::
.!!I".. c f,! g. (;'- ~ d2 :i!!'2rl~ it ~~ "'" ,,~ j ,,~ e? I! ~ a:: " :t"l " :: 0
a.5" _CU "0 ,co. S <( o.::l.2 S 0.. c < ._ j!:""" 0.15.0 w c( a.D.. a: c .."
-f,!
" Ul :r
0
.. " "
" c "
a:: It It
l- i!_ Ii .. '" .! ';'
- t! - '"
'" '" '" ,,-
.aob ~ I ..~
:;u :E :E :E :E .- :E
I' UCl) ~ :E :E :E :E ~:E
N
m �
(D Z
coo
-418E-
00,
418Ern0rT
rD 44
MITIGATION MONITORING-
MITIGATION COMPLIANCE
AND ENFORCEMENT
MMEASURE. -
TIMING -AND IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIINUTK
RESPONSIBILITY
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
MM 11-2
The contractor shall use a drilling rig that is equipped with a
Prior to commencement of drilling
Project Contractor
Public Works Department
hospital grade muffler such that the drilling rig is capable of
activities
not exceeding a steady noise (1-50) of 64 dBA at 100 feel (d
no soundwall were present).
MM 11-3
During construction, noise monitoring shall be conducted at
During construction activities
Public Works Department or
Public Works Department
nearby residences to confine that the actual noise levels are
Project Contractor
consistent with the levels predicted in the Noise Assessment
For the Pasadena WaterWe# dated January 11 2006,
MM 114
Pumping development and step drawdown tests and well
During construction activities
Project Contractor
Public Works Department
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 -
MM 11-5
Noise levels shall be monitored at the start of the short-term
At start of the short -tens constant-
Public Works Department or
Public Works Department
constant -rate discharge test. If the noise level exceeds the
rate discharge test
Project Contractor
ambient adjusted noise standard between the hours of 6:00
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 kcal hotels until the
tests have been completed.
MM 11-6
Noise generating well maintenance operations shall be
During well maintenance
Public Works Department or
Public Works Department
restricted to the hours exempt from the City of Tustin Noise
assigned contractor
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-
Aesthetics
MM 1-1
The City shall install a variety of landscaping including 21 new
Prior to operation of facility
Project Contractor
Public Works Department
trees, approximately 150 5-galkn shrubs, and grouhdcover to
complement the residential character of the neighborhood;
MM 1-2
The City shat require the contractor to instal temporary
During construction
Project Contractor
Public Works Department
construction light fixtures that direct lighting downward to
;1
prevent any spill and glare on neighboring properties and the
SR -55 Freeway.
1-3
The City shall install security fighting fixtures that direct lighting
Prior to operation of facility
Public Works Department or
Public Works Department
downward to prevents 'll and glare on neighboring 'es.
Project Contractor
m �
(D Z
coo
-418E-
00,
418Ern0rT
rD 44