HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 ATTACHMENT E - EXHIBIT A - DRAFT MND/APPENDICES f
0
City of it
a
Myford 11 Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2023
Prepared For:
City of Tustin, Lead Agency
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Prepared By:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
401 B Street, Suite 600
San Diego, CA 92101
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION &PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION...................................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose and Scope of the Initial Study...............................................................................1
1.2 Summary of Findings.........................................................................................................2
1.3 Initial Study Public Review Process ....................................................................................2
1.4 Report Organization ..........................................................................................................2
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT..............................................................................4
2.1 Location, Setting, Proposed Project...................................................................................4
2.2 Proposed Project...............................................................................................................5
3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST...............................................................................................17
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ...........................................................................20
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS...........................................................................................21
Aesthetics......................................................................................................................................21
Agriculture and Forestry Resources................................................................................................25
AirQuality.....................................................................................................................................28
BiologicalResources......................................................................................................................45
CulturalResources.........................................................................................................................48
Energy...........................................................................................................................................51
Geologyand Soils...........................................................................................................................57
Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................................65
Hazards and Hazardous Materials..................................................................................................74
Hydrologyand Water Quality.........................................................................................................83
LandUse and Planning...................................................................................................................87
MineralResources.........................................................................................................................89
Noise.............................................................................................................................................91
Populationand Housing.................................................................................................................95
PublicServices...............................................................................................................................97
Recreation...................................................................................................................................100
Transportation.............................................................................................................................101
Tribal Cultural Resources.............................................................................................................106
Utilities and Service Systems........................................................................................................111
Wildfire .......................................................................................................................................115
Mandatory Findings of Significance..............................................................................................118
5.0 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................120
March 2023 Page i
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Tables
Table 1: Project Building Summary.........................................................................................................5
Table2: Project Parking Summary..........................................................................................................6
Table 3: Other Permits and Approvals..................................................................................................18
Table 4:Ambient Air Quality Data........................................................................................................30
Table 5: Construction-Related Emissions..............................................................................................33
Table 6: Long-Term Operational Emissions...........................................................................................36
Table 7: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates...........................................................................................38
Table 8: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions ....................................................................39
Table 9: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions......................................................................40
Table 10: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................65
Table 11: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions........................................................................................66
Table 12: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency ....................68
Table 13: Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures.......................................69
Table14:Trip Generation Rates..........................................................................................................102
Figures
Figure1: Regional Location Map...........................................................................................................11
Figure2: Project Vicinity Map...............................................................................................................12
Figure3: Site Plan.................................................................................................................................13
Figure4: Conceptual Elevations............................................................................................................14
Figure 5: Conceptual Landscape Plan....................................................................................................15
Appendices
Appendix A Air Quality Assessment
Appendix B California Historical Resources Information System(CHRIS)Summary Memo
Appendix C Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix D Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
Appendix E Phase I Environmental Site Assessments and Soil Vapor Assessment
Appendix F Hydrology Study
Appendix G Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Memorandum
Appendix I Utility Provider Letters
March 2023 Page ii
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Acronyms
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
ADT average daily traffic
AP Act Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
APN Assessor Parcel Nos.
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ASM ASM Affiliates
BACT Best Available Control Technology
bcf billion cubic feet
bcfd billion cubic feet per day
BMP Best Management Practices
BTU British Thermal Unit
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
CaIEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen Green Building Standards Code
CBC California Building Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regualtions
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System
City City of Tustin
CCSP Climate Change Scoping Plan
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO Carbon monoxide
CREC Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition
cy cubic yards
dB decibals
DI deionized
DIF Development Impact Fees
DOF California Department of Finance
DPM diesel particulate matter
DR Design Review
March 2023 Page iii
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
EV electrical vehicle
FAR Floor Area Ratio
FCAA Federal Clean Air Act
GWh gigawatt-hours
HREC Historical Recognized Environmental Condition
Hz hertz
1-5 Interstate 5
IRWD Irvine Ranch Water District
IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
kWh kilowatt-hour
LBP lead based paint
LCM lead-containing materials
Leq Equivalent Sound Level
LRA Local Responsibility Area
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MGD million gallons per day
MM Moment Magnitude
MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring&Reporting Program
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
mw megawatts
MWh megawatt-hours
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOI Notice of Intent
NOX nitrogen oxide
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NSR New Source Review
03 ozone
OCFA Orange County Fire Authority
OCSD Orange County Sanitation District
March 2023 Page iv
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
OEF Other Environmental Features
OHP Office of Historic Preservation
PC IND Planned Community Industrial
PCB polychlorinated biphenyls
PCCB Planned Community Commercial/Business
PCE passenger car equivalent
PCE tetrachloroethylene
PDF Project Design Features
PM10 coarse particulate matter
PM2.5 fine particulate matter
POL Petroleum,oil,and lubricants
ppm parts per million
PWQMP Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
REC recognized environmental condition
RECLAIM Regional Clean Air Incentives Market
ROG reactive organic gases
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC South-Central Coastal Information Center(SCCIC)
SCE Southern California Edison Company
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SR 261 State Route 261
SR 55 State Route 55
SSi Silicon Systems, Inc.
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TAC Toxic air contaminants
TCE trichloroethylene
TCM Tungsten Carbide Manufacturing
TPD Tustin Police Department
TPM Tentative Parcel Map
TUSD Tustin Unified School District
March 2023 Page v
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
USFW United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UST underground storage tanks
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VHFHSZ very high fire hazard severity zone
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC volatile organic compounds
W watts
Wh watt-hours
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
March 2023 Page vi
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1.0 INTRODUCTION & PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1.1 Purpose and Scope of the Initial Study
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources
Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.) and its Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title
14, Section 15000 et seq.), this Initial Study has been prepared to evaluate the potential
environmental effects associated with the construction and operation of the Myford II Project
(proposed project). Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Tustin
(City)is the lead agency for the project.The lead agency is the public agency that has the principal
responsibility for carrying out or approving a project.
As identified in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, following preliminary review, the lead
agency shall conduct an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on
the environment. The purpose of an initial Study is to:
(1) Provide the lead agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to
prepare an EIR or a Negative Declaration.
(2) Enable an applicant or lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts
before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a Negative
Declaration.
(3) Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by:
(A) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant,
(B) Identifying the effects determined not to be significant,
(C) Explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would
not be significant, and
(D) Identifying whether a program EIR,tiering, or another appropriate process can be
used for analysis of the project's environmental effects.
(4) Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project;
(5) Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration
that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment;
(6) Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
(7) Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.
As set forth in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, an Initial Study leading to a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (IS/MND) can be prepared when the Initial Study has identified potentially
significant environmental impacts, but revisions have been made to a project, prior to public
March 2023 Page 1
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
review of the Initial Study, that would avoid or mitigate the impacts to a level considered less
than significant;and there is no substantial evidence in light ofthe whole record before the public
agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.
1.2 Summary of Findings
Section 3.0 of this document contains the Environmental Checklist that was prepared for the
proposed project pursuant to CEQA requirements. The Environmental Checklist indicates that
the proposed project would not result in significant impacts with the implementation of
mitigation measures, as identified where applicable throughout this document.
1.3 Initial Study Public Review Process
The Initial Study and a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt an MND will be distributed to responsible
and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, and other parties for a 20-day public review
period. Written comments regarding this MND should be addressed to:
Leila Carver
Senior Planner Consultant
City of Tustin
Phone: (714) 573-3126
Email: Icarver@tustinca.org
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Following receipt and review of comments from agencies, organizations, and/or individuals at
the conclusion of the 20 day review period, the City will determine whether the comments need
to be considered and addressed. If not, the Project and environmental documentation will be
tentatively scheduled by the City for consideration.
1.4 Report Organization
This document has been organized into the following sections:
Section 1.0— Introduction & Purpose of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. This
section provides an introduction and overview describing the conclusions of the Initial Study.
Section 2.0 — Description of Proposed Project. This section identifies the location, setting and
key project characteristics, as well as a listing of anticipated discretionary actions.
Section 3.0— Initial Study Checklist. The Environmental Checklist Form provides an overview of
the potential impacts that may or may not result from project implementation.
March 2023 Page 2
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Section 4.0—Environmental Analysis.This section contains an analysis of environmental impacts
identified in the Environmental Checklist Form including cumulative analysis that addresses
potential impacts of the proposed project taken in sum with other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable projects.
Section 5.0— References. The section identifies resources used to prepare the Initial Study.
March 2023 Page 3
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
2.1 Location, Setting, Proposed Project
The Myford II project (proposed project) is located in the City of Tustin (City) south of Interstate
5 (1-5), southeast of State Route 55 (SR 55), and northwest of State Route 261 (SR 261), as
depicted in Figure 1, Regional Location Map.The overall project site is located on approximately
7.18 acres on the west side of Myford Road between Walnut Avenue and Michelle Drive, as
depicted in Figure 2, Project Vicinity Map.
PRO l E ,S ll::.::.: 11 FING
The project site is located at 14321 and 14351 Myford Road in the City of Tustin, California, just
west of the city's border with the City of Irvine. The project site is located in an infill industrial
and commercial area and is bounded by commercial and industrial buildings to the north and
west, an industrial warehouse building to the south, and Myford Road to the east, within the
Planned Community Industrial zoning designation (PC IND). The project site consists of two lots
fronting onto Myford Road. The southernmost lot (14351 Myford Road) features an
approximately 81,008 square foot office building and the northernmost lot (14321 Myford Road)
features industrial building with a footprint of approximately 55,090 square feet. Both buildings
are surrounded by asphalt pavement used for employee parking with outdoor storage located
along the perimeter of the northernmost lot. Parking lot light poles are situated throughout the
parking areas on both lots. Monument signage exists at the entrances along Myford Road and
wayfinding signage is posted throughout the parking areas. Loading docks are located on the
west side of the approximately 55,090 square foot industrial building located at 14321 Myford
Road. Perimeter fencing is located along all interior property lines of both lots. On-site vegetation
on both lots consists of landscaped ornamental vegetation and mature trees are found primarily
within the front setback area adjacent to Myford Road.
A sidewalk is located along Myford Road and overhead utility lines are not visible in the vicinity.
The on-site topography is generally flat, and the ground surface is approximately 69 feet above
mean sea level, sloping generally from south southwest.
March 2023 Page 4
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
. II X11 IING G11::.::.:1IN11::.::.:1IRA1I,,, IPII,,,,, N LAND USE AND ZONIING DESII GINA 11 1111 ,
The City's General Plan land use designation for the project site is Planned Community
Commercial/Business (PCCB).The current zoning for the project site is PC IND.
2.2 Proposed Project
The proposed project is comprised of one warehouse distribution building totaling approximately
148,437 square feet including 143,437 square feet of warehouse space, 5,000 square feet of two-
story office space, and associated parking, and landscaping on approximately 7.18 net acres as
shown in Figure 3: Site Plan; Figure 4: Conceptual Elevations; Figure 5: Conceptual Landscape
Plan;and Table 1: Project Building Summary, below.The proposed industrial warehouse building
would be oriented with the nineteen (19) dock doors located on the western side of the building
(opposite Myford Road), with a maximum height of approximately 47'-6". The proposed project
would have a Lot Coverage of 46.8%, a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.475, a minimum 30-foot
landscaped front (street side) setback, a minimum 10-foot side setback, all in accordance with
the City's applicable development standards. The proposed building will be constructed as a
concrete tilt-up, with architecture featuring a modern aesthetic including glazing with varied
projections to provide depth and shadowing and points of visual interest for the architecture. An
8-foot high tube steel fence is proposed along the entire western property line and the portion
of the northern property line needed to secure the truck court. At both entrances to the secured
truck court located on the west side of the proposed building, 8-foot high metal swing gates
would be installed. An existing 8-foot tube steel fence would be retained on the southern
boundary of the project site. The project proposes to use a Bio Clean Modular Wetlands System
for stormwater treatment.
The proposed project would also require discretionary approval from the City for Design Review
(DR) 2022-0013, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-153 (SUB 2022-0003).
Table 1: Project Building Summary
BuildingSite Office Office Warehouse Total Dock Landscaping Landscaping
(sf) 11t Floor(sf) 2"1 Floor(sf) (sf) Building(sf) Doors (sf) (/
of site)
Total 312,560 2,750 2,250 143,437 148,437 19 37,004 11.8%
ACCESS AND IP If IKII IN
Vehicular access provisions for the project site would consist of three full-movement, 27' to 35'
wide driveways on Myford Road. Passenger vehicles would have the option to access the project
site via any of the three project driveways, while trucks would access the project site at either
the southerly or northerly 35' wide driveways. All project driveways would be unsignalized.
March 2023 Page 5
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Parking for automobiles, including standard, accessible, and electrical vehicle (EV) capable stalls,
would be provided in accordance with applicable code requirements. Automobile and trailer
parking details, including parking requirements, are provided in Table 2: Project Parking
Summary, below.
Table 2: Project Parking Summary
Parking Provided Parking
Required
Standard Van Standard EV Capable EV Capable EV Capable EV Capable Total Auto Total Auto
Auto Accessible Accessible Van Standard Space Space w/ Parking Parking
Parking Parking Parking Accessible Accessible Chargers Provided Required
73 stalls 2 stalls 3 stalls 1 stall 1 stall 17 stalls 6 stalls 103 stalls 76s
LANDSCAPHIG
As shown in Figure 5, proposed landscaping would cover approximately 37,004 square feet of the
project site, which equates to approximately 11.8 percent of the site area. Landscaping would be
installed in all areas not devoted to buildings, parking, traffic and specific user requirements, in
accordance with the Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community District Regulations, which
specify landscape design guidelines. The development standards set forth therein require the
entire building setback be landscaped.
CONS 11,,,,RUCT11ON AND ILII IASIING
Construction of the proposed project is expected to commence in January 2024 with a
construction duration of approximately 11 months (inclusive of approximately 3 months to
demolish the existing industrial/office buildings) and would be completed in one phase. Total
grading for the proposed project is estimated to require 13,336 cubic yards(cy) of cut and 13,336
cy of fill; earthwork is expected to balance on-site.
During construction, the project site would be fully fenced with one access point/gate from
Myford Road. The temporary construction trailer and all construction equipment and worker
parking would be staged/located fully onsite (no encroachment into public right-of-way). The
temporary construction trailer would initially be installed onsite near the access point/gate off of
Myford Road, and would be subsequently relocated to another onsite location during the
construction of the planned improvements in the vicinity of the initial location for the temporary
construction trailer. The location of the on-site equipment staging and worker parking will vary
depending on the scope of construction work being completed. The site's singular access
point/gate will be closed and locked each day at close of business for security purposes. In
accordance with Section 4617(e)of the City's Municipal Code, project construction activity would
be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. Saturdays, excluding city observed federal holidays (unless otherwise approved by the City
of Tustin).
March 2023 Page 6
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
. II S 11 11 N G PIROJ If;:.:CT S11
The project site is located on Assessor Parcel Nos. (APNs)432-473-13 and 432-473-19.The project
site is currently improved with two industrial/office buildings (81,008 and 55,090 square feet),
surface parking and landscaping. There are existing utilities (water, sewer, electricity, gas) to the
project site.
OPERA,,,,11,,,.I I
ONS
The warehouse distribution building is currently planned as a "speculative building." Therefore,
the future tenant(s) or buyer(s) of the building are not currently known. Without knowing the
future tenant(s) or buyer(s), an exact number of future employees or hours of operation cannot
be determined. Therefore, this Initial Study and associated technical reports use approximate
potential on-site employees, hours of operation, and vehicular traffic generation based on the
project's proposed square footage and use as a warehouse distribution facility. In an abundance
of caution, this Initial Study and the associated technical reports have assumed uses and
intensities that may be greater than what would be built out or put into operation, resulting in a
possible conservative/worst-case estimation of impacts. The Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) Memorandum (Appendix H), Air Quality Assessment (Appendix A), and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment (Appendix D) prepared for the project rely on the latest
ITE traffic (trip generation) rates, which are based entirely on the building square footage and
proposed use, and do not include a specific number of dock door positions.
REQU11R11::.::.:1D PERMITS
The City of Tustin is the Lead Agency under CEQA and is responsible for reviewing and approving
this Initial Study.As part of the proposed project's implementation,the City will also consider the
following discretionary approvals:
■ Design Review (DR)
■ Tentative Parcel Map (TPM)
Additional permits will be required for the proposed project which will include but not be limited
to: the issuance of a demolition permit, encroachment permits for modified driveways, grading
permits, building permits, and permits for new utility connections. These additional permits are
considered ministerial, and thus the issuance of these permits would not trigger the need to
further comply with CEQA/discretionary permits or approvals. Also, development of the
proposed project does not require the issuance of any additional discretionary permits from any
other federal, state, or local agencies.
PROJEC,,,11,,,, DESIGN If EA 11,,.U If E
Project Design Features (PDFs) are a list of construction features or produced documents/plans
being preemptively incorporated into the development of the Myford II project by the applicant,
March 2023 Page 7
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
independent of any (1) conditions of approval required by the City or (2) mitigation measures
included in the Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program (MMRP) required to mitigate any
project-specific impacts to a less than significant level.These PDFs are included in orderto ensure
a safe and successful project upon completion. The proposed project includes the following
PDF's:
AQ-A: Prior to the issuance of grading permits,the City Engineer shall confirm that the Grading
Plan, Building Plans and Specifications require all construction contractors to comply
with South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD's) Rules 402 and 403 to
minimize construction emissions of dust and particulates. The measures include, but
are not limited to, the following:
■ Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three
months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise
stabilized.
■ All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or
chemically stabilized.
■ All material transported off site will be either sufficiently watered or securely
covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
■ The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations
will be minimized at all times.
■ Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the
streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the work day to remove
soil tracked onto the paved surface.
AQ-B: The applicant shall require by contract specifications that the interior and exterior
architectural coatings (paint and primer including parking lot paint) products used
would comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113 which requires building envelope coatings to
have a volatile organic compound rating of 50 grams per liter or less.
AQ-C: Require diesel powered construction equipment to turn off when not in use per Title 13
of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2449.
AQ-D: Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based
irrigation controls and sensors for landscaping according to the City's Water Efficient
Landscape requirements (Article 9, Chapter 7 of the City's Municipal Code).
AQ-E: The project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable Title 24 Energy
Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations [CCR],
Title 24, Part 6). These standards are updated, nominally every three years, to
incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and methods. The Building
Official, or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building
permit.The Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards(Section 110.10) require buildings to be
March 2023 Page 8
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
designed to have 15 percent of the roof area "solar ready" that will structurally
accommodate later installation of rooftop solar panels. If future building operators
pursue providing rooftop solar panels, they will submit plans for solar panels prior to
occupancy.
AQ-F: The project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable California Green
Building Standards(CALGreen)Code (24 CCR, Part 11).The Building Official, or designee
shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. These
requirements include, but are not limited to:
■ Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures in
accordance with Section 5.303 (nonresidential) of the California Green Building
Standards Code Part 11.
■ Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous
construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section 5.408.1
(nonresidential) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
■ Provide storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling
containers located in readily accessible areas in accordance Section 5.410
(nonresidential) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
■ Provide designated parking for any combination of low-emitting,fuel efficient and
carpool/van pool vehicles. At least eight percent of the total parking spaces are
required to be designated in accordance Section 5.106.5.2 (nonresidential),
Designated Parking for Clean Air Vehicles, of the California Green Building
Standards Code Part 11.
■ To facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE),
nonresidential construction shall comply with Section 5.106.5.3 (nonresidential
electric vehicle charging) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
AQ-G: All on-site forklifts shall be non-diesel and shall be powered by electricity, compressed
natural gas, or propane if technically feasible.
BIO-A: Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or an action that would result in project
site disturbance (whichever occurs first) (including but not limited to discing and
demolition activities), the project applicant shall submit to the satisfaction of the
Director of Community Development/Planning Division, evidence that a pre-
construction nesting bird survey has been conducted prior to any ground disturbing
activities and removal of vegetation or other potential nesting habitat during the
nesting period (generally February 1st to August 31st). If birds are found to be nesting
inside orwithin 250 feet(500 feet for raptors)of the impact area, construction will need
to be postponed, at the discretion of a qualified biologist, until it is determined that the
nests are no longer active.
March 2023 Page 9
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
GEO-A: Incorporate geotechnical recommendations included in the Geotechnical Investigation
prepared for the project by Geotechnical Professionals (February 2022) into design and
construction of the project site.
HAZ-A: Prior to issuance of a demolition permit of the on-site structures, an Asbestos and Lead
Demolition Survey shall be conducted and all asbestos and lead based paint (LBP)
containing building materials shall be removed or stabilized in accordance with
applicable Federal and State regulations.
March 2023 Page 10
Norco
Brea, p tate Park
Gornpton
IlaY"or Linda
L�lllerto�� korona
Cerritos ro
nahe ri �
L
s t
�w
w r'S
Garden e lPmL&n Beach
„� �rrvir, +�un d� '�JyYiiwiull'�1iv�ullW�l,�i u .
TerminalSilverado
Santa Ana
Irvine
, 8 hi Lake Forest
-Newport San Joaquin
Hills
Fission Viejo
LWI
Los Angeles.J.. Q4
1111"
,
Lannaeae
9 V f n� A <,
4 1
,Mwnbn�oo I San Juan
Capistrano
w Gana Point
L.Source:Google Maps,2022
FIGURE 1: Regional Location Map p p
Myford II Project O IICIIInleyetl,* 111 rll-i
Tustin,CA
r
r a
r �
r �
luu�
r M1
u
d'
w
o ,
r
�1 G
n
G
Source:Google Earth Pro,2022
FIGURE 2: Project Vicinity Map p
Myford II Project p O II Curley^,*Hllonri
Tustin,CA
SITE PLAN KEYNOTES PROJECT INFOHMATION
M
AERIAL AP
� � n uaa ixmwww
r v
R.
J:
y
SITE LEGEND
o
TABULATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION
o _BUILDINAREA
748,407 S.F. _�_ n«Ana•,yam" •""•
v, R
I'
R
I
I
° I
r I I Ir
- - - � I I JI �• ,
ro.�A,a
d ®R.
0 ex.�"w�"."aAa°.A��""axaMxxa�r@aµ"
o-iniw uxx use.ww�x°xs�xuixx° OVERALL SITE PLAN
Source:HPA Architecture
FIGURE 3: Site Plan p
Myford II Project p II Curley^,*Hllonri
Tustin,CA
r
f�// l � i wwmn.uwwwmmmnw.www
r
° 40, &A �� .a. 3 'b'�, ✓sa�*�M»w....
' ///% ry/r q/rr
1.
ti
�jyry^w.^'w�;^� /�/ �1%
• r
Source:HPA Architecture
FIGURE 4: Conceptual Elevations p p
Myford II Project IICIIInleye tl,* llonri
Tustin,CA
rm 1w� srna miw ;: mma !� mi laJ; " mr... w amwa Imra 1A GOMU .,
r � _
mr"MIX
w
�M
w
1 L
J
�p. mkB4k mY m"urvr vn�.
7�..
J
,;....
a
^M.
x .�
1 a
1
A
,yf,brid 11 Project
o-�l Hyl"14� JI"mCPw9
a �my
WWI&If4W Nlfanakood,YwrxfK^,r,�IHvrmwa
Source:Hunter Landscape
FIGURE 5: Conceptual Landscape Plan p
Myford II Project p II iirnIIe ^tl,*Ihllonri
Tustin,CA
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank.
March 2023 Page 16
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.0 1 N ITIAL STU DY CH ECKLIST
1. Project title:
Myford II Project
2. Lead agency name and address:
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
3. Contact person and phone number:
Leila Carver, Senior Planner Consultant
(714) 573-3126
4. Project location:
The project site is in the City of Tustin, in Orange County, approximately 0.3 miles west of
SR 261 and approximately 0.7 miles west of the 1-5 freeway. The City of Irvine is located
directly east of the project site across Myford Road. The project site is currently improved
with two industrial/office buildings (81,008 and 55,090 square feet), surface parking and
landscaping. (APNs) 432-473-13 and 432-473-19.
S. Project applicant's/sponsor's name and address:
Michael Sizemore
c/o B8 Myford 11 Industrial Owner LLC
2442 Dupont Drive
Irvine, CA 92612
6. General Plan designation:
Current: Planned Community Commercial/Business (PCCB)
Proposed: No change.
7. Zoning designation:
Current: Planned Community Industrial (PC IND)
Project Proposes: No change.
March 2023 Page 17
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
8. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
Table 3: Other Permits and Approvals
Agency Permit or Approval
Tustin Building Division Demolition Permits,Grading Permits, Building Permits.
Tentative Parcel Map (TPM)approval, Design Review(DR) approval,and
Tustin Planning Commission Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)approval.
Tustin Engineering Division
Encroachment Permits, Storm Drain Connection Approval, Final Parcel
Map approval.
Building Plan check and approval. Review for compliance with 2022
California Fire Code,2022 California Building Code,California Health&
Fire Protection District Safety Code and Tustin Municipal Code. Plans for fire detection and alarm
systems,and automatic sprinklers.
Irvine Ranch Water District Letter of authorization/consent for proposed improvements to provide
(IRWD) water supply connection and sewer connection to new development.
Southern California Edison Letter of authorization/consent for proposed improvements to provide
Company(SCE) electrical supply connection to new development.
9. Project summary:
The proposed project consists of a concrete tilt-up warehouse distribution building of
approximately 148,437 square feet including 143,437 square feet of warehouse space,
5,000 square feet of office space on two levels, 103 parking stalls, and 37,004 square feet
of landscaping on approximately 7.18 acres of land. The warehouse project would include
an approximately 5,000-square feet two-story office area, with associated facilities and
improvements such as a perimeter fencing, parking, on-site and perimeter landscaping,
lighting, and exterior sidewalks. The proposed industrial warehouse building would be
oriented with the nineteen (19) dock doors located on the western side of the building
(opposite Myford Road), with a maximum height of approximately 47'-6". The proposed
project would have a Lot Coverage of 46.8%, a FAR of 0.475, a minimum 30-foot landscaped
front (street side) setback, and a minimum 10-foot side setback, all in accordance with the
City's applicable development standards. Vehicular access provisions for the project site
would consist of three full-movement, 27' to 35' wide driveways on Myford Road.
Passenger vehicles would have the option to access the project site via any of the three
project driveways, while trucks would access the project site at either the southerly or
northerly 35-foot wide driveways. The project is described in greater detail in Section 2.0,
Description of the Proposed Project, of this Initial Study.
March 2023 Page 18
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
10. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the
project area requested consultation pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a
plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of
impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
NOTE: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project
proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal
cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See PRC
Section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission's
(NAHC) Sacred Lands File per PRC Section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System
administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that PRC Section 21082.3(c)contains
provisions specific to confidentiality.
The City has begun the Assembly Bill (AB) 52 tribal consultation. On June 29, 2022, the City
initiated tribal consultation with interested California Native American tribes consistent with
A1352. The City requested consultation from the following tribes:
1. Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
2. Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians
3. Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians— Kizh Nation
4. Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians
5. Gabrielino/Tongva Nation
6. Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council
7. Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
8. Juaneno Band of Missions Indians, Acjachemen Nation — Belardes
9. La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
10. Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation
11. Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
12. Pala Band of Mission Indians
13. Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
14. Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
15. Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation responded to the City's letter and requested
consultation and specific mitigation measures, as shown in Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural
Resources. The balance of the consulted tribes did not respond. Refer to Section 4.18, Tribal
Cultural Resources of this document for additional information.
March 2023 Page 19
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
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 on the
following pages.
❑ Aesthetics ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Public Services
❑ Agricultural and Forestry ❑ Hazards & Hazardous ❑ Recreation
Resources Materials
❑ Transportation
❑ Air Quality ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ® Tribal Cultural Resources
❑ Biological Resources ❑ Land Use/Planning
❑ Utilities/Service Systems
❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Wildfire
❑ Energy ❑ Noise ❑ Mandatory Findings of
❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Population/Housing Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation (check one):
❑ 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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to
be addressed.
❑ 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, nothing further is required.
CERTIFICATION:
Signature Date
March 2023 Page 20
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
AESTII jETIIS
w �
1. AESTHETICS.Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099,would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not
limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings X
within a state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings?(Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). X
If the project is in an urbanized area,would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the X
area?
IRe&nall Context
The City of Tustin is in central Orange County (County). The City is located on both the coastal
plain and in the Santiago Foothills. 1-5 bisects the City into north and south; and the SR 55 divides
the westerly portion of the City. The City is comprised of commercial, industrial, and residential
developments and encompasses approximately 11.08 square miles, including the City's Sphere
of Influence (SOI). Of this land area, 11,145 acres (3,954 acres in the SOI) are designated for
industrial uses. Tustin is bordered by the City of Orange and unincorporated County of Orange
areas to the north; the City of Irvine to the south; the City of Irvine and unincorporated County
of Orange territory to the east; and the City of Santa Ana to the west.
IProject Some
The project site consists of two lots fronting onto Myford Road and is located in an infill industrial
and commercial area. The project site is bounded by commercial and industrial buildings to the
north and west, an industrial warehouse building site to the south, and Myford Road to the east.
The southernmost lot features an approximately 81,008 square foot office building and the
northernmost features industrial building with a footprint of approximately 55,090 square feet.
March 2023 Page 21
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
On-site vegetation consists of landscaped ornamental vegetation found on the perimeter of the
project site and along the parking aisles. No natural habitats exist on-site.
Scenic Views
Under CEQA, a scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly-
valued landscape for the benefit of the public.The General Plan does not officially designate any
scenic vistas near the project site.
A wide variety of natural and open space resources are found in Tustin due to its location on both
the coastal plain and in the Santiago Foothills. Views of the Pacific Coast and Saddleback
Mountains are visible from hillside areas.
Scenic (Resources within Scenic Ifthwa s
Scenic highways and routes are a unique component of the circulation system as they traverse
areas of unusual scenic or aesthetic value.The purpose of the California Scenic Highway Program,
which was established in 1963, is to "Preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from change
which would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways."This program provides
guidance for signage, aesthetics, grading, and screening to help maintain the scenic value of the
roadway. No highways within the City are eligible or officially designated state or county scenic
highways. The closest State designated scenic highway is a portion of State Route (SR-1) that is
approximately 8.5 miles southwest of the project site.'Therefore,the provisions of the California
Scenic Highway Program do not apply.
a) 11ave a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located approximately four miles west of
the Santa Ana Mountains and approximately 40 miles south of the San Gabriel Mountains.
Additionally, the project site is surrounded by industrial developments; the closest
residential uses are located approximately 1,600 feet (0.30 miles to the northwest).
Therefore, the project would not compromise viewsheds in the vicinity. Because of the
vast distance to prominent scenic features in the area and the lack of impact to viewsheds,
in particularly residential uses, impacts associated with scenic vistas would be less than
significant.
b) Substantially damage scenic segs urce5, including but not limited to truce, sock
outcropping5, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. As described above, no highways within the City are eligible or officially
designated state or county scenic highways. The closest Officially Designated State Scenic
Highway is a portion of SR-1 that is approximately 8.5 miles southwest of the project site.
California Department of Transportation(DOT).California Scenic Highways.Retrieved from
https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.htmI?useExisting=l&layers=fO259bladOfe4O93@5604c96838@486@.Accessed March 16,
2022.
March 2023 Page 22
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources within
a State Scenic Highway. No impact would occur.
c) In non-urbanized area5, substantially degrade they existing visual character or. quality of
public views of they site and its.surroundings?(Public views are those that are experienced
from publicly accessible vantagepoint), If they project is in an urbanized area, would they
project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic duality?
No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area consisting of predominately
industrial and commercial uses. The project site consists of two industrial/office buildings
(81,008 and 55,090 square feet), ancillary auto parking lot, and landscaping. The project
site is surrounded by industrial developments and no residential dwelling units exist on-
site or in the vicinity.The project would replace the existing industrial/office buildings with
a warehouse distribution building.The two(2)existing buildings located on the project site
range in height of 25 to 30 feet. The proposed warehouse building would include an
approximate height of 47'-6".
Consistent with the Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community District Regulations,the
proposed project would have a FAR of 0.475, a minimum 30-foot landscaped front (street
side) setback, and a minimum 10-foot side setback. Landscaping would cover
approximately 37,004 square feet of the project site, which equates to approximately 11.8
percent of the site area and would be installed in all areas not devoted to the building,
parking, and traffic. The project would be required to provide a minimum of 76 parking
stalls, and would provide 103 parking stalls. Although the visual character of the project
site would change slightly due to the increased height, size, and siting of the proposed
warehouse distribution building, the project would be consistent with the land use and
zoning identified for the project site (see Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning). Further,
the project would be consistent with the Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community
District Regulations which provide standards for site density, setbacks, building height,
landscaping, and other features related to the character of the project. Accordingly, the
change in visual character would be consistent with the applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality. No impact would occur.
d) Create a new sources of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area,"
Less Than Significant Impact. Existing sources of light and glare in the immediate project
area include streetlights and outdoor safety and security lighting associated with adjacent
developments.
Short-Term Construction Impacts
In accordance with Section 4617(e) of the City's Municipal Code, project construction
activity would be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday
and 9:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m. Saturdays, excluding city observed federal holidays (unless
March 2023 Page 23
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
otherwise approved by the City of Tustin). Nighttime lighting would not be provided until
the project is operational.Therefore, no short-term impacts associated with light and glare
would occur.
Dong-Term ConstrUcflon Impacts
The project would include the implementation of on-site safety and security lighting.
Consistent with Section 9271 of the City's Municipal Code, all outdoor lighting would be
designed so as to minimize impacts from light pollution including light trespass and glare
to minimize conflict caused by unnecessary illumination. Further, all outdoor lighting
fixtures that would be used to illuminate the premises, architectural features or landscape
features would be directed, shielded, or located in such a manner that the light source
would not be directed off-site. Thus, all exterior lighting would be directed or shielded to
prevent light trespassing onto nearby properties. Additionally, the project would use a
variety of non-reflective building materials, and although some new reflective
improvements (i.e., windows and building front treatments) would be introduced to the
project site,the project would not be a source of glare in the project area.Therefore, long-
term impacts associated with light and glare would be less than significant.
Cumuflaflve Impacts
The potential aesthetic impacts related to views and aesthetics are generally site specific. As
discussed above, project-related impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant, and the
proposed project would not result in any impacts to on-site visual resources because there are
none. In addition, the proposed project would also be consistent with the land use and
development regulations contained in pertinent planning documents. Lighting and sources of
glare, while not always site-specific, would be consistent with the majority of the surrounding
urban area and would be used during similar hours as surrounding uses. While the proposed
project in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development would
change the appearance of the site and surrounding area, future development projects would be
expected to be conditioned to follow applicable local planning and design guidelines regarding
building design including materials, coloration, and landscaping.Therefore, aesthetic impacts are
not expected to be cumulatively considerable and impacts would be less than significant.
March 2023 Page 24
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
AGNICUL 11 URE AND F011R11::.::.:ST11RY RESOURCES
w �
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources
are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the California Department of Conservation as
an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and X
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section
12220(g)),timberland (as defined by Public Resources X
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest X
land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion X
of Farmland,to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
Agrui Lflti«irall Resources
The project site was used historically for agricultural uses prior to 1938. The site has not had
active agricultural uses/operations since at least 1979-1980, when the project site was developed
with the two existing industrial/office buildings.2,3 According to the California Department of
Conservation Important Farmland Map,the project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land.
The nearest designated area designated as either Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
2 Avocet Environmental,Inc.(2022).Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 14321 Myford Road.
3 Avocet Environmental,Inc.(2022).Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 14351 Myford Road.
March 2023 Page 25
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
of Statewide Importance is located approximately 2.7 miles to the east.'Additionally, the project
site is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract.5
Forestry Resources
The project site consists of two lots fronting onto Myford Road and is surrounded by existing
development.The southernmost lot features an approximately 81,008 square foot office building
with a footprint of and the northernmost features industrial building with a footprint of
approximately 55,090 square feet. On-site vegetation consists of landscaped ornamental
vegetation found on the perimeter of the project site and along the parking aisles. No natural
habitats exist on-site.
The project site does not meet the definition of lands designated as forestland or timberland as
defined by PRC Sections 12220(g), 4526, and 51104(g).
) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland o,f Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as .shown on they maps prepared pursuant to they Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring s s rus o,fthe California ResourcesAgency, to non- ricultur l use?
Is) Conflict with existing nin . s agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract,"
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning f, .forest burl ( .s defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland(as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), ass'timberland zoned limbed nd Production(as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d) Result in they loss o,ffore.st burl or conversion o,ffore.st burl to non-,forest uses s
e) Involves other changes in they existing environment which, dues to their location or" nature,
could result in conversion o,f Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion olf.forest burl
to nnilorest use?
No Impact (a-e). As stated above, the project site is not currently used for agricultural
purposes and has not been used for agricultural uses/operations since at least 1980. The
proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-farmland; the project site is not subject of a
Williamson Act Contract. The project site is located in the Planned Community Industrial
PC IND zone. Implementation of the project would not conflict with an existing zoning for,
or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in PRC Section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by PRC Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g)). Further, the project would not involve any changes
in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in
° California Department of Conservation.(2022).California Important Farmland Finder.Retrieved from
https:Hmaps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.Accessed March 2,2022.
County of Orange.(2012).Orange County General Plan,Resources Element.Retrieved from
https:Hocds.ocpublicworks.com/sites/ocpwocds/files/import/data/files/40235.pdf.Accessed March 17,2022.
March 2023 Page 26
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural uses or conversion of forest land to non-forest
uses. No impacts related to the loss of farmland would occur.
CUMLflaflve Impacts
The potential impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources are typically site specific and
site specific BMPs are implemented at the proposed project level. The project site is not currently
used for agricultural purposes and has not been used for agricultural uses/operations since at
least 1980. The proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-farmland; the project site is not subject of
a Williamson Act Contract. Thus, the proposed project would have no impact on agricultural and
forestry resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to a cumulatively
considerable impact in the conversion of Farmland to non-farmland.
March 2023 Page 27
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
All R QU II,,,,,11 II X
w �
3. AIR QUALITY.Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations.Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
X
applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- X
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions(such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of X
people?
An Air Quality Assessment was prepared for the proposed project by Kimley-Horn and Associates
in May 2022.This report is summarized below and are included as Appendix A of this Initial Study.
Air PONLItants of Concern
The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated
by state and federal laws. These regulated air pollutants are known as "criteria air pollutants"
and are categorized into primary and secondary pollutants.
Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic
gases (ROG), nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse particulate matter (PM1o), fine
particulate matter(PM2.5), and lead are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, NOx, SO2, PM1o, and
PM2.5 are criteria pollutants. ROG and NOx are criteria pollutant precursors and form secondary
criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. For
example, the criteria pollutant ozone (03) is formed by a chemical reaction between ROG and
NOx in the presence of sunlight. 03 and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the principal secondary
pollutants.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are airborne substances that can cause short-term (acute) or long-
term (i.e. chronic, carcinogenic or cancer causing) adverse human health effects (i.e., injury or
March 2023 Page 28
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
illness).TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances.They maybe emitted from
a variety of common sources including gasoline stations, automobiles, dry cleaners, industrial
operations, and painting operations. The current California list of TACs includes more than 200
compounds, including particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines.
California Air Resources Board (CARB) identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a toxic air
contaminant. DPM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance but rather a complex
mixture of hundreds of substances. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of particles and gases
produced when an engine burns diesel fuel. DPM is a concern because it causes lung cancer;
many compounds found in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic. DPM includes the particle-phase
constituents in diesel exhaust.The chemical composition and particle sizes of DPM vary between
different engine types (heavy-duty, light-duty), engine operating conditions (idle, accelerate,
decelerate),fuel formulations(high/low sulfurfuel), and the year of the engine. Some short-term
(acute) effects of diesel exhaust include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, and diesel exhaust
can cause coughs, headaches, light-headedness, and nausea. DPM poses the greatest health risk
among the TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Due to
their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial
and alvolar regions of the lung.
Am Tient Air QuaRty
CARB monitors ambient air quality at approximately 250 air monitoring stations across the State.
These stations usually measure pollutant concentrations ten feet above ground level; therefore,
air quality is often referred to in terms of ground-level concentrations. Existing levels of ambient
air quality, historical trends, and projections near the project are documented by measurements
made by the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD),the air pollution regulatory
agency in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) that maintains air quality monitoring stations which
process ambient air quality measurements.
Pollutants of concern in the SCAB include 03, PM1o, and PM2.5. The closest air monitoring station
to the project that monitors ambient concentrations of these pollutants is the Anaheim Pampas
Lane Monitoring Station (located approximately 9.75 miles to the northwest). Local air quality
data from 2018 to 2020 are provided in Table 1: Project Building Summary, which lists the
monitored maximum concentrations and number of exceedances of state or federal air quality
standards for each year.
March 2023 Page 29
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 4:Ambient Air Quality Data
Criteria Pollutant 2018 2019 2020
Ozone(03)1
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.112 0.096 0.142
8-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.071 0.082 0.097
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
CAAQS 1-hour(>0.09 ppm) - - -
NAAQS 8-hour(>0.070 ppm) 0 1 6
Carbon Monoxide(CO)1
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 2.31 2.44 2.31
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 1-hour(>35 ppm) 0 0 0
CAAQS 1-hour(>20 ppm) 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide(NO2)1
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.066 0.059 0.071
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 1-hour(>100 ppm) 0 0 0
CAAQS 1-hour(>0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns(PM1o)1
National 24-hour Maximum Concentration 94.6 127.6 74.8
State 24-hour Maximum Concentration 94.6 127.1 74.5
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 24-hour(>150 �Ig/m3) 0 0 0
CAAQS 24-hour(>50 lug/m3) 2 4 5
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Microns(PM2.5)1
National 24-hour Maximum Concentration 63.1 36.1 60.2
State 24-hour Maximum Concentration 68.0 37.1 64.8
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 24-hour(>35 �Ig/m3) 7 4 12
NAAQS= National Ambient Air Quality Standards; CAAQS=California Ambient Air Quality Standards; ppm= parts
per million; �Ig/m3=micrograms per cubic meter;—=not measured
1 Measurements taken at the Anaheim-Pampas Lane Monitoring at 1630 W. Pampas Lane, Anaheim, California
92802 (CARB#30178)
Source: All pollutant measurements are from the CARIB Aerometric Data Analysis and Management system
database (https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam) except for CO, which were retrieved from the CARIB Air Quality and
Meteorological Information System (https://www.arb.ca.gov/agmis2/aqdselect.php).
SenMflive (Receptors
Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution, more so than is the
general population. Sensitive receptors that are in proximity to localized sources of toxics are of
particular concern. Land uses considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools,
playgrounds, childcare centers, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers,
March 2023 Page 30
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
convalescent centers, and retirement homes. The nearest residential community is located
approximately 1,600 feet to the northwest along Tustin Ranch Road.
Methodology
This air quality impact analysis considers construction and operational impacts associated with
the project. Construction equipment, trucks, worker vehicles, and ground-disturbing activities
associated with project construction would generate emissions of criteria air pollutants and
precursors. Air quality impacts were assessed according to methodologies recommended by
CARB and the SCAQMD. Where criteria for air pollutant quantification was required, emissions
were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). CalEEMod is a
Statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential criteria pollutant
emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.
a) Conflict with or.obstruct implementation of they applicable sols dualityplan?
Less Than Significant Impact. As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the EPA requires
each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan
that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The State Implementation
Plan must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify
specific measures to reduce pollution in nonattainment areas, using a combination of
performance standards and market-based programs. Similarly, under State law, the
California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires an air quality attainment plan to be prepared for
areas designated as nonattainment regarding the state and federal ambient air quality
standards. Air quality attainment plans outline emissions limits and control measures to
achieve and maintain these standards by the earliest practical date.
The project is located within the SCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD.The
SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), to reduce emissions of
criteria pollutants for which the SCAB is in nonattainment. To reduce such emissions, the
SCAQMD drafted the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The 2016 AQMP
establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions
and achieving state (California) and national air quality standards. The 2016 AQMP is a
regional and multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD,the CARB, the SCAG, and the EPA.
The plan's pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical
information and planning assumptions, including SCAG's 2016 RTP/SCS, updated emission
inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG's latest growth
forecasts. SCAG's latest growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local
governments and with reference to local general plans. The project is subject to the
SCAQM D's AQM P.
March 2023 Page 31
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined by the following
indicators:
■ Consistency Criterion No. 1: The project would not result in an increase in the
frequency or severity of existing air quality violations,or cause or contribute to new
violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim
emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.
■ Consistency Criterion No. 2: The project would not exceed the assumptions in the
AQMP or increments based on the years of the project build-out phase.
According to the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the purpose of the consistency
finding is to determine if a project is inconsistent with the assumptions and objectives of
the regional air quality plans, and thus if it would interfere with the region's ability to
comply with California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS).
The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers are CAAQS and NAAQS.As shown
in Table 5: Construction-Related Emissions and Table 6: Long-Term Operational
Emissions, the project would not exceed construction or operation emission standards.
Therefore, the project would not contribute to an existing air quality violation. Thus, the
project is consistent with the first criterion.
Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 2, the AQMP contains air pollutant reduction
strategies based on SCAG's latest growth forecasts, and SCAG's growth forecasts were
defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans.
The project is consistent with the land use designation and development density presented
in the City's General Plan and therefore would not exceed the population or job growth
projections used by the SCAQMD to develop the AQMP. Thus, the project is consistent
with the second criterion.
Based on these criteria, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the AQMP.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase o,f any criteria pollutant.for which they
Project region is non--attainment under an applicablefederal or..state ambient air duality
standard?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction Ern iWions
Construction associated with the project would generate short-term emissions of criteria
air pollutants. The criteria pollutants of primary concern within the project area include
03-precursor pollutants (i.e. ROG and NOx) and PM10 and PM2.5. Construction-generated
emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction
March 2023 Page 32
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of
pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD's thresholds of significance.
Construction results in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site grading,
road paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker
trips, and the movement of construction equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces.
Emissions of airborne particulate matter are largely dependent on the amount of ground
disturbance associated with site preparation activities as well as weather conditions and
the appropriate application of water.
Construction activities associated with the project are estimated to be completed within 1
year. Construction-generated emissions associated with the project were calculated using
the CARB-approved CaIEEMod computer program, which is designed to model emissions
for land use development projects, based on typical construction requirements. See
Appendix A for more information regarding the construction assumptions used in this
analysis. Predicted maximum daily construction-generated emissions for the project are
summarized in Table 5: Construction-Related Emissions.
Table 5: Construction-Related Emissions
Construction Year, Maximum Pounds Per Day
ROG NOCO S02 PWO PMzs
Year 1(2024) 23.92 27.21 23.19 0.05 9.82 5.50
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 55 150
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes: SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied.The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly
maintain mobile and other construction equipment; water exposed surfaces three times daily; and limit speeds
on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook(Tables XI-A
through XI-E)were applied. No adjustments were applied to equipment exhaust. Refer to Appendix A for Model
Data Outputs.
Source:CaIEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
Fugitive dust emissions may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In
addition,fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the project vicinity.
Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard
to those living and working nearby. SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (prohibition of nuisances,
watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.), are applicable to
the project and were applied in CaIEEMod to minimize fugitive dust emissions. As
identified in Section 2.0, Description of Proposed Project, PDF AQ-A requires the
implementation of Rule 402 and 403 dust control techniques to minimize PM10 and PM2.5
concentrations. This Project Design Feature would be required to ensure compliance with
SCAQMD Rules and Regulations, which would be verified and enforced through the City's
development review process.
Rule 1113 provides specifications on painting practices and regulates the ROG content of
paint.As required by law, all architectural coatings forthe project structures would comply
March 2023 Page 33
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
with SCAQMD Rule 1113. PDF AQ-13 requires implementation of Rule 1113 which limits the
VOC content of paint to 50 grams per liter or less. Compliance with PDF AQ-13 would be
required to ensure compliance with SCAQMD Rules and Regulations, which would be
verified and enforced through the City's development review process.
As shown in Table 5, all criteria pollutant emissions would remain below their respective
thresholds. While impacts would be considered less than significant, the project would be
subject to SCAQMD Rules 402, 403, and 1113, described in the Regulatory Framework
subsection above and required by PDFs AQ-A and AQ-B.
Operafonal Ern fissions
Project-generated emissions would be primarily associated with motor vehicle use and
area sources, such as the use of landscape maintenance equipment and architectural
coatings. Long-term operational emissions attributable to the project are summarized in
Table 6: Long-Term Operational Emissions. Note that emissions rates differ from summer
to winter because different weather patterns affect pollutant mixing, dispersion, 03
formation, and other factors. Table 6 also provides the emissions associated with
operations of the two existing industrial/office buildings totaling approximately 136,098
square feet. As shown in Table 6, the operational project emissions are below the
SCAQMD's thresholds, and therefore impacts would be less than significant.
Area Source Emissions
Area source emissions would be generated due to on-site equipment, architectural
coating, and landscape maintenance equipment that were previously not present on the
site. As shown in Table 6, the net area source emissions from the project represent a de
minimis impact relative to the SCAQMD thresholds for each of the criteria pollutants
analyzed. Therefore, the project would not violate any air quality standards or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.As a result, impacts associated
with operational air quality related specifically to area source emissions would be less than
significant.
Energy Source Emissions
Energy source emissions would be generated due to electricity and natural gas usage
associated with the project. Primary uses of electricity and natural gas by the project would
be for miscellaneous warehouse equipment, space heating and cooling, water heating,
ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics. As shown in Table 6, net energy source
emissions from the project represent a de minimis impact relative to the SCAQMD
thresholds for each of the criteria pollutants analyzed. As such, the project would not
violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation. As a result, impacts associated with operational air quality related
specifically to energy source emissions would be less than significant.
March 2023 Page 34
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Off-Road Equipment
Operational off-road emissions would be generated by off-road cargo handling
equipment used during operational activities. For this project it was assumed that the
warehouses would include three forklifts and one yard truck per SCAQMD data.6
Emergency Backup Generators
As the Project warehouse is speculative, it is unknown whether emergency backup
generators would be used. Backup generators would only be used in the event of a power
failure and would not be part of the Project's normal daily operations. Nonetheless,
emissions associated with this equipment were included to be conservative. Emissions
from an emergency backup generator for each warehouse building were calculated
separately from CaIEEMod; refer to Appendix A. However, CaIEEMod default emissions
rates were used. If backup generators are required, the end user would be required to
obtain a permit from the SCAQMD prior to installation. Emergency backup generators
must meet SCAQMD's Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements and
comply with SCAQMD Rule 1470 (Requirements for Stationary Diesel-Fueled Internal
Combustion and Other Compression Ignition Engines), which would minimize emissions.
6 SCAQMD,High Cube Warehouse Truck Trip Study White Paper Summary of Business Survey Results,June 2014.
March 2023 Page 35
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 6: Long-Term Operational Emissions
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Source ROG NO. I CO SO2 PM10 PMZ.s
Existing Conditions
Area' 3.12 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy' 0.04 0.36 0.30 0.00 0.03 0.03
Mobile' 2.95 3.26 30.36 0.07 8.04 2.18
Total Emissions' 6.11 3.62 30.69 0.08 8.07 2.20
Proposed Project
Summer Emissions
Area 3.39 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.02 0.16 0.14 0.00 0.01 0.01
Mobile 2.51 5.83 25.45 0.08 7.20 1.98
Off-Road-Forklifts 0.41 3.91 5.13 0.01 0.22 0.21
Off-Road-Yard Trucks 0.14 4.69 32.56 0.00 0.06 0.05
Backup Generator 1.69 4.71 4.30 0.01 0.25 0.25
Total Emissions 8.16 19.30 67.61 0.10 7.74 2.50
Winter Emissions
Area 3.39 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.02 0.16 0.14 0.00 0.01 0.01
Mobile 2.50 16.14 25.20 0.08 7.20 1.98
Off-Road-Forklifts 0.41 3.91 5.13 0.01 0.22 0.21
Off-Road-Yard Trucks 0.14 4.69 32.56 0.00 0.06 0.05
Backup Generator 1.69 4.71 4.30 0.01 0.25 0.25
Total Emissions 8.15 29.61 67.36 0.10 7.74 2.50
Net Emissions
Existing Conditions 6.11 3.62 30.69 0.08 8.07 2.20
Proposed Project' 8.16 29.61 67.61 0.10 7.74 2.50
Net Change 2.05 25.99 36.92 0.02 -0.33 0.30
SCAQMD Significance 55 55 550 150 55 150
Thresholds
Exceed thresholds? No No No No No No
Source:CaIEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
Note:Total values are from CaIEEMod and may not add up 100%due to rounding.
1.The highest values between summer and winter results were used as a worst case scenario
Mobile Sources
Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative
emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact
may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOx, PM1o, and PM2.5 are all
pollutants of regional concern. NOx and ROG react with sunlight to form 03, known as
photochemical smog. Additionally, wind currents readily transport PM10 and PM2.5.
However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.
Project-generated vehicle emissions are based on the trip generation within the project
Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Memorandum (see Appendix H) and
incorporated into CalEEMod as recommended by the SCAQMD. Per the project Trip
Generation and VMT Memorandum, using the High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse
March 2023 Page 36
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
trip generation rate (Institute of Transportation Engineers [ITE] code 155) the project
would generate 956 daily vehicle trips(928 passenger cars and 28 trucks).Additionally,the
existing industrial/office uses are currently estimated to generate 1,066 (non-passenger
car equivalent) daily trips. When deducted, the trips generated by the project results in a
decrease of 110 daily trips.
As shown in Table 6, net mobile source emissions would be below SCAQMD thresholds for
each of the criteria pollutants analyzed. As such, the project would not violate any air
quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation. As a result, impacts associated with operational air quality related specifically to
mobile emissions would be less than significant.
Cumulaflve Short-Term Emissions
The SCAB is designated nonattainment for 03, PM1o, and PM2.5 for State standards and
nonattainment for 03 and PM2.5 for Federal standards. Appendix D of the SCAQMD White
Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution
(2003) notes that projects that result in emissions that do not exceed the project-specific
SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance should result in a less than significant impact
on a cumulative basis unless there is other pertinent information to the contrary.
Therefore, if a project is estimated to result in emissions that do not exceed the thresholds,
the project's contribution to the cumulative impact on air quality in the SCAB would not
be cumulatively considerable. As shown in Table 5 above, project construction-related
emissions by themselves would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for
criteria pollutants. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate a cumulatively
considerable contribution to air pollutant emissions during construction.
The SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in
the AQMP pursuant to the FCAA mandates. The analysis assumed fugitive dust controls
would be utilized during construction, including frequent water applications. SCAQMD
rules, mandates, and compliance with adopted AQMP emissions control measures would
also be imposed on construction projects throughout the SCAB, which would include
related projects. Compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations would further reduce the
project construction-related impacts. Therefore, project-related construction emissions,
combined with those from other projects in the area, would not substantially deteriorate
local air quality. Construction emissions associated with the project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts.
Cumulaflve Dong-Term Impacts
The SCAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative
operational emissions. The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a
result, no single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient
air quality standards. Instead, individual project emissions contribute to existing
March 2023 Page 37
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. The SCAQMD developed the
operational thresholds of significance based on the level above which individual project
emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SCAB's existing
air quality conditions. Therefore, a project that exceeds the SCAQMD operational
thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant
cumulative impact. As shown in Table 6, the project operational emissions would not
exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) apose.sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations"?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Locahzed Construction Significance Analysis
The nearest sensitive receptor is a residential community located 1,600 feet (0.30
miles/488 meters) northwest of the project along Tustin Ranch Road. To identify impacts
to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing LSTs for construction. LSTs
were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice
Enhancement Initiative (1-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance
Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST
methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with project-
specific emissions.
Since CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment
hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of
equipment, Table 7: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates, is used to determine the
maximum daily disturbed acreage for comparison to LSTs. The appropriate SRA for the
localized significance thresholds is the Central Orange County (SRA 17) since this area
includes the project. LSTs apply to CO, NO2, PM1o, and PM2.5.The SCAQMD produced look-
up tables for projects that disturb areas less than or equal to 5 acres in size. Project
construction is anticipated to disturb a maximum of 2.5 acres in a single day. As the LST
guidance provides thresholds for projects disturbing 1-, 2-, and 5-acres in size and the
thresholds increase with size of the site, the LSTs for a 2.5-acre threshold were
interpolated and utilized for this analysis.
Table 7: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates
Construction Equipment Equipment Acres Graded Operating Acres Graded
Phase Type Quantity per 8-Hour Hours per Day
Day per Day
Tractors 3 0.5 8 1.5
Grading Graders 1 1 0.5 1 8 0.5
Dozers 1 0.5 1 8 0.5
Total Acres Graded per Day 2.5
Source:CaIEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
March 2023 Page 38
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The SCAQMD's methodology states that"off-site mobile emissions from the project should
not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs."Therefore, only emissions included in
the CalEEMod "on-site" emissions outputs were considered. The nearest sensitive
receptors are the single-family residences located 1,600 feet (0.30 miles/488 meters)
northwest of the project. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors
of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. Therefore, LSTs for receptors located at 488 meters
were interpolated and utilized in this analysis. Table 8: Localized Significance of
Construction Emissions presents the results of localized emissions during each
construction phase. Table 8 shows that emissions of these pollutants on the peak day of
construction would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive
receptors. Significant impacts would not occur concerning LSTs during construction.
Table 8: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions
Construction Activity Maximum Pounds Per Day
NO, CO PM10 PM2.5
Demolition 20.88 19.71 5.19 1.53
Site Preparation 27.18 18.34 20.89 11.23
Grading 17.03 14.76 7.81 4.09
Building Construction 13.44 16.17 0.61 0.58
Paving 9.52 14.63 0.47 0.43
Architectural Coating 1.22 1.81 0.06 0.06
SCAQMD Localized Screening 209 7,604 166 92
Threshold(adjusted for 2.5 acres at
488 meters)
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
NOX= Nitrogen Oxides; CO=Carbon Monoxide; PM10= Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less;
PM2.5= Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less
Source:CaIEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
Localized Operational Significance Analysis
According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of
a project only if it includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend
long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). Since the
proposed project is a warehouse distribution building, the operational phase LST protocol
is conservatively applied to both the area source and all the mobile source emissions. LSTs
thresholds for receptors were interpolated for 488 meters because the closest receptors
are 488 meters away. Although the project site is 7.18 acres, the 5-acre LST threshold was
also conservatively used for the project, as the LSTs increase with the size of the site.
The LST analysis only includes on-site sources. However, the CalEEMod model outputs do
not separate on- and off-site emissions for mobile sources. For a worst-case scenario
assessment, the emissions shown in Table 9: Localized Significance of Operational
Emissions, conservatively include all on-site project-related stationary sources and 100
percent of the project-related new mobile sources, since a portion of mobile sources could
include trucks idling on-site. Table 9 shows that the maximum daily emissions of these
March 2023 Page 39
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
pollutants during operations would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at
nearby sensitive receptors.Therefore, significant impacts would not occur concerning LSTs
during operational activities.
Table 9: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions
Activity Maximum Pounds Per Day
NO, CO PM10 PM2.5
On-Site and Mobile Source
29.61 67.61 7.74 2.50
Emissions
SCAQMD Localized Screening
Threshold 243 9,123 44 22
(adjusted for 5 acres at 488 meters)
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? I No I No I No No
Source:CaIEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
Criteria Pollutant Health Impacts
On December 24, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion identifying the
need to provide sufficient information connecting a project's air emissions to health
impacts or explain why such information could not be ascertained (Sierra Club v. County of
Fresno [Friant Ranch, L.P.] [2018] Cal.51", Case No. S219783).
The Friant Ranch project was a 942-acre Specific Plan that involved a commercial master
planned community of approximately 2,500 dwelling units and extensive commercial
supporting development. The anticipated air quality impacts resulting from this
development included significant and unavoidable emissions of multiple criteria pollutants
(including significant emissions of both primary 03 precursors [NOx and ROGs]) at levels
that exceeded the daily thresholds of significance. As noted above and shown in Table 6,
the project's operational emissions are below SCAQMD's significance thresholds, resulting
in a less than significant impact and therefore the project is consistent with the Sierra Club
v. County of Fresno opinion.
The SCAQMD has set its CEQA significance thresholds based on the FCAA, which defines a
major stationary source (in extreme ozone nonattainment areas such as the South Coast
Air Basin) as emitting 10 tons per year. The thresholds correlate with the trigger levels for
the federal New Source Review (NSR) Program and SCAQMD Rule 1303 for new or
modified sources. The NSR Program' was created by the FCAA to ensure that stationary
sources of air pollution are constructed or modified in a manner that is consistent with
attainment of health-based federal ambient air quality standards. The federal ambient air
quality standards establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of
safety, to protect the public health. Therefore, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD's
LSTs and mass emissions thresholds would not violate any air quality standards or
Code of Federal Regulation(CFR)[i.e.,PSD(40 CFR 52.21,40 CFR 51.166,40 CFR 51.165(b)),Non-attainment NSR(40 CFR 52.24,40 CFR 51.165,
40 CFR part 51,Appendix S)
March 2023 Page 40
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and no criteria
pollutant health impacts.
NOx and ROG are precursor emissions that form ozone in the atmosphere in the presence
of sunlight where the pollutants undergo complex chemical reactions. It takes time and
the influence of meteorological conditions for these reactions to occur, so ozone may be
formed at a distance downwind from the sources. Breathing ground-level ozone can result
in health effects that include: reduced lung function, inflammation of airways, throat
irritation, pain, burning, or discomfort in the chest when taking a deep breath, chest
tightness, wheezing, or shortness of breath. In addition to these effects, evidence from
observational studies strongly indicates that higher daily ozone concentrations are
associated with increased asthma attacks, increased hospital admissions, increased daily
mortality, and other markers of morbidity.The consistency and coherence of the evidence
for effects upon asthmatics suggests that ozone can make asthma symptoms worse and
can increase sensitivity to asthma triggers.
According to the SCAQMD's 2016 AQMP, ozone, NOx, and ROG have been decreasing in
the Basin since 1975 and are projected to continue to decrease in the future. Although
vehicle miles traveled in the Basin continue to increase, NOx and ROG levels are decreasing
because of the mandated controls on motor vehicles and the replacement of older
polluting vehicles with lower-emitting vehicles. NOx emissions from electric utilities have
also decreased due to the use of cleaner fuels and renewable energy. The 2016 AQMP
demonstrates how the SCAQMD's control strategy to meet the 8-hour ozone standard in
2023 would lead to sufficient NOx emission reductions to attain the 1-hour ozone standard
by 2022. In addition, since NOx emissions also lead to the formation of PM2.5, the NOx
reductions needed to meet the ozone standards will likewise lead to improvement of PM2.5
levels and attainment of PM2.5 standards.
The SCAQMD's air quality modeling demonstrates that NOx reductions prove to be much
more effective in reducing ozone levels and will also lead to significant improvement in
PM2.5 concentrations. NOx-emitting stationary sources regulated by the SCAQMD include
Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) facilities (e.g., refineries, power plants,
etc.), natural gas combustion equipment (e.g., boilers, heaters, engines, burners, flares)
and other combustion sources that burn wood or propane. The 2016 AQMP identifies
robust NOx reductions from new regulations on RECLAIM facilities, non-refinery flares,
commercial cooking, and residential and commercial appliances. Such combustion sources
are already heavily regulated with the lowest NOx emissions levels achievable but there
are opportunities to require and accelerate replacement with cleaner zero-emission
alternatives, such as residential and commercial furnaces, pool heaters, and backup power
equipment. The AQMD plans to achieve such replacements through a combination of
regulations and incentives. Technology-forcing regulations can drive development and
commercialization of clean technologies,with future year requirements for new or existing
March 2023 Page 41
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
equipment. Incentives can then accelerate deployment and enhance public acceptability
of new technologies.
The 2016 AQMP also emphasizes that beginning in 2012, continued implementation of
previously adopted regulations will lead to NOx emission reductions of 68 percent by 2023
and 80 percent by 2031. With the addition of 2016 AQMP proposed regulatory measures,
a 30 percent reduction of NOx from stationary sources is expected in the 15-year period
between 2008 and 2023. This is in addition to significant NOx reductions from stationary
sources achieved in the decades prior to 2008.
As previously discussed, localized effects of on-site project emissions to nearby receptors
were found to be less than significant (refer to Table 8 and Table 9). The LSTs represent
the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an
exceedance of the most stringent applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard.
The LSTs were developed by the SCAQMD based on the ambient concentrations of that
pollutant for each SRA and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The ambient air
quality standards establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of
safety, to protect public health, including protecting the health of sensitive populations.
Information on health impacts related to exposure to ozone and particulate matter
emissions published bythe U.S. EPA and CARB have been summarized above and discussed
in the Regulatory Framework section. As shown above, project-related emissions would
not exceed the regional thresholds or the LSTs, and therefore would not exceed the
ambient air quality standards or cause an increase in the frequency or severity of existing
violations of air quality standards. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to
criteria pollutant levels in excess of the health-based ambient air quality standards.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
An analysis of CO "hot spots" is needed to determine whether the change in the level of
service of an intersection resulting from the project would have the potential to result in
exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS. It has long been recognized that CO exceedances
are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when vehicles are idling at intersections.
Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last 20 years.
Currently, the CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenger
cars (requirements for certain vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older
vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on
industrial facilities,CO concentrations have steadily declined. Accordingly,with the steadily
decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections do not result in
exceedances of the CO standard.
The SCAB was re-designated as attainment in 2007 and is no longer addressed in the
SCAQMD's AQMP. The 2003 AQMP is the most recent version that addresses CO
concentrations. As part of the SCAQMD CO Hotspot Analysis, the Wilshire
March 2023 Page 42
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection, one of the most congested intersections in
Southern California with an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately 100,000
vehicles per day, was modeled for CO concentrations. This modeling effort identified a CO
concentration high of 4.6 ppm, which is well below the 35-ppm Federal standard. The
project considered herein would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a
CO hot spot in the context of SCAQMD's CO HotspotAnalysis. As the CO hotspots were not
experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection even as it
accommodates 100,000 vehicles daily, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots
would not be experienced at any vicinity intersections resulting from 956 additional total
daily vehicle trips (-6 net a.m. peak hour and 52 net p.m. peak hour trips) attributable to
the project, when compared to the existing condition. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant.
Construction-Related Diesel Particulate Matter
Construction would result in the generation of diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions
from the use of off-road diesel equipment required. The amount to which the receptors
are exposed (a function of concentration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor
used to determine health risk (i.e. potential exposure to TAC emission levels that exceed
applicable standards). Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are
primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer.
The use of diesel-powered construction equipment would be temporary and episodic.The
duration of exposure would be short and exhaust from construction equipment dissipates
rapidly. Current models and methodologies for conducting health risk assessments are
associated with longer-term exposure periods of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not
correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities.The
closest sensitive receptors are located approximately 1,600 feet from the property
boundary and the associated project construction areas.
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has not identified short-term
health effects from DPM. Construction is temporary and would be transient throughout
the site (i.e. move from location to location) and would not generate emissions in a fixed
location for extended periods of time. Construction would be subject to and would comply
with California regulations limiting the idling of heavy-duty construction equipment to no
more than 5 minutes to further reduce nearby sensitive receptors' exposure to temporary
and variable DPM emissions. For these reasons, DPM generated by construction activities,
in and of itself, would not be expected to expose sensitive receptors to substantial
amounts of air toxics and the project would have a less than significant impact.
March 2023 Page 43
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
d) Result in others emissions (such .s those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
No Impact. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as
sources of odors. These land uses include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater
treatment plants,food processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries,
landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding.The project would not include any of the land uses
that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources.
During construction-related activities, some odors (not substantial pollutant
concentrations)that may be detected are those typical of construction vehicles(e.g.,diesel
exhaust from grading and construction equipment). These odors are a temporary short-
term impact that is typical of construction projects and would disperse rapidly.The project
would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor
sources. Therefore, the project would not create objectionable odors.
Cumulative Impacts
As discussed above, project-related impacts to air qualitywould be less than significant. No single
project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards.
Instead, a project's individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse
air quality impacts. The SCAQMD developed the operational thresholds of significance based on
the level above which a project's individual emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to the Basin's existing air quality conditions. Therefore, a project that exceeds the
SCAQMD operational thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable contribution to a
significant cumulative impact. As described in this section, the proposed Project's operational
emissions would not exceed thresholds. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts.
March 2023 Page 44
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
w �
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local
X
or regional plans, policies,or regulations,or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the X
California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally
protected wetlands(including, but not limited to,marsh, X
vernal pool,coastal,etc.)through direct removal,filling,
hydrological interruption,or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife X
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or X
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation X
Plan, or other approved local,regional,or state habitat
conservation plan?
) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or.through bit t res rh lc tions, on any
species identified as a candidate, .sensitive, or special status species in local or. regional
pleas, policies, or regulations, or. by they California Department o'f Fish and Game or. US,
Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The proposed project would not have an effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, as a sensitive, or as a
special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
March 2023 Page 45
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS).The project site consists of two existing industrial/office buildings, ancillary auto
parking lot, and landscaping. There is limited vegetation on the project site consisting of
landscaped ornamental vegetation found on the perimeter of the project site and along
the parking aisles. No natural habitats exist on-site. The project site no longer contains
suitable habitat for any protected species. Therefore, there would be no impact to
sensitive species. No mitigation is required.
b) I.lave a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or. other .sensitive natural
community identified in local or. regional plans, policies, regulations or. by they California
Department o'f Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The project site is developed with two industrial/office buildings and is
surrounded on all sides by existing commercial and industrial properties. There are no
native habitats on site. Additionally, no drainages, riparian habitat, or aquatic features are
located on the project site. No impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community would occur as a result of the proposed project; no mitigation is required.
eJ Ilave a substantial adverse effect on .state or wfederally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vern l pool, coastal, etc J through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
No Impact. Refer to Threshold 4.4 (b) above. No drainages, jurisdictional water, or
wetlands occur on site. No impact would occur.
d) Inter'fere .substantially with they movement o'f any native resident or. migratory fish or.
wildlife .species or with established native resident or. migratorywildlife corridors, or
impede they use o'f natives wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact. The project site is located in a predominately industrial and commercial area
and is not suitable as a wildlife movement corridor. Construction of the proposed project
would not impact a wildlife corridor.
Nesting birds and their nests are protected under the provisions of the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (M BTA) and CDFW codes. As described above in Threshold 4.4(a), the site does
not provide any natural habitats; however,there is landscaped ornamental vegetation that
occurs on the perimeter on the project site. Landscaped vegetation could provide suitable
habitat for birds protected by the MBTA.As described in PDF BIO-A(see section 2.2, Project
Design Features section), a qualified biologist would conduct a pre-construction nesting
bird survey prior to any ground disturbing activities or the removal of vegetation on the
site during the nesting period (February 151 to August 3111). Therefore, there would be no
impact to migratory wildlife or corridors and no mitigation is required.
March 2023 Page 46
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
e) Conflict with any local policies or.ordinances protecting biological seso urces, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, as the project site has been developed and there are no
identified biological resources that are subject to such regulation; no impact would occur
and no mitigation is required.
.) Conflict with they provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plea, Natural Community
°
Conservation Plan, or.other approved local, regional, or states habitat conservation plan
No Impact.The project site is not subject to a conservation plan since it is a developed site
with no biological resources subject to regulation. No impact relative to adopted habitat
conservation or other approved local, regional or State plans would occur.
UML lative (Impacts
The analysis above determined that the implementation of the proposed project would not result
in significant impacts to biological resources. Similar to the proposed project, all cumulative
projects would be subject to individual project review and conformance with conservation plans
and standard provisions for compliance with state and federal protection laws. Since potential
cumulative projects would also be required to mitigate for any potential impacts to biological
resources, the cumulative impact from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects,
would be expected to be less than significant. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than
significant and the potential incremental effects of the proposed project would not be
cumulatively considerable.
March 2023 Page 47
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
CUL 11 U IIRA II..... II,,: U 1 II,,:,
w �
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES.Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X
a historical resource pursuant to§ 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X
an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
X
outside of dedicated cemeteries?
The discussion below relies on the City's General Plan as it relates to the cultural resources and
the project site and a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS)Summary Memo
conducted by ASM Affiliates (ASM) in April 2022 (Appendix B).
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in they significance of a historical resource pursuant to
15064,5?
No Impact. The project site consists of two existing industrial/office buildings, and
associated surface parking lots and landscaping. According to the City's General Plan, the
project is not located in the Cultural Resources Overlay District. In addition, the existing
structures, as described in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, were
constructed in or shortly before 1979 and 1980, were not identified as historic structures
through inventories of historic buildings completed by the City in 1990 and 2003.8 In
addition, ASM Affiliates, Inc. (ASM) requested a search of existing records held by the
South-Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), part of the California Historical
Resources Information System (CHRIS), which encompassed the project area and a radius
of 1 mile around it. Historic aerial photographs and historic USGS topographic maps of the
project area were analyzed. A request was also made for a search of the Native American
Heritage Commission's(NAHC)Sacred Lands File.The SCCIC records search was conducted
to determine whether the project area has been previously subject to survey as well as to
detect the presence or absence of cultural resources previously documented within the
project area.The search included all records and documents on file with the SCCIC, as well
as the National Register of Historic Places,the Office of Historic Preservation(OHP) Historic
Property Directory, and the OHP Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list.
A total of 56 previous reports were identified as a result of the records search (See Table
1 in Appendix B). Six of these encompassed all or a portion of the project area, with one
8 City of Tustin.(2018).City of Tustin General Plan,Open Space and Recreation Element. Page 36.Retrieved from
K .:.. r..r.!..r?..s..:::br.::A E'.�... . .r:!.....V.,8 2022.
March 2023 Page 48
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
located just outside of the proposed project parcel.Three of the six reports are large-scale
overviews that do not address the project location specifically. As documented in report
OR-01413, a portion of this project was included in a survey of a small parcel just to the
southwest of the proposed project; this report had negative results and concluded that
the area had a low prehistoric sensitivity. A small area within the proposed project parcel
was documented in OR-01662, while OR-04000 included a linear component adjacent to
the eastern edge of the parcel; no resources were documented by either project within or
near the project parcel.
Historical topographic maps provide minimal additional information regarding the use of
the project area over time. Michelle Drive appears on early topographic maps dating from
1896 with other roads not appearing in the area until 1932. No significant change is evident
again until 1982 when Myford Road appears as well as a variety of structures throughout
the area. Similarly, historical aerial images show the project area largely undeveloped until
the 1980 image, which shows roads and structures as depicted on the topographic map,
with minimal change to the most recent image taken in 2018.
Review of the results of the SCCIC records search and historical imagery indicate that the
project location does not contain any nor has it contained any known historical properties
as defined by CEQA. The results of prior studies encompassing and adjacent to the project
site suggest that the area overall has a low potential for containing previously
undocumented archaeological or historical resources. Thus, no impact would occur to
historical resources and mitigation is not required.
b) Cause a .substantial adverse change in they significance o,f an archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064,5?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site has been previously disturbed and the
surrounding area is predominately urbanized with industrial uses. According to Figure
COSR-2 in the City's General Plan, the project site is not located within a known
archaeological area. Due to the level of past disturbance, it is not anticipated that
archaeological sites would be found. Because the proposed project involves development
of a site that has been so heavily disturbed, it is not anticipated that intact subsurface
archaeological resources would be encountered during excavation and grading activities.
Potential impacts are considered less than significant and no mitigation is required.
c) Disturb any human semain5, including those interred outsides o,f dedicated cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within a known or suspected
cemetery and there are no known human remains within the project site. However, this
does not preclude finding human remains during project-related ground disturbance. In
compliance with State regulations, should any human remains be encountered during
construction activities, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further
disturbances shall occur in the immediate area until the County Coroner has made the
March 2023 Page 49
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to California Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98. In addition, in accordance with State and local guidelines, if the Coroner
determines the remains to be of a Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native
American Heritage Commission within 24 hours for identification of the most likely
descendent of the deceased Native American. Additionally, if the remains are determined
to be Native American, the City would work with local Native American representatives to
ensure that the remains and any associated artifacts are treated in a respectful and
dignified manner. Despite the applicable regulatory framework and the relatively low
likelihood of discovery, it remains possible that the proposed project would discover
human remains during subsurface activities, which could then result in the remains being
inadvertently damaged. Project compliance with State Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5 would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level.
CUMLflaflve Impacts
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to historical, known
archaeological resources, or known human remains. The chances of cumulative impacts
occurring as a result of project implementation plus implementation of other projects in the
region are not likely since other proposed projects would be subject to individual project-level
environmental review. Since there would be no project-related significant impacts and due to
existing laws and regulations in place to protect cultural resources and prevent significant
impacts to archaeological resources, or known human remains, the potential incremental effects
of the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable.
March 2023 Page 50
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ENERGY
w �
6. ENERGY.Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact
due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption X
of energy resources,during project construction or
operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for X
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
IBuui Wng Energy Conserva-talon Standards
Energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings were adopted by
the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the California
Energy Commission [CEC]) in June 1977 and are updated every three years (Title 24, Part 6, of
the CCR). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve
energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible
incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. On August 11, 2021, the CEC
adopted the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which took effect on January 1, 2023.
The 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards contain energy and water efficiency requirements
(and indoor air quality requirements) for newly constructed buildings, additions to existing
buildings, and alterations to existing buildings. Public Resources Code Sections 25402
subdivisions (a)-(b) and 25402.1 emphasize the importance of building design and construction
flexibility by requiring the CEC to establish performance standards, in the form of an "energy
budget" in terms of the energy consumption per square foot of floor space. For this reason, the
2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards include both a prescriptive option, allowing builders to
comply by using methods known to be efficient, and a performance option, allowing builders
complete freedom in their designs provided the building achieves the same overall efficiency as
an equivalent building using the prescriptive option.9
The 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards build on California's technology innovations,
encouraging energy efficient approaches to encourage building decarbonization. The 2022
Building Energy Efficiency Standards also extend the benefits of photovoltaic and battery storage
systems and other demand flexible technology to work in combinations with heat pumps to
9 California Energy Commission.(2022).2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and non-residential standards.Page iv.
Retrieved from https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/CEC-400-2022-010_CMF.pdf.Accessed February 7,2023.
March 2023 Page 51
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
enable California buildings to be responsive to climate change. The 2022 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards also strengthen ventilation standards to improve indoor air quality.
Senate WH 350
SB 350 was signed into law in September 2015 and establishes tiered increases to the Renewable
Portfolio Standard-40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. SB 100
was signed into law September 2018 and increased the required Renewable Portfolio Standards.
Senate WH 100
On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100. Under SB 100, the total kilowatt-hours
of energy sold by electricity retailers to their end-use customers must consist of at least 50
percent renewable resources by 2026, 60 percent renewable resources by 2030, and 100 percent
renewable resources by 2045. SB 100 also establishes a State policy that eligible renewable
energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to
California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all State agencies
by December 31, 2045. Under the bill, the State cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in
the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity
target.
State CEQA Guideiines AppendN IF
Pursuant to Section 15126.2(b), Section 15126.4 (a)(1)(C), and Appendix F of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the environmental setting may include "existing energy supplies and energy use
patterns in the region and locality." Energy use is analyzed in this document due to the potential
direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with the project. Such impacts include the
depletion of nonrenewable resources (e.g., oil, natural gas, coal, etc.)and emissions of pollutants
during both project construction and operations. Refer to Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Appendix D, for additional regulatory background and environmental setting regarding the
project's energy use.
Eiectdcirt
Electricity as a utility is a man-made resource. The production of electricity requires the
consumption or conversion of energy resources, including water, wind, oil, gas, coal, solar,
geothermal, and nuclear resources, into energy. The delivery of electricity involves a number of
system components including substations and transformers that lower transmission line power
(voltage) to a level appropriate for on-site distribution and use. The electricity generated is
distributed through a network of transmission and distribution lines commonly called a power
grid. Conveyance of electricity through transmission lines is typically responsive to market
demands.
Energy capacity, or electrical power, is generally measured in watts (W) while energy use is
measured in watt-hours (Wh). For example, if a light bulb has a capacity rating of 100 W, the
energy required to keep the bulb on for one hour would be 100 Wh. If ten 100 W bulbs were on
March 2023 Page 52
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
for one hour, the energy required would be 1,000 Wh or one kilowatt-hour (kWh). On a utility
scale, a generator's capacity is typically rated in megawatts (mw), which is one million watts,
while energy use is measured in megawatt-hours (MWh) or gigawatt-hours (GWh), which is one
billion watt-hours.
Natural Gas
The Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), the service provider for the project, services
approximately 21 million people in a 20,000-square mile service territory. SoCalGas has four
storage fields; Aliso Canyon, Honor Rancho, La Goleta, and Playa del Rey, as well as a combined
storage capacity of 134.1 billion cubic feet. According to the CEC, natural gas demand in the
SoCalGas service area was 7,431 million therms (or 743,100 million cubic feet) in 2010. The CEC
prepared three scenarios for forecasting future growth in natural gas demand between 2012 and
2022: a high-energy demand case, a low-energy demand case, and a mid-energy demand case.
The low-demand scenario, which incorporates relatively high economic/demographic growth,
relatively low electricity and natural gas rates, and relatively low-efficiency program and self-
generation impacts, estimates that natural gas demand in the SoCalGas service area would be
7,951 million therms in 2022 (the latest year in the demand forecast).
Natural gas provides almost a third of California's total energy requirements and will continue to
be a major fuel in California's energy supply. Only 13.5 percent of the natural gas California used
came from in-State production in 2006; the rest was delivered by pipelines from several
production areas in the western United States and western Canada. Once the gas arrives in
California, it is distributed by the State's three major gas utilities that provide a collective of 98
percent of the State's natural gas.
Energy Use
Energy use is typically quantified using the British Thermal Unit (BTU). Total energy use in
California was 7,816.9 trillion BTU in 2019 (the most recent year for which this specific data is
available), which equates to an average of approximately 198 million BTU per capita. Of
California's total energy use, the breakdown by sector is 39.3 percent transportation, 23.2
percent industrial, 18.8 percent commercial, and 18.7 percent residential.10 Electricity and
natural gas in California are generally used by stationary sources such as residences, commercial
sites, and industrial facilities, whereas petroleum use is generally accounted for by
transportation-related energy use.
) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wastefill, inefficient, or.
unnecessary consumption tion . energy re.source5, during project construction or.operation?
Less Than Significant Impact.
io United States Energy Information Administration.(2022).California State Profile and Energy Estimates.Retrieved from
www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA.Accessed April 27,2022.
March 2023 Page 53
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Hectdcurty
SCE provides electricity to the project area. Currently, the existing site uses electricity to
operate the existing combined total of 136,098 square feet of industrial/office buildings.
Development of the project may result in an increase in electricity over existing conditions.
The increased demand is expected to be adequately served by the existing SCE electrical
facilities. Total electricity demand in SCE's service area is forecast to increase by
approximately 12,000 GWh—or 12 billion kWh—between 2015 and 2026. The increase in
electricity demand from the project would represent a small percentage increase
compared to overall demand in SCE's service area.Therefore, projected electrical demand
would not significantly impact SCE's level of service.
It should also be noted that the project design and materials would comply with the 2022
Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which took effect on January 1, 2023. Prior to
issuance of a building permit, the City of Tustin Building Division would review and verify
that the project plans demonstrate compliance with the current version of the Building
and Energy Efficiency Standards. The project would also be required to adhere to the
provisions of CALGreen, which establishes planning and design standards for sustainable
site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the CEC requirements), water
conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants.
Project development would not interfere with achievement of the 60 percent Renewable
Portfolio Standard set forth in SB 100 for 2030 or the 100 percent standard for 2045.These
goals apply to SCE and other electricity retailers. As electricity retailers reach these goals,
emissions from end-user electricity use would decrease from current emission estimates.
Naturall Gas
SoCalGas provides natural gas service to the project area. The increased demand is
expected to be adequately served by the existing SoCalGas facilities. From 2018 to 2035,
residential demand is expected to decline from 236 billion cubic feet(bcf)to 186 bcf,while
supplies remain constant at 3.775 billion cubic feet per day(bcfd)from 2015 through 2035.
Therefore, the natural gas demand from the proposed project would represent a nominal
percentage of overall demand in SoCalGas' service area. The proposed project would not
result in a significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project construction or operation.
Fuell
During construction, transportation energy use depends on the type and number of trips,
vehicle miles traveled, fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Transportation energy
use during construction would come from the transport and use of construction
equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction employee vehicles that
would use diesel fuel and/or gasoline.The use of energy resources by these vehicles would
fluctuate according to the phase of construction and would be temporary. Most
March 2023 Page 54
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
construction equipment would be gas-powered, diesel-powered, or electricity powered.
Impacts related to transportation energy use during construction would be temporary and
would not require expanded energy supplies or the construction of new infrastructure;
impacts would not be significant.
During operations, energy consumption would be associated with facilities operations,
visitor, and employee vehicle trips; delivery and supply trucks; and trips by maintenance
and repair crews. The project is a warehouse distribution development project near the I-
5 freeway,SR 261,and SR 55, reducing the need to drive long distances to a major highway.
Consequently, the proposed project would not result in a substantial demand for energy
that would require expanded supplies or the construction of other infrastructure or
expansion of existing facilities.Additionally,fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips
generated by the proposed project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or
unnecessary.
The proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources. Impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is
required.
b) Conflict with or.obstruct a.state or.local planfor renewable energy or.energy efficiency?
No Impact. As discussed in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, threshold (b), the
proposed project would be consistent with the SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation
Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and the CARB Scoping Plan. Project
design and operation would comply with the California Building Energy Efficiency
Standards, appliance efficiency regulations, and green building standards. Project
development would not cause inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption,
and no adverse impact would occur.
The project is a warehouse distribution development and would generate GHG emissions
below SCAQMD post-2020 thresholds (the proposed project generates 373 million metric
tons of CO2 equivalent per year [MTCO2e/yr]). The proposed project would not conflict
with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted to reduce GHG
emissions, including Title 24, AB 32, and SB 32; therefore, the project is consistent with AB
32, which aims to decrease emissions statewide to 1990 levels by 2020. Potential impacts
are considered less than significant.
CUML lative Impacts
Construction and operations associated with implementation of the project would result in the
consumption of fuel and energy, but it would not do so in a wasteful manner. The consumption
of fuel and energy would not be substantial in comparison to statewide electricity, natural gas,
gasoline, and diesel demand. New capacity or supplies of energy resources would not be
March 2023 Page 55
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
required. Additionally, the project would be subject to compliance with all Federal, State, and
local requirements for energy efficiency.
The anticipated impacts from the proposed project, in conjunction with future development in
the site vicinity, would increase urbanization and result in increased energy consumption.
However, potential land use impacts are site-specific and require evaluation on a case-by-case
basis. Each cumulative project would require separate discretionary approval and CEQA
assessment, which would address potential energy consumption impacts and identify necessary
mitigation measures, where appropriate.
As noted above, the proposed project would not result in significant energy consumption
impacts.The proposed project would not be considered inefficient,wasteful,or unnecessary with
regard to energy. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in incremental effects to energy
that could be compounded or increased when considered together with similar effects from
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. As a result, no
cumulative significant impacts related to energy would occur. Therefore, potential impacts are
not expected to be cumulatively considerable and impacts would be less than significant.
March 2023 Page 56
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
GE011OGY AN 11 IIIb,,,,
w �
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
X
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including X
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, X
and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading,subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial X
direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
X
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geological feature? X
March 2023 Page 57
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
A Geotechnical Investigation was prepared for the proposed project by Geotechnical
Professionals Inc. (February 2022). The report is provided in Appendix C; the results and
conclusions of the report are summarized herein.
Caiiifornia AigWst-PrWo Earthquake Fauft Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (AP Act) was signed into law in 1972 with its
primary purpose being to mitigate the hazard of fault rupture by prohibiting the location of
structures for human occupancy across the trace of an active fault.The AP Act requires the State
Geologist to delineate "Earthquake Fault Zones" along faults that are "sufficiently active" and
"well defined." The AP Act dictates that cities and counties withhold development permits for
projects within an Earthquake Fault Zone within their jurisdiction until geologic investigations
demonstrate that the projects are not threatened by surface displacements from future
earthquakes. Projects include all land divisions and most structures for human occupancy. State
law exempts single-family wood-frame and steel-frame dwellings that are less than three stories
and are not part of a development of four units or more. However, local agencies can be more
restrictive than the State.
Ground Shaking
Ground shaking is a general term referring to all aspects of motion of the earth's surface resulting
from an earthquake and is normally the major cause of damage in seismic events. The extent of
ground shaking is controlled by the magnitude and intensity of the earthquake, distance from
the epicenter, and local geologic conditions. Magnitude is a measure of the energy released by
an earthquake;it is assessed by seismographs. Intensity is a subjective measure of the perceptible
effects of seismic energy at a given point and varies with distance from the epicenter and local
geologic conditions.
Ground shaking is the primary cause of damage and injury during earthquakes and can result in
surface rupture, liquefaction, landslides, lateral spreading, differential settlement, tsunamis,
building failure, and broken gas and other utility lines, leading to fire and other collateral damage.
The intensity and severity of ground motion is dependent on the earthquake's magnitude,
distance from the epicenter and underlying soil and rock properties. Areas underlain by thick,
saturated, unconsolidated soils will experience greater shaking motion than areas underlain by
firm bedrock.
SOsmcfty and Seisms c Hazards
The faulting and seismicity of southern California is dominated by the San Andreas Fault zone.
The zone separates two of the major tectonic plates that comprise the earth's crust. The Pacific
Plate lies west of the fault zone. This plate is moving in a northwesterly direction relative to the
North American Plate, which lies east of the fault zone.This relative movement between the two
plates is the driving force of fault ruptures in western California. There are numerous faults in
southern California that are categorized as active, potentially active, and inactive.
March 2023 Page 58
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
A fault is classified as active by the state if it has either moved during the Holocene epoch (during
the last 11,000 years) or is included in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zone (as established by
the California Geological Survey [CGS]). A fault is classified as potentially active if it has
experienced movement within the Quaternary period (during the last 1.6 million years). Faults
that have not moved in the last 1.6 million years generally are considered inactive.
The severity of an earthquake generally is expressed in two ways—magnitude and intensity. The
energy released, as measured on the Moment Magnitude (MM) scale, represents the magnitude
of an earthquake. The intensity of an earthquake is measured by the Modified Mercalli Intensity
(MMI) scale, which emphasizes the seismic response at a subject site and measures ground-
shaking severity according to damage done to structures, changes in the earth surface, and
personal accounts.
Earthquake Induced UgUefacflon
Liquefaction is the sudden loss of soil shear strength and sudden increase in porewater pressure
caused by shear strains, as could result from an earthquake. Research has shown that saturated,
loose to medium-dense sands with a silt content less than about 25 percent and located within
the top 40 feet are most susceptible to liquefaction and surface rupture/lateral spreading.These
zones delineate regional susceptibility and can vary greatly due to groundwater level changes.
LandsUes
Shaking during an earthquake may lead to seismically induced landslides, especially in areas that
have previously experienced landslides or slumps, in areas of steep slopes, or in saturated
hillsides. The City is generally flat and not at risk from the threat of landslides. Potential areas
where seismically induced landslides could occur in the north portion of the City.
Surface Fau«uft Rupture Potenfiiall
Rupture of the surface during an earthquake generally is limited to the narrow strip of land
immediately adjacent to the fault on which the earthquake is occurring. Surface fault rupture
may occur suddenly during an earthquake or slowly in the form of fault creep and almost always
follows pre-existing faults, which are zones of weakness. Secondary surface faulting can be
triggered by aquifer compaction and subsidence or by the effects of strong groundshaking
triggering an effect on neighboring faults. Not all earthquakes will result in surface rupture and
the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act initiated a statewide program to identify fault zones
that are susceptible to surface rupture.
Sour Erosuon
Erosion refers to the removal of soil from exposed bedrock surfaces by water or wind.The effects
of erosion are intensified with an increase in slope (as water moves faster, it gains momentum
to carry more debris), the narrowing of runoff channels (which increases the velocity of water),
and by the removal of groundcover (which leaves the soil exposed to erosive forces). Surface
March 2023 Page 59
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
improvements, such as paved roads and buildings, decrease the potential for erosion on-site, but
can increase the rate and volume of runoff, potentially causing off-site erosion.
SUbsWence
Soil subsidence at the land surface can result from both natural and man-made phenomena.
Natural phenomena that may induce subsidence include tectonic deformation and seismically
induced settlements (liquefaction); soil consolidation; oxidation or dewatering of organic-rich
soils; and collapse of subsurface cavities. Human activities that may help induce subsidence
include decreases in pore pressure caused by the excessive withdrawal of subsurface fluids
(pumping), including water and hydrocarbons.
Sohl Settlement
Soil settlement is the condition where soil deforms in a vertical direction when a vertical load is
placed on top of it. The compression of the soil bed by the vertical load results from the
characteristics of the soil particles that are contained in the soil bed, as the spaces that are filled
with either air or water between the soil particles are squeezed out.
Expansive Soils
Expansive soils are common throughout California and can cause damage to foundations and
slabs, separation of masonry, or failure of paved surfaces unless properly treated during
construction. Expansive soil conditions could cause damage to facility components if they are not
designed with proper engineering and grading practices. The hazard for expansive behavior is
considered a low risk for alluvial fan locations because soils in these areas are frequently
saturated and generally do not contain clay-sized particles.
) Directly or.indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including they risk of l .s5,
injury, or death involving',
lJ Rupture of a known erthr cake.fault, as delineated n they most recent Alrlul.st-r rl l
Earthquake Fault 2�oning Map issued by the State Geologistfor the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special publication 42.
Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest Alquist-Priolo fault zone is the San Joaquin Hills
Fault approximately 2.25 miles southwest of the project site.11 Based on the Geotechnical
Investigation, the proposed project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zone and there are no known faults crossing or projecting toward the project site.
Therefore, ground rupture due to faulting is considered unlikely at this project site. The
possibility of significant fault rupture on the project site is considered to be less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
11 United States Geological Survey.Quaternary Faults. Retrieved from
I��� a.L............/.1.�...:...........i....... ............................................. ......... .............. ................................... ii .�i ..........................1...a.1. ....a........u.....�....I...�....a. .1................ Accessed August 3 2022.
March 2023 Page 60
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Threshold 4.7 (a-i), above. Due to the strong natural
seismic activity of southern California, all structures, including the proposed project, are
and would be exposed to potential strong seismic ground shaking through their lifespan.
However, design and construction conformance with the latest California Building Code
(CBC)would minimize the potential of strong seismic ground shaking impacts.The CBC was
adopted by all municipalities within southern California on January 1, 2017. The CBC
provides procedures for earthquake-resistant structural design that include considerations
for on-site soil conditions, occupancy, and the configuration of the structure, including the
structural system and height. With conformance to the CBC, a less than significant impact
from ground shaking would occur.
lll, and iv) Seismic-selated groundfailure, including liquefaction?And I..andslides?
Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated
cohesionless soils undergo a temporary loss of strength during severe ground shaking and
acquire a degree of mobility sufficient to permit ground deformation. In extreme cases,
the soil particles can become suspended in groundwater, resulting in the soil deposit
becoming mobile and fluid-like. Liquefaction is generally considered to occur primarily in
loose to medium dense deposits of saturated sandy soils. Thus, three conditions are
required for liquefaction to occur: (1)a sandy soil of loose to medium density; (2)saturated
conditions; and (3) rapid, large strain, cyclic loading, normally provided by earthquake
motions.
According to the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project, the project site is
located within an area mapped by the State of California as having a potential for soil
liquefaction. Groundwater was encountered at depths of 11 to 20 feet during the
geotechnical investigation for the project site. Historical groundwater levels at the project
site are estimated to be approximately 12 to 13 feet below the ground surface at the
project site.
The potential for liquefaction was evaluated in the Geotechnical Investigation. The
materials encountered below the shallow groundwater depth of 11 feet consisted
primarily of firm to very stiff clays with minor layers of medium dense to dense sands and
silty sands. Based on the evaluation, the total and differential (across a 60-foot span)
liquefaction-induced settlement is anticipated to be less than%-inch.As such,the potential
for soil liquefaction and the resulting settlement to adversely affect the proposed project
is considered to be low. Therefore, impacts from liquefaction are considered less than
significant.
Landslides are mass movements of the ground that include rock falls, relatively shallow
slumping and sliding of soil, and deeper rotational or transitional movement of soil or rock.
The project site consists of developed land. According to the City's General Plan Figure
March 2023 Page 61
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
COSR-1, Hazard Planning Areas, the project site is not located within an area susceptible
to landslides.12 Therefore, there would be no impact from landslides on the proposed
project and no mitigation is required.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or.they loss of topsoil
Less Than Significant Impact.
Short-term Construction (Impacts
Grading during the construction phase of the proposed project would displace soils and
temporarily increase the potential for soils to be subject to wind and water erosion.
However, erosion and loss of topsoil would be controlled using standard erosion control
practices during construction. Accordingly, the proposed project would be required to
prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit to implement Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize stormwater runoff during construction.
Adherence to the SWPPP with the recommendations of the Preliminary Water Quality
Management Plan prepared for the proposed project would reduce possible impacts
related to the erosion to less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Long-term Operaflonal (Impacts
Following construction of the project, ground surfaces would be covered by the proposed
warehouse distribution building, landscape and paving. Runoff from the northwesterly
portion of the building and the truck loading dock area would drain to catch basins located
in the truck loading dock.A proposed storm drain would convey runoff around the building
and connect to the existing 18" lateral line located at the westerly property line. Flows
from the southeasterly half of the building would be collected by a catch basin near the
south driveway. A proposed storm drain would convey runoff westerly to the southwest
corner of the project site. This would confluence with the runoff from the southwesterly
portion prior to connecting to a second existing lateral. Before the on-site flows discharge
off-site, manhole structures would divert low flows to a Bio Clean Modular Wetlands
System for stormwater treatment.13 Therefore,the potential for substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil is considered less than significant.
c, d) Be located on a geologic unit or..soil that is unstable, or. that would become unstable as a
result of they project, and potentially result in n-- or. off-site landslide, lateral .s reading,
subsidence, liquefaction or.collapse?And be located on expansive soil, as defined in 7able
12 City of Tustin.(2022).City of Tustin General Plan,Figure COSR-1.Retrieved from lit t,ps,,//,tu,ra,i_r7c„a, .r7,E;>r,,a„I,,,,,!,I,,a,r7,Accessed March 4,
2022.
is Thienes Engineering,Inc.(2022).Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan.
March 2023 Page 62
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
18-1-B they Uniform Building Code (1994), creating .substantial direct or.indirect risks to
life or property?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City's General Plan Safety Element Figure COSR-1,
Hazard Planning Areas, in the City's General Plan Safety Element depicts areas in the City
which require special planning considerations to avoid potential geologic hazards. The
project site is not located in an area identified as either having high liquefaction potential
or probable bedrock landslides. The Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed project
site found impacts due to liquefaction to be less than significant. There would be no
impacts from landslides because the proposed project site is flat and is not located near
any areas with steep topography that would be susceptible to landslides.
However,the proposed project consists of soils that are made up of highly expansive clays.
As described in PDF GEO-A,the project shall incorporate recommendations included in the
Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project by Geotechnical Professionals Inc.
(February 2022) into design and construction of the project site. Compliance with the
recommendations of the geotechnical investigation would reduce impacts associated with
consolidation and collapse to less than significant.
e) Ilave .soils incapable of adequately.supporting they use of septic tanks or.alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not available for they disposal of wastewater?
No Impact. No septic tanks would be used as part of the proposed project. The project
would connect to the City's existing sanitary sewer system for wastewater disposal. Thus,
no impacts associated with the use of septic tanks would occur as part of the proposed
project's implementation and no mitigation is required.
Directly or.indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or.unique geological
Less Than Significant Impact.The Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project does
not identify the presence of any unique geological features on the project site.
Furthermore, the City's General Plan does not identify any unique geological features
within the City. Thus, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly destroy a
unique geological feature. Figure COSR-2, Important Natural Resources, in the City's
General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element does not identify the project
site in an area of high paleontologic sensitivity. Therefore, impacts related to unique
paleontological resources or unique geological features is considered less than significant.
Cumulaflve Impacts
The potential cumulative impact related to earth and geology is typically site specific.The analysis
herein determined that the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related
to landform modification, grading, or the destruction of a geologically significant landform or
feature. Moreover, existing State and local laws and regulations are in place to protect people
and property from substantial adverse geological and soils effects, including fault rupture, strong
March 2023 Page 63
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
seismic ground shaking, seismic-induced ground failure (including liquefaction), and landslides.
Existing laws and regulations also protect people and property from adverse effects related to
soil erosion, expansive soils, loss of topsoil, development on an unstable geologic unit or soil type
that could result in on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse. These existing laws and regulations, along with project design features, would render
potentially adverse geological and soil effects of the proposed project to a level considered less
than significant. Further, these existing laws and regulations also ensure that past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future projects in the City of Tustin and surrounding region do not result
in substantial adverse geological and soils effects. As a result, the existing legal and regulatory
frameworkwould ensure that the incremental geological and soils effects of the proposed project
would not result in greater adverse cumulative effects when considered together with the effects
of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the region. The impacts of
the proposed project-related to geology and soils would be less than cumulatively considerable.
March 2023 Page 64
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
II,,, 111,,,,1 U S II,,,, GAS 1::.::.:1M11SS110NS
w �
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly,that may have a significant impact on the X
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of X
greenhouse gases?
The following analysis is based on the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment prepared by
Kimley-Horn and Associates dated May 2022 and included as Appendix D.
) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or. indirectly, that may have
significant impact on they environment?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Short-Term Construction Greenhouse Gas Enn iWions
The project would result in direct emissions of GHGs from construction. The approximate
quantity of daily GHG emissions generated by construction equipment utilized to build the
project is depicted in Table 10: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Table 10: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Category MTCO2e
Construction 469
30-Year Amortized Construction 16
Source:CaIEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix D for model outputs.
As shown, the project would result in the generation of approximately 469 MTCO2e over
the course of construction. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and
amortized over the lifetime of the project (assumed to be 30 years), then added to the
operational emission S14. The amortized project construction emissions would be 16
MTCO2e per year. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions
would cease.
Long-Term Operaflonal Greenhouse Gas Enn iWions
Operational or long-term emissions occur overthe life of the project.GHG emissions would
result from direct emissions such as project generated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion
° The project lifetime is based on the standard 30-year assumption of the South Coast Air Quality Management District(South Coast Air Quality
Management District,Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group#13,August 26,2009).
March 2023 Page 65
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
of natural gas, and operation of any landscaping equipment. Operational GHG emissions
would also result from indirect sources, such as off-site generation of electrical power, the
energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the project, the emissions
associated with solid waste generated from the project, and any fugitive refrigerants from
air conditioning or refrigerators.
Total GHG emissions associated with the project are summarized in Table 11: Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The project is a speculative warehouse, and the modeled
emissions are based on the conservative assumption that the project would be occupied
by a High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse (ITE code 155), which has the highest trip
generation rate among likely potential users for the site. Per the project Trip Generation
and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Memorandum (see Appendix H), using the High-Cube
Fulfillment Center Warehouse trip generation rate, the project would generate 956 total
daily vehicle trips (129 a.m. peak hour and 178 p.m. peak hour trips), and approximately
28 of those trips would be attributable to trucks. However, the two (2) existing buildings
currently generate approximately 1,066 total daily vehicle trips (139 a.m. peak hour and
132 p.m. peak hour), and approximately 18 of those trips would be attributable to trucks.
Therefore, the proposed project would result in a net reduction of 110 total daily vehicle
trips (-10 net a.m. peak hour and 46 net p.m. peak hour), and approximately 10 of those
net daily trips would be attributable to trucks. As shown in Table 11, using conservative
trip generation assumptions, the Project would potentially generate a net of
approximately 373 MTCO2e annually from both construction and operations and the
project-related GHG emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD's 10,000 MTCO2e per year
threshold. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Table 11: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Source MTCO2e per Year
Existing Conditions 1,755
Proposed Project
Construction Amortized Over 30 Years 16
Area Source <0.01
Energy 159
Mobile 1,360
Off-Road—Forklifts 124
Off-Road—Yard Trucks 252
Backup Generator 20
Waste 70
Water and Wastewater 127
Total Project Emissions 2,128
March 2023 Page 66
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Emissions Source MTCO2e per Year
Net Emissions(Project—Existing) 373
SCAQMD Threshold 10,000
Exceeds Threshold? No
Source:CaIEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix D for model outputs.
b) C`on' list with an applicable plan, policy or.regulation adopted for they purpose olf reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact.
SCAG RTIP/SCS ConMstency
On September 3, 2020, the SCAG Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal (2020-2045
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The RTP/SCS
is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with
economic, environmental, and public health goals. The RTP/SCS embodies a collective
vision for the region's future and is developed with input from local governments, county
transportation commissions, tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and
local stakeholders in the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, and Ventura. SCAG's RTP/SCS establishes GHG emissions goals for
automobiles and light-duty trucks for 2020 and 2035 as well as an overall GHG target for
the project region consistent with both the target date of AB 32 and the post-2020 GHG
reduction goals of Executive Orders 5-03-05 and B-30-15.
The RTP/SCS contains over 4,000 transportation projects, ranging from highway
improvements, railroad grade separations, bicycle lanes, new transit hubs and
replacement bridges. These future investments were included in county plans developed
by the six county transportation commissions and seek to reduce traffic bottlenecks,
improve the efficiency of the region's network, and expand mobility choices for everyone.
The RTP/SCS is an important planning document for the region, allowing project sponsors
to qualify for federal funding.
The plan accounts for operations and maintenance costs to ensure reliability, longevity,
and cost effectiveness. The RTP/SCS is also supported by a combination of transportation
and land use strategies that help the region achieve state GHG emissions reduction goals
and Federal Clean Air Act(FCAA) requirements, preserve open space areas, improve public
health and roadway safety, support our vital goods movement industry, and utilize
resources more efficiently. GHG emissions resulting from development-related mobile
sources are the most potent source of emissions, and therefore project comparison to the
RTP/SCS is an appropriate indicator of whether the project would inhibit the post-2020
GHG reduction goals promulgated by the state.The project's consistency with the RTP/SCS
goals is analyzed in detail in Table 12: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy Consistency.
March 2023 Page 67
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Compliance with applicable State standards would ensure consistency with State and
regional GHG reduction planning efforts. The goals stated in the RTP/SCS were used to
determine consistency with the planning efforts previously stated. As shown in Table 12,
the proposed project would be consistent with the stated goals of the RTP/SCS.Therefore,
the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts or interfere with SCAG's
ability to achieve the region's post-2020 mobile source GHG reduction targets.
Table 12: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency
SCAG Goals Compliance
GOAL 1: Encourage regional economic N/A: This is not a project-specific policy and is
prosperity and global competitiveness. therefore not applicable.
GOAL 2: Improve mobility, accessibility, N/A: Although this project is not a
reliability, and travel safety for people transportation improvement project,the
and goods. project is located near existing transit
routes on Myford Road,Walnut Avenue,
and access to 1-5.
GOAL 3: Enhance the preservation, security, and N/A: This is not a transportation improvement
resilience of the regional transportation project and is therefore not applicable.
system.
GOAL 4: Increase person and goods movement N/A: This is not a transportation improvement
and travel choices within the project and is therefore not applicable.
transportation system.
GOAL 5: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and Consistent: The reduction of energy use,
improve air quality. improvement of air quality, and
promotion of more environmentally
sustainable development are
encouraged through the development of
alternative transportation methods,
green design techniques for buildings,
and other energy-reducing techniques.
This development project is required to
comply with the provisions of the
California Building Energy Efficiency
Standards and the Green Building
Standards Code(CALGreen).
GOAL 6: Support healthy and equitable N/A: This is not a project-specific policy and is
communities. therefore not applicable.
GOAL 7: Adapt to a changing climate and N/A: This is not a project-specific policy and is
support an integrated regional therefore not applicable.
development pattern and
transportation network.
GOAL 8: Leverage new transportation N/A: This is not a transportation improvement
technologies and data-driven solutions project and is therefore not applicable.
that result in more efficient travel.
GOAL 9: Encourage development of diverse N/A: This is not a housing development
housing types in areas that are project and is therefore not applicable.
However, the project is located within a
March 2023 Page 68
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SCAG Goals Compliance
supported by multiple transportation relatively short walking distance to local
options. bus routes.
GOAL 10: Promote conservation of natural and N/A: This is not a project-specific policy and is
agricultural lands and restoration of therefore not applicable.
habitats.
Source:Southern California Association of Governments, Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy,2020.
The goals stated in the RTP/SCS were used to determine consistency with the planning
efforts previously stated. As shown in Table 12 and Table 13: Project Consistency with
Applicable CAN Scoping Plan Measures, the project would be consistent with the stated
goals of the RTP/SCS and the CARB Scoping Plan. Therefore, the project would not result
in any significant impacts or interfere with SCAG's ability to achieve the region's post-2020
mobile source GHG reduction targets.
Consistency with the CAIRB Scoping Plan
The California State Legislature adopted AB 32 in 2006. AB 32 focuses on reducing GHGs
(CO2, CH4, NOx, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Pursuant to the
requirements in AB 32, CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (CCSP) in 2008,
which outlines actions recommended to obtain that goal. The CCSP provides a range of
GHG reduction actions that include direct regulations, alternative compliance
mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market-based
mechanisms such as the cap-and-trade program, and an AB 32 implementation fee to fund
the program. As shown in Table 13: Project Consistency with Applicable CAN Scoping
Plan Measures, the project is consistent with most of the strategies, while others are not
applicable to the project.
The 2017 CCSP Update identifies additional GHG reduction measures necessary to achieve
the 2030 target.These measures build upon those identified in the first update to the CCSP
in 2013. Although a number of these measures are currently established as policies and
measures, some measures have not yet been formally proposed or adopted. It is expected
that these actions to reduce GHG emissions will be adopted as required to achieve
statewide GHG emissions targets.As such, impacts related to consistency with the Scoping
Plan would be less than significant.
Table 13: Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures
Scoping Plan Scoping Plan Implementing
Sector Measure Regulations Project Consistency
Transportation California Cap-and- Regulation for the Consistent. The Cap-and-Trade Program
Trade Program California Cap on applies to large industrial sources such as
Linked to Western GHG Emissions and power plants, refineries, and cement
Climate Initiative Market-Based manufacturers. However, the regulation
Compliance indirectly affects people who use the products
March 2023 Page 69
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Scoping Plan Scoping Plan Implementing
Sector Measure Regulations Project Consistency
Mechanism October and services produced by these industrial
20, 2015 (CCR sources when increased cost of products or
95800) services (such as electricity and fuel) are
transferred to the consumers. The Cap-and-
Trade Program covers the GHG emissions
associated with electricity consumed in
California, generated in-state or imported.
Accordingly, GHG emissions associated with
CEQA projects'electricity usage are covered by
the Cap-and-Trade Program. The Cap-and-
Trade Program also covers fuel suppliers
(natural gas and propane fuel providers and
transportation fuel providers) to address
emissions from such fuels and combustion of
other fossil fuels not directly covered at large
sources in the Program's first compliance
period.
California Light-Duty Pavley 12005 Consistent. This measure applies to all new
Vehicle GHG Regulations to vehicles starting with model year 2012. The
Standards Control GHG project would not conflict with its
Emissions from implementation as it would apply to all new
Motor Vehicles passenger vehicles purchased in California.
Pavley 12005 Passenger vehicles, model year 2012 and later,
Regulations to associated with construction and operation of
Control GHG the project would be required to comply with
Emissions from the Pavley emissions standards.
Motor Vehicles
2012 LEV III Consistent. The LEV III amendments provide
California GHG and reductions from new vehicles sold in California
Criteria Pollutant between 2017 and 2025. Passenger vehicles
Exhaust and associated with the site would comply with LEV
Evaporative III standards.
Emission Standards
Low Carbon Fuel 2009 readopted in Consistent. This measure applies to
Standard 2015. Regulations to transportation fuels utilized by vehicles in
Achieve GHG California. The project would not conflict with
Emission Reductions implementation of this measure. Motor
Subarticle 7. Low vehicles associated with construction and
Carbon Fuel operation of the project would utilize low
Standard CCR 95480 carbon transportation fuels as required under
this measure.
Regional SB 375. Cal. PRC§ Consistent. The project would provide
Transportation- 21155, 21155.1, development in the region that is consistent
Related GHG 21155.2, 21159.28 with the growth projections in the RTP/SCS.
Targets.
Goods Movement Goods Movement Not applicable. The project does not propose
Action Plan January any changes to maritime, rail, or intermodal
2007 facilities or forms of transportation.
Medium/Heavy-Duty 2010 Amendments Consistent. This measure applies to medium
Vehicle to the Truck and Bus and heavy-duty vehicles that operate in the
Regulation,the state. The project would not conflict with
Drayage Truck implementation of this measure. Medium and
March 2023 Page 70
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Scoping Plan Scoping Plan Implementing
Sector Measure Regulations Project Consistency
Regulation and the heavy-duty vehicles associated with
Tractor-Trailer GHG construction and operation of the project
Regulation would be required to comply with the
requirements of this regulation.
High-Speed Rail Funded under SB Not applicable. This is a statewide measure
862 that cannot be implemented by a project
applicant or Lead Agency.
Electricity and Energy Efficiency Title 20 Appliance
Natural Gas Efficiency Regulation
Title 24 Part 6
Energy Efficiency Consistent.The project would not conflict with
Standards for
Residential and Non- implementation of this measure. The project
would comply with the latest energy efficiency
Residential Building
Title 24 Part 11 standards.
California Green
Building Code
Standards
Renewable Portfolio 2010 Regulation to
Standard/Renewable Implement the Consistent.The project would obtain electricity
Electricity Standard. Renewable from the electric utility, SCE. In 2018 SCE
Electricity Standard obtained 42 percent of its power supply from
(33%2020) renewable sources, including large
Million Solar Roofs SB 350 Clean Energy hydroelectric projects. Therefore, the utility
would provide power when needed on site that
Program and Pollution is composed of a greater percentage of
Reduction Act of
2015 (50%2030) renewable sources.
Million Solar Roofs Tax Incentive Consistent. This measure is to increase solar
Program Program throughout California, which is being done by
various electricity providers and existing solar
programs. The program provides incentives
that are in place at the time of construction.
Water Water Title 24 Part 11
California Green
Building Code Consistent.The project would comply with the
dards CalGreen standards, which requires a 20
Standards-7—The
tan
SBX StanThe Water percent reduction in indoor water use. The
Conservation Act of project would also comply with the City's
2009 Water-Efficient Landscaping Regulations
Model Water (Article 9, Chapter 7 of the Tustin Municipal
Code).
Efficient Landscape
Ordinance
Green Green Building Title 24 Part 11 Consistent. The State is to increase the use of
Buildings Strategy California Green green building practices. The project would
Building Code implement required green building strategies
Standards through existing regulation that requires the
project to comply with various CalGreen
requirements. The project includes
sustainability design features that support the
Green Building Strategy.
March 2023 Page 71
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Scoping Plan Scoping Plan Implementing
Sector Measure Regulations Project Consistency
Industry Industrial Emissions 2010 CARB Not applicable. The Mandatory Reporting
Mandatory Regulation requires facilities and entities with
Reporting more than 10,000 MTCO2e of combustion and
Regulation process emissions, all facilities belonging to
certain industries, and all electric power
entities to submit an annual GHG emissions
data report directly to CARB. As shown above,
total project GHG emissions would not exceed
the 10,000 MTCO2e threshold. Therefore, this
regulation would not apply.
Recycling and Recycling and Waste Title 24 Part 11
Waste California Green Consistent.The project would not conflict with
Management Building Code implementation of these measures.The project
Standards is required to achieve the recycling mandates
AB 341 Statewide 75 via compliance with the CALGreen code. The
City has consistently achieved its state recycling
Percent Diversion mandates.
Goal
Forests Sustainable Forests Cap and Trade Not applicable. The project is in an area
Offset Projects designated for urban uses. No forested lands
exist on-site.
High Global High Global CARB Refrigerant Consistent. The regulations are applicable to
Warming Warming Potential Management refrigerants used by large air conditioning
Potential Gases Program CCR 95380 systems and large commercial and industrial
refrigerators and cold storage system. The
project would not conflict with the refrigerant
management regulations adopted by CARB,
because the proposed project will not include
refrigerated warehouse space.
Agriculture Agriculture Cap and Trade Not applicable. The project site is designated
Offset Projects for for urban development. No grazing,feedlot, or
Livestock and Rice other agricultural activities that generate
Cultivation manure occur currently exist on-site or are
proposed to be implemented by the project.
Source:California Air Resources Board, California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017 and
CARB,Climate Change Scoping Plan, December 2008.
As seen in Table 12 and Table 13, the project would be consistent with all applicable plan
goals. In addition,the project would include several sustainable design features that would
help reduce GHG emissions. As shown in Table 11,with mitigation the project is estimated
to emit 2,128 MTCO2e per year. However, existing operations are currently generating
1,755 MTCO2e/yr.Therefore, operation of the Project would result in a net increase of 373
MTCO2e/yr, and would be below the threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/yr. The GHG emissions
caused by long-term operation of the project would be less than significant.
Regarding goals for 2050 under Executive Order S-3-05, at this time it is not possible to
quantify the emissions savings from future regulatory measures, as they have not yet been
developed; nevertheless, it can be anticipated that operation of the project would comply
March 2023 Page 72
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
with all applicable measures are enacted that state lawmakers decide would lead to an 80
percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050.
Cumulaflve Impacts
Climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and
TACs, which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air
quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about 1 day), GHGs have much longer
atmospheric lifetimes of 1 year to several thousand years that allow them to be dispersed around
the globe.
It is generally the case that an individual project of this size and nature is of insufficient magnitude
by itself to influence climate change or result in a substantial contribution to the global GHG
inventory. GHG impacts are recognized as exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-
cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective. The additive effect of
project-related GHGs would not result in a reasonably foreseeable cumulatively considerable
contribution to global climate change. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in
significant greenhouse gas emissions impacts. In addition,the project as well as other cumulative
related projects would also be subject to all applicable regulatory requirements, which would
further reduce GHG emissions. As shown in Table 12 and Table 13,the project would not conflict
with the RTP/SCS applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures. As a result, the project would not
conflict with any GHG reduction plans including the CARB Scoping Plan. Therefore, the project's
cumulative contribution of GHG emissions would be less than significant and the project's
cumulative GHG impacts would also be less than cumulatively considerable.
March 2023 Page 73
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
11 IAZARIDS AN 11) 11 1AZAIRDOUS MATENALS
w �
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or X
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and X
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste within X
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result, X
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted,within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the X
project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency X
evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures,either directly or indirectly,
to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving X
wildland fires?
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESAs) were prepared by Avocet Environmental, Inc. for
the 14351 Myford Road property and the 14321 Myford Road property on April 4, 2022 and April
5, 2022, respectively. A Soil Vapor Assessment was also prepared by Avocet Environmental, Inc.
on April 5, 2022 for the entirety of the project site.These reports are summarized below and are
provided in Appendix E of this document.
March 2023 Page 74
Mlyfon1UProject
City ofTustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
c, bJ Create asignificant hazard tothe public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or d/m/oSa/ofhazardouS materials?And, create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reason ably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving
the release ofhazardous materials into the environment?
Less than Significant Impact.
Short-Term Constwcflon Impacts
Demolition of the on-site buildings has the potential to cause airborne asbestos and LBP
concentrations that would exceed Federal and State thresholds and may pose an exposure
risk for construction workers. Therefore, an Asbestos and Lead Demolition Survey would
be conducted and asbestos and LBP building materials would be removed or stabilized
prior to demolition as part of PDF HAZ-A identified in Section 2.0, Description of Proposed
Projectabove. |noornp|ianoevvithPDFHAZ-4anda|| app|ioab|eFedera|, State, andregiona|
regulations regarding asbestos and LBP removal, the potential impact would be less than
significant.
During project construction, potentially hazardous materials would be handled on-site.
These materials would include gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricants,and other petroleum-based
products used to operate and maintain construction equipment. Handling of these
potentially hazardous materials would betemporary and would coincide with the short-
term construction phase. Although these materials could be stored on-site, storage would
be required to comply with the guidelines established by the manufacturer's
recommendations. Consistent with federal, state, and local requirements, transport,
removal, and disposal ofhazardous materials from the project sitevvou|dbeoonduotedby
a permitted and licensed service provider. Any handling, transport, use, or disposal would
comply with all applicable federal, state, and local agencies and regulations, including the
EPA, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the California
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA), Caltrans, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Orange County Health Care Agency (the Certified
Unified Program Agency for Orange County).
Long-Term Operaflonall Impacts
Once the proposed project is constructed, hazardous materials would be limited to those
associated with a warehouse facility. These include cleaners, paints, solvents; and
fertilizers and pesticides for site landscaping. Because these materials are used in very
limited quantities, they are not considered a hazard to the public. Adherence tofederal,
State, and local health and safety requirements regarding these substances would
preclude potential impacts. No mitigation is required.
Phase | Environmental Site Assessment Findings
14351 KHyford Road Phase | Environmental Site Assessment
According to the Phase | ESA, the 14351 Myford Road property and much of the
surrounding area was inagricultural use/operation until the early 197Os; however, the
March 2023 Page 75
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
14351 Myford Road lot had been developed with the existing building by 1979. Silicon
Systems, Inc. (SSi) is believed to have been the first occupant at 14351 Myford Road, with
the ground floor of the building built as office and warehouse space and the second floor
built out as office space. By 1982, however, SSi had converted much of the ground floor
into a wafer fab facility and had begun manufacturing silicon wafers, with related support
facilities in a service yard that wrapped around the northeast and northwest sides of the
building. The support facilities, which were expanded over the years, included, among
other things, chillers, cooling towers, air scrubbers, a deionized (DI) water system, and
aboveground storage tanks for DI water, oxygen, hydrogen, and inert gas storage. SSi also
operated underground storage tanks (USTs), most, if not all, in concrete secondary
containment vaults, for hydrofluoric acid, solvent and hydrofluoric acid waste
accumulation, acid wastewater mixing, and acid wastewater neutralization. The two
2,000-gallon solvent waste storage tanks were in a concrete vault outside the northeast
corner of the building,and the acid-related USTs were in concrete vaults in the service yard
to the northwest of the building. Research conducted for the Phase I ESA indicated that
the solvent waste was primarily water (at least 60 percent) containing acetone, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, xylenes, and isopropyl alcohol. SSi emptied the two solvent waste tanks
on an as-needed basis using a vacuum truck. The hydrofluoric acid waste was neutralized
on-site and discharged to the sanitary sewer system under a tiered "Permit by Rule"
permit. The support facilities were connected to the manufacturing processes inside the
building via subsurface and aboveground pipelines.
Avocet personnel, while with previous companies, provided environmental consulting
services to SSi and Texas Instruments, its successor in interest. In particular, Avocet
personnel installed six groundwater monitoring wells at the project site and conducted
periodic groundwater monitoring until 1996, when SSi decided to consolidate its
manufacturing capabilities at another location (in Santa Cruz, California), decommission its
older manufacturing facilities in Tustin, and restore the building to its original condition.
Pursuant to this decision, the USTs and other subsurface infrastructure at the project site
were removed in 1996. Avocet personnel conducted confirmation soil matrix sampling in
conveyance piping trenches and beneath the USTs and secondary containment vaults to
evaluate the impact, if any, of SSi's operations on the subsurface environment. The
confirmation soil matrix sampling results did not indicate the presence of significant soil
impacts, and a final groundwater monitoring event in 1996 confirmed that groundwater
had not been impacted by SSi's operations or decommissioning activities. The
groundwater monitoring wells at the project site were subsequently destroyed and the
building was converted back to its original use as office space and the building has
operated as such since then.
The Phase I ESA identified one recognized environmental condition (REQ for the portion
of the project site at 14351 Myford Road as follows:
March 2023 Page 76
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
■ REC 1 (14351 Myford Road) — Possible VOCs in Soil Vapor. SSi investigated the
impact, if any, of its operations on the subsurface environment in the 1980s and
1990s, notably prior to vacating the site in 1996. Although no significant impacts to
vadose zone soil or groundwater were identified, the possible presence of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) in soil vapor was not of concern in the 1990s and was
not assessed. As such, Avocet considered the possible presence of VOCs in soil
vapor, either from SSi's on-site operations and/or via migration from the former
Tungsten Carbide Manufacturing (TCM) facility, a REC and recommended a limited
soil vapor survey, which was subsequently completed without any significant
impacts.
No Controlled RECs (CREC) were identified at the portion of the project site at 14351
Myford Road. However,the Phase I ESA identified two Historical RECs(HREC)at the project
site, as follows:
■ HREC 2 (14351 Myford Road) — Former Waste Solvent USTs. In the past, SSi
accumulated solvent waste, primarily water, in two 2,000-gallon USTs in a concrete
secondary containment vault outside the northeast corner of the building. Liquid
that accumulated in the secondary containment vault was attributed to both leaks
from one of the USTs and infiltration of surface water into the vault. The original
USTs were replaced in 1988 before ultimately being removed in 1996 as part of
decommissioning the SSi facility. Sampling conducted while the USTs were in
operation and after their removal indicated that their impact on soil and
groundwater had essentially been negligible and would not warrant regulatory
agency involvement. As such, the two former vaulted solvent waste USTs are
considered an HREC for the subject site.
■ HREC 3 (14351 Myford Road) — Former Acid Neutralization UST. In the past, SSi
neutralized acidic wastewater in a UST located outside the northwestern side of
the building. During facility upgrades in 1990, sodium hydroxide solution was
reportedly released from the UST into an open excavation. Subsequent soil matrix
sampling did not indicate that the release had significantly impacted the subsurface
in the vicinity of the UST and there were no significant groundwater quality
changes. The leak in the UST was repaired and the UST was eventually removed
along with other SSI subsurface infrastructure in 1996. As the available data would
not warrant regulatory agency involvement, the former acid wastewater
neutralization UST is considered a HREC.
Other Environmental Features
Other Environmental Features (OEFs) are potential environmental features or conditions
that do not meet the ASTM definition of a REC, CREC, or HREC, but which may warrant
mention in the context of acquiring and developing the site. Based on the subject Phase I
March 2023 Page 77
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ESA, three OEFs at the portion of the project site at 14351 Myford Road have been
identified, sequentially numbered after the REC and HRECs, as follows:
■ OEF 4(14351 Myford Road)—Pad-Mounted Transformer.The subject site features
a pad-mounted electrical transformer along the northeastern property boundary.
The transformer is owned by Southern California Edison, but it is not known
whether it contains or has contained polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). That said,
there were no indications of oil leakage, PCB-containing or otherwise, on the
transformer pad or the surrounding asphalt pavement observed during the site
reconnaissance.
■ OEF 5 (14351 Myford Road) — Emergency Generators. Two trailer-mounted
emergency generators outside the northwest corner of the building during the
walkover survey were observed during the site reconnaissance. The generators,
which are assumed to be gasoline- or diesel-powered, appeared to be in good
condition, with no visual or olfactory indications of leakage or spills on the
surrounding pavement.
■ OEF 6 (14351 Myford Road)—ACMs and LBP. The project site was developed in or
around 1979, before certain restrictions on using asbestos-containing materials
(ACMs) and lead-containing materials (LCMs) in construction occurred. That said,
the original building has since been extensively remodeled and certain ACMs were
abated when the SSi facility was decommissioned. No obvious hazardous
conditions, such as damaged and friable ACMs or damaged LCMs were observed
during the site reconnaissance; however, roof penetration mastics and similar
materials sometimes contain nonfriable asbestos, and ceramic tile and porcelain
plumbing fixtures may contain elevated lead concentrations. Avocet recommends
pre-demolition surveys and, if necessary, abatement for ACMs, LCMs, universal
wastes, and other potentially hazardous building materials priorto general building
demolition.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Findings
14321 Myford Road Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
According to the Phase I ESA, the 14321 Myford Road property and much of the
surrounding area was in agricultural use/operation until the early 1970s; however, the
14321 Myford Road property is believed to have been developed with the existing building
in or shortly before 1980. Wespercorp, a manufacturer of computer parts and biomedical
and analytical instruments, is believed to have been the first occupant at 14321 Myford
Road. Permits indicate Wespercorp operated two vapor spray degreasers with 1,1,1-
trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA), "trichlorotri-fluoroethane" (Freon 113), methylene chloride,
or some combination of these three used as the degreasing solvent. However, it is not
clear where the two degreasers were located or how long they were used for. It is not clear
exactly when, but at some point, SSi, which was later acquired by Texas Instruments, Inc.,
March 2023 Page 78
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
occupied the subject site in support of its wafer fabrication operations next door at the
southwest-adjacent property at 14351 Myford Road. Avocet understands that SSi used the
building as office space, although it is possible some soldering and/or other light
manufacturing operations were conducted at the subject site. Specifically, permits indicate
SSi operated a boiler, a soldering machine, and an oven at 14321 Myford Road; however,
some or all of this equipment may actually have been installed at 14351 Myford Road with
14321 Myford Road used as the mailing address.
Woodbridge Glass has occupied the site since 2003 and manufactures aluminum window
frames in the rear (northwest) end of the building, with the remainder built out as
administrative office space. Woodbridge Glass's operations at the site include cutting and
assembling aluminum frames, including welding, for commercial windows, although the
glass for the windows is installed at another nearby facility. The workshop features
multiple laser cutters, saws, and shearing machines. Potentially hazardous substances
used in the manufacturing operations include synthetic cutting oil, small quantities of
petroleum-based lubricants for machinery,and small quantities of gasoline and diesel used
in equipment such as generators and forklifts. The outdoor portions of the site are paved
and are either used for employee parking or for outdoor storage of aluminum bar stock
and wooden pallets. Liquid waste is stored inside the building, for the most part with
secondary containment,and periodically transported off-site for disposal orto be recycled;
none of the liquid waste is treated on-site. The subject site is not known to have featured,
nor did Avocet observe, any subsurface infrastructure such as wastewater clarifiers, USTs,
or floor drains.
The Phase I ESA identified one REC for the portion of the project site at 14321 Myford Road
as follows:
■ REC 1 (14321 Myford Road)—Former Degreasers. Permits issued SCAQMD in 1980
indicate that Wespercorp, a former occupant, operated two vapor spray
degreasers at the site starting in 1980. The permits indicate that both degreasers
were permitted for use with 1,1,1-TCA, Freon 113, methylene chloride, or some
combination of these three solvents. It is not clear where the two degreasers were
located or how long they were used; however, solvent releases from vapor
degreasers are common, including via liquid "drag-out" and as heavier-than-air
vapors. Based on the likely presence of organic vapors in the subsurface, Avocet
considers the former degreasers a REC.
No CRECs or HRECs were identified at the portion of the project site at 14321 Myford Road.
However, based on the subject Phase I ESA, two OEFs have been identified, sequentially
numbered after the REC as follows:
■ OEF 2 (14321 Myford Road) — Site-Wide POL Use. Petroleum, oil, and lubricants
(POLs) have been used in the workshop since Woodbridge Glass started operating
at the site in 2003. The workshop currently features drums and smaller containers
March 2023 Page 79
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
of used and fresh cutting oil and lubricating oil for machinery. Drums and smaller
storage containers are stored largely with secondary containment, but Avocet did
observe a few containers without secondary containment during the walkover
survey. Minor staining was observed during Avocet's walkover survey throughout
the interior of the workshop,which suggests that periodic, de minimis surface spills
have occurred. However,there are no indications of larger or more significant spills
and none of the surfaces in the vicinity of these areas are unpaved.
■ OEF 3 (14321 Myford Road) —ACMs and LBP. The site was developed in or before
1980, prior to certain restrictions on using asbestos-containing materials ACMs and
LCMs in construction. That said, the original building has since been extensively
remodeled and SCAQMD records indicate at least some ACMs were abated in 2011.
Avocet personnel did not observe any obvious hazardous conditions, such as
damaged and friable ACMs or damaged LCMs, however, roof penetration mastics
and similar materials sometimes contain nonfriable asbestos, and ceramic tile and
porcelain plumbing fixtures may contain elevated lead concentrations. Avocet
recommends pre-demolition surveys and, if necessary,abatement for ACMs, LCMs,
universal wastes, and other potentially hazardous building materials prior to
general building demolition.
Soil Vapor Sampling and Analysis
Subsequent to the preparation of the Phase I ESA, a Soil Vapor Assessment was performed
on the project site to determine the possible presence of VOCs in soil vapor.The Soil Vapor
Assessment found elevated levels of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in only one of the six
reported samples and trichloroethylene (TCE) in one (albeit a different probe than the
elevated level of PCE) of the six reported samples of VOCs taken on the project site. Given
the isolated occurrences of elevated PCE and TCE concentrations in soil vapor,the elevated
TCE concentration in ambient air, the conservatism of EPA's 0.03 AF and the only marginal
exceedances of conservative indoor air screening levels,the soil vapor data do not warrant
vapor intrusion mitigation measures.
Compliance with PDF HAZ-A, and all applicable Federal, State, and regional regulations,
the project would not create short-term or long-term hazards due to transport of
hazardous materials or upset of hazardous materials. Thus, a less than significant impact
would occur.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or.lsandle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, .subst nce 5,
s.waste withinone-quarter mile ofsin existing or proposed school?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are no schools located within one-quarter mile of the
project site. The nearest school, Nelson Elementary School (14392 Browning Avenue) is
located approximately 0.70 miles from the project site. Heritage Elementary School (15400
Lansdowne Road) is approximately 1.40 miles from the project site. As mentioned above,
the project would not emit, transport, or upset hazardous materials, substances or waste
March 2023 Page 80
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
near within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Less than significant
impacts are anticipated.
d) Be located on a site which Is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962,5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
aerial to they public or.they environment
No Impact. The project site is not included on the hazardous sites list compiled pursuant
to California Government Code Section 65962.5.15 The Phase I ESA indicated there were
two RECs, two HRECs and six potential hazardous OEFs identified in association with the
project site that required additional investigation.A Soil Vapor Assessment was conducted
and concluded that vapor intrusion mitigation measures would not be necessary.
Compliance with PDF HAZ-A would result in no significant adverse impacts relative to
hazardous materials sites for the project site.
e) Fos. 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 they project result
in a safety hazard or.excessive noise for people residing s.working in they project area
No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan; the project site
is not within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or within the vicinity of a
private airstrip.The project site is approximately 4 miles northeast of John Wayne Airport.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
Impair implementation of or physicallyinterfere with an adopted emergency resnse plan
s.emergency evacuation plan
Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not impair
or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan, including
the City of Tustin Emergency Operations Plan, which was revised in November 2019. The
purpose of the Emergency Operations Plan is to provide guidance for the City's response
to emergency situations from natural disasters, technological incidents, and National
security emergencies. The Emergency Operations Plan describes procedures for the
effective and efficient allocation response to a hazardous materials emergency. It
establishes an emergency organization, assigns tasks, specifies policy and general
procedures, and provides coordination of planning for all phases of emergency planning
for a hazardous materials emergency. No revisions to the adopted Emergency Operations
Plan would be required as a result of implementation of the proposed project. Primary
access to all major roads would be maintained during construction of the project site.
Impacts would be less than significant.
is California Department of Toxic Substances Control.(2022).DTSC's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List-Site Cleanup(Cortese List).
Retrieved from https:Hdtsc.ca.gov/dtscs-cortese-list/.Accessed March 7,2022.
March 2023 Page 81
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
) apose people or structures, either directly or.indirectly, to a significant risk o,f l s5, injury
or death involving wildland.fires?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Tustin is categorized as a Local Responsibility
Area (LRA) by CAL FIRE. The project site is mapped as a non-very high fire hazard severity
zone (VHFHSZ).16 The project site is located within the City limits and surrounded by
developed land. Although the project site is not located in a "Very High" FHSZ, the City, in
conjunction with the Orange County Fire Authority reviews all building plans for
compliance with the California Building Code, state and local statutes, ordinances, and
regulations relating to the prevention of fire, the storage of hazardous materials, and the
protection of life and property against fire, explosion, and exposure to hazardous
materials. Adherence to regulations already in place through the development application
and review process at the City would reduce the potential impacts associated with fire
hazards as a result of adjacent wildlands to less than significant.
CUML latiive Impacts
As noted above, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to hazards
or hazardous materials. Impacts associated with hazardous materials are often site-specific and
localized. The database search performed as part of the Phase I ESA documents the findings of
various governmental database searches regarding properties with known or suspected releases
of hazardous materials or petroleum hydrocarbons and serves as the basis for defining the
cumulative impacts study area. Although some of the cumulative projects and other future
projects associated with buildout of the surrounding communities could have potential impacts
associated with hazardous materials, the environmental concerns associated with hazardous
materials are typically site specific.
Projects are required to address any issues related to hazardous materials or waste. Projects
must adhere to applicable regulations for the use,transport, and disposal of hazardous materials
and implement mitigation in compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations to protect
against site contamination by hazardous materials. Compliance with all applicable Federal, State,
and local regulations related to hazardous materials would ensure that the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials would not result in adverse impacts. Any demolition
activities associated with projects that effect asbestos or lead based paint would also occur in
compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1403 and the CalOSHA Construction Safety Orders, which would
ensure that hazardous materials impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, site-specific
investigations would be conducted at sites where contaminated soil or groundwater could occur
to minimize the exposure of workers and the public to hazardous substances.
ie California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.(2011).Tustin Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA.Retrieved from
b.tL s: r:asfr1!firE>.ca.rcav rriE:> is 5396 c C) tustin vl7fl'7sz, �f. ccE sE:> CVar'cl'77 2022.
K................................................................,........................................t.......................t.....................................................................................K..............................................................................................,
March 2023 Page 82
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
II,,,,1XD RO LOGY AIN IIS WA II U II,,,,,II II Y
w �
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface X
or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the X
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off- X
site?
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding X
on-or off-site?
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
X
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard,tsunami,or seiche zones, risk release of X
pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater X
management plan?
A Hydrology Study and Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) were prepared by
Thienes Engineering for the proposed project. The Hydrology Study and Preliminary WQMP are
included in this Initial Study as Appendices F and G, respectively, and the results are summarized
herein.
March 2023 Page 83
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
a) Violates any water duality .standards or. waste discharge requirements or. otherwise
substantially degrade.surface or. sound water duality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed with two existing
industrial/office buildings and associated parking lots. Runoff from the project site is
routed to an existing City storm drain system that traverses through the project site along
the westerly property boundary.
The project site is proposed to drain in a similar manner as the existing condition; however,
runoff from the northwesterly portion of the building and the truck loading dock area
would drain to catch basins located in the truck loading dock. A proposed storm drain
would convey runoff around the building and connect to the existing 18" lateral line
located at the westerly property line. Flows from the southeasterly half of the building
would be collected by a catch basin near the south driveway. A proposed storm drain
would convey runoff westerly to the southwest corner of the project site. This would
confluence with the runoff from the southwesterly portion prior to connecting to the
existing lateral. Before the on-site flows discharge off-site, manhole structures would
divert low flows to a Bio Clean Modular Wetlands System for stormwater treatment. In
addition, the truck loading dock area would act as an on-site detention basin prior to
discharge off-site. The proposed project would meet stormwater treatment requirements
in the Orange County MS4 Permit; and therefore, impacts to water quality as a result of
the proposed project would be less than significant.
To minimize water quality impacts during construction of the proposed project,
construction activities would be required to comply with a SWPPP consistent with the
General Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activity
(Construction Activity General Permit). The SWPPP would incorporate Best Management
BMPs such as gravel bags, silt fence, and fiber rolls. Preparation and implementation of a
SWPPP would reduce potential impacts to water quality during construction to a less than
significant level. No mitigation is required.
IBJ Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or. interfere .substantially with groundwater
recharge .such that they project may impede sustainable groundwater management of they
basin
No Impact. The proposed project does not propose to use groundwater. The proposed
project is currently developed with two existing industrial/office buildings and associated
surface parking lots and landscaping. The proposed project would not result in additional
impervious surfaces on the project site. In addition,the proposed project would use an on-
site detention basin and would construct a Bio Clean Modular Wetlands System for
stormwater treatment before being discharge into the public storm drain system located
along the proposed project's west property line within an existing easement. Therefore,
the proposed project would not significantly impact local groundwater recharge. No
impacts would occur in this regard and no mitigation is required.
March 2023 Page 84
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
cJ Substantially alter they existing drainage pattern o,f they site or area, including through they
alteration o,f they course o,f sa.stream or river or through they addition o,f impervious suns ces,
in a manner which would',
lJ Result in .substantial erosion or .siltation on--or off-site e
No Impact. The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage
patterns of the project site or vicinity.The proposed project would continue to drain to an
existing City storm drain system that traverses through the project site along the westerly
property boundary. The project site is currently developed with two existing
industrial/office buildings and associated surface parking lots and landscaping.
Construction of the proposed project would not increase the amount of impervious
surface.The project proposes to use a Bio Clean Modular Wetlands System for stormwater
treatment before being discharged into the public storm drain system located along the
proposed project's west property line within an existing easement. In addition, the truck
loading dock area would act as an on-site detention basin prior to discharge off-site. The
project site does not contain any streams or rivers; therefore, none would be altered by
the proposed project. Accordingly, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
llJ Substantially increase they rates or amount o,f suns ce runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding din on--or o. situ e
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Threshold 4.10 (c)(i) above. The proposed project
would not substantially alter existing drainage patterns of the project site or project
vicinity. The proposed project does not include any streams or rivers. Low flows would be
directed to a Bio Clean Modular Wetlands System for treatment before being discharged
into the public storm drain system located along the proposed project's west property line
within an existing easement. In addition, the truck loading dock area would act as an on-
site detention basin prior to discharge off-site. The proposed detention basin would also
minimize the potential for flooding to occur on site or off site. Impacts would be less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
lllJ Creates or contributes runoff water which would exceed they capacity o,f existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional .sources o,f
polluted runoffil
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project discharges stormwater to an existing
City storm drain system that traverses through the project site along the westerly property
boundary.The proposed project would detain 100-year runoff to the existing 25-year peak
flow rate in the truck loading dock area on the northwest side of the project site. The
proposed project would not release more stormwater than existing conditions.
In addition, the proposed project would be required to prepare a SWPPP under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit to
implement BMPs to minimize stormwater runoff during construction. Adherence with the
March 2023 Page 85
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
recommendations of the Preliminary WQMP prepared for the proposed project, and
preparation of a SWPPP would reduce possible impacts related to the stormwater drainage
system to less than significant. No mitigation is required.
iv) Impede or redirect floodflo ws?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Threshold 4.10 (c)(i) above. The proposed project
would continue to drain west to an existing City storm drain system that traverses through
the project site along the western property boundary. The project proposes to use the
truck loading dock area as a detention basin to maintain existing stormwater flows off-site.
The proposed project would comply with the City's requirements for detention and
stormwater treatment. Therefore, downstream facilities would not be negatively
impacted by the development of the project site.Accordingly, impacts to the issues related
to flooding would be less than significant.
d) In flood d zard, tsunami, or seiche zone5, risk release o,f pollutants dues to project
inundation
No Impact.The proposed project is located over 8 miles east of the Pacific Ocean.There is
no risk of exposure to inundation by seiche or tsunami. Accordingly, there is no significant
risk of release of pollutants due to project inundation. Thus, no impact would occur and
no mitigation is required.
e) Conflict with or. obstruct implementation o,f a water duality control plan or sustainable
groundwater managementplan?
No Impact. Water quality impacts other than those described in Threshold 4.10 (a) above
are not anticipated with implementation of the proposed project. Furthermore, the
proposed project does not propose to use groundwater and, as discussed in Threshold
4.10(b) above, stormwater runoff would utilize an on-site detention basin and a Bio Clean
Modular Wetlands System to detain and treat water prior to discharging into the public
storm drain system. Therefore, the proposed project would not obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. No impacts
would occur in this regard and no mitigation is required.
Cumulaflve Impacts
The potential impacts related to hydrology and stormwater runoff are typically site specific and
site specific BMPs are implemented at the proposed project level.The analysis above determined
that the implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts. In
regards to proposed project impacts that would be considered less than significant, such impacts
are not expected to result in compounded or increased impacts when considered together with
similar effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects, as
other projects would be subject to similar laws and requirements regarding hydrology practices.
Potential impacts are considered less than cumulatively considerable.
March 2023 Page 86
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
LAND U SIf;;; AND IPII,,,,, ll IIS II IIS
w �
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING.Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy,or regulation X
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
a) physically divide an established community?
No Impact. Projects that are typically considered to have the potential to divide an
established community include the construction of new freeways, highways, roads, or
other uses that physically separate an existing or established neighborhood.The proposed
project does not include the construction of public roadways, structures, or other
improvements that would be located between existing neighborhoods. Therefore, the
proposed project would not physically divide or separate neighborhoods within an
established community. The project site is located in a predominately infill industrial and
commercial area. The City's General Plan land use designation for the project site is
Planned Community Commercial/Business (PCCB). The current zoning for the parcel is PC
IND. The land uses surrounding the project site consist of industrial and commercial uses,
thus would not physically separate residential areas.
As discussed above, the proposed project is zoned for industrial uses and is surrounded by
industrial and commercial uses, thus would not physically separate residential areas.
Accordingly, the proposed project would generally blend in with the surrounding uses and
would not physically divide an established community. Accordingly, the project site is
being proposed in a part of the city where the site is not critical to the connectivity of the
community. The project site does not serve the community as a gathering place, nor does
it increase the sense of community by providing community space. The project would not
divide an established community. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation is
required.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact dues to a conflict with any land use plan, policy,
s.regulation ado ted.fos they purpose o,f avoidings.mitigating an environmental effect?
No Impact. The City's General Plan land use designation for the project site is PCCB. The
current zoning for the parcel is PC IND. The project is further governed by the Irvine
Industrial Complex Planned Community District Regulations which provides standards for
site density, setbacks, building height, landscaping, and other standards related to the
March 2023 Page 87
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
character of the project. Consistent with the development regulations for the PC IND zone
and the Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community District Regulations, the proposed
project would have a FAR of 0.475, a maximum building height of approximately 47'-6"
and would comply with the minimum setback requirements for the Irvine Industrial
Complex Planned Community District Regulations. The project would require a minimum
of 76 automobile parking spaces, which would be provided on-site. Therefore, no impacts
would occur, and no mitigation is required.
CUMLflaflve Impacts
The proposed project does not conflict with any applicable land use regulations, land use policies,
or land use planning documents. The proposed project does not propose any new roadways or
other significant infrastructure improvements that would restrict access, require a diversion of
existing travel routes, or otherwise divide an established community. Therefore, the proposed
project would not contribute towards any cumulative impacts in these regards. The proposed
Project would not result in an impact on any sensitive plant or animal species covered by a habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, nor does it hinder the
implementation or establishment of such plans. For these reasons, the proposed Project would
not contribute to a cumulative impact or result in land use conflicts. Potential future projects
would be subject to project level review of their land use impacts. As discussed above, the
proposed project would not impact land use policies, therefore, taken with past, present and
reasonably foreseeable projects impacts are not considered cumulatively considerable, and no
cumulative impacts related to land use and planning would occur.
March 2023 Page 88
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
MINERAL UIIII,,,,,
w �
12. MINERAL RESOURCES.Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the X
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local X
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Exlsting Condi lops
A mineral resource is any naturally occurring rock material with commercial value. The City's
General Plan identifies the inactive Mercury-Barite deposit in Red Hill as the only mineral
resource within the City and its S01.17 The project is located approximately 2 miles southwest of
the Red Hill deposit. As such, the project site is not designated for mineral resource recovery and
does not contain any known mineral resources and is not used for mining or mineral production.
a) Result in they loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of values to they
region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. While some amount of mineral resources may exist in the City limits, none are
expected in the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b) Result in they loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or.other land use plan
No Impact.According to the General Plan, no mining operations are currently active within
the City limits, and none are being considered. The proposed project therefore would not
have an effect on locally important mineral resources recovery site.
CUML lative Impacts
The proposed Project would not result in direct or indirect permanent or temporary impacts
related to mineral resources. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the
loss of an area that is designated for mineral resource extraction and would not result in the
inability to use any other areas for such purpose. Therefore, the proposed project would not
result in incremental effects to the loss of mineral resources that could be compounded or
increased when considered together with similar effects from other past, present, and
17 City of Tustin.(2018).City of Tustin General Plan,Open Space and Recreation Element.page 41. Retrieved from
https:Htustinca.org/396/General-Plan.Accessed March 7,2022.
March 2023 Page 89
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
reasonab lyforeseeable future projects.Thus, no cumulative impacts related to mineral resources
would occur. As a result, no cumulative impacts related to mineral resources would occur.
March 2023 Page 90
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
N011SE
w �
13. NOISE.Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards established in the local X
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or X
groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip or an airport land use plan or,where such a plan
has not been adopted,within two miles of a public X
airport or public use airport,would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
D&UsMon
Noise is generally defined as loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired sound that is typically
associated with human activity and that interferes with or disrupts normal activities. The human
environment is generally characterized by a certain consistent noise level that varies by area.This
is called ambient, or background noise. Although exposure to high noise levels has been
demonstrated to cause hearing loss, the principal human response to environmental noise is
annoyance. The response of individuals to similar noise events is diverse and influenced by the
type of noise, perceived importance of the noise and its appropriateness in the setting; time of
day and type of activity during which the noise occurs, and sensitivity of the individual.
Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a medium,
such as air, and are sensed by the human ear. Sound is generally characterized by several
variables, including frequency and intensity. Frequency describes the sound's pitch and is
measured in cycles per second, or hertz (Hz). Intensity describes the sound's loudness and is
measured in decibels(dB). Normal speech has a sound level of approximately 60 dB. Sound levels
above about 120 dB begin to be felt inside the human ear as discomfort and eventually as pain
at still higher levels.The minimum change in the sound level of individual events that an average
human ear can detect is about 3 dB. Decibels are measured using a logarithmic scale; thus, the
average person perceives a change in sound level of about 10 dB as a doubling (or halving) of the
sound's loudness. This relation holds true for sounds of any loudness.
March 2023 Page 91
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Because community noise fluctuates over time, a single measure called the Equivalent Sound
Level (Leq) is often used to describe the time-varying character of community noise. The Leq is
the energy-averaged A-weighted sound level during a measured time interval, and is equal to the
level of continuous steady sound containing the same total acoustical energy overthe averaging
time period as the actual time-varying sound.
Another sound measure known as the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is an adjusted
average A-weighted sound level for a 24-hour day. It is calculated by adding a 5 dB adjustment
to sound levels during evening hours (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and a 10 dB adjustment to sound
levels during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). These adjustments compensate for the
increased sensitivity to noise during the typically quieter evening and nighttime hours. The CNEL
is used by the State of California and the City to evaluate land use compatibility with respect to
transportation noise.
The City's Noise Ordinance (Article 4, Chapter 6 of the City's Municipal Code) specifies that
exterior noise level shall not exceed 55 dBA between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 50 dBA
between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in residential areas, shall not exceed 60 dBA in commercial
areas at anytime, and shall not exceed 70 dBA in industrial areas at anytime. Interior noise level
shall not exceed 55 dBA between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 45 dBA between 10:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. in residential areas.
Additionally, Section 4617 (e) of the City's Municipal Code limits construction activities to occur
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and is prohibited on Sundays and observed federal holidays (unless
otherwise agreed to by the City).
Existing Noise Environment
Some land uses are considered sensitive to noise. Noise-sensitive receptors are associated with
indoor and/or outdoor activities subject to stress and/or significant interference from noise, such
as residential dwellings, transient lodging, dormitories, hospitals, educational facilities, public
assembly facilities, amphitheaters, playgrounds, congregate care facilities, childcare facilities and
libraries. Industrial and commercial land uses are generally not considered sensitive to noise.
The project site is surrounded by industrial and commercial land uses. The nearest residential
community is located approximately 1,600 feet to the northwest along Tustin Ranch Road.
The project site is located on the west side of Myford Road, east of Walnut Avenue,
approximately 0.3 miles west of SR 261, and approximately 0.7 miles west of the I-5 freeway.
Noise sources for the area are mainly associated with industrial uses and the traffic noise along
nearby streets and freeways. Myford Road is a north-south secondary roadway shared with the
City of Irvine. In the project vicinity, Myford Road is a four-lane undivided roadway. Walnut
Avenue is an east-west primary roadway beginning in the City of Tustin and terminating in the
City of Irvine at Myford Road. Walnut Avenue is located approximately one quarter of a mile to
March 2023 Page 92
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
the south of the project site. West of Myford Road, it provides two travel lanes in each direction,
and provides three travel lanes in each direction to the east of Myford Road in the City of Irvine.
a) Generation of a .substantial temporary or.permanent increase in ambient noise levels in they
vicinity of they project in excess of standards established in they local general plea or. noise
ordinance, or.applicable.standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction
The project is surrounded on all sides by existing commercial and industrial properties and
the nearest sensitive receptors are located approximately 1,600 feet from the property
boundary and major project construction areas. Further, project construction would be
completed consistent with Section 4617 (e) of the City's Municipal Code. Due to project
compliance with the City's Municipal Code and the distance between project construction
areas and sensitive receptors, impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not
required.
Operaflons
Noise impacts are considered significant for residences if exterior noise levels exceed 55
dBA CNEL. The operation of the project shall be required to be in accordance with the
City's Noise Ordinance set forth in Article 4, Chapter 6, Section 4614 and 4617(e) of the
City's Municipal Code, which specifies that exterior noise level shall not exceed 55 dBA
between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 50 dBA between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in
residential areas, shall not exceed 60 dBA in commercial areas at any time, and shall not
exceed 70 dBA in industrial areas at any time. Interior noise level shall not exceed 55 dBA
between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 45 dBA between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in
residential areas. As discussed above, the project site is located adjacent to existing
industrial sites and would not generate noise levels in excess of standards once
operational.Given the project site and use is similar to adjacent uses and would not change
ambient noise levels to nearby residential uses, the impact is less than significant, and no
mitigation is required.
IBJ Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact.The proposed project does not involve heavy manufacturing
drilling or other subterranean activities that would generate excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels when in operation. In addition, construction
activities for the project are not anticipated to involve pile driving or blasting; therefore, a
less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
March 2023 Page 93
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
cJ Fos. project located within they vicinity of a private airstrip or. n airport land Ilse plea or,
ere such a plays has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or.public use
airport, would they project expose people residing s. working in they project area to excessive
noise levels?
No Impact.The project site is not located near a private airstrip or within the vicinity of an
airport land use plan. John Wayne Airport is located approximately four miles southwest
of the project site and, therefore, would not expose persons to excessive airport-related
noise levels. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required.
Cumulative Impacts
The project's construction activities would not result in a substantial temporary increase in
ambient noise levels. The operation of the project shall be required to be in accordance with the
City's noise standards set forth in Article 4, Chapter 6, Section 4614 and 4617(e) of the City's
Municipal Code, which specifies that exterior noise level shall not exceed 55 dBA between 7:00
a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 50 dBA between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in residential areas, shall not
exceed 60 dBA in commercial areas at any time, and shall not exceed 70 dBA in industrial areas
at any time. Interior noise level shall not exceed 55 dBA between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and
45 dBA between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in residential areas. There would be periodic,
temporary, noise impacts that would cease upon completion of construction activities. However,
based on the noise analysis above,the project's construction-related noise impacts would be less
than significant following compliance with the General Plan and the Municipal Code. Given that
noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, operational noise impacts from on-site
activities and other stationary sources would be limited to the project site and vicinity. Thus,
cumulative operational noise impacts from related projects, in conjunction with project specific
noise impacts, would not be cumulatively significant.
March 2023 Page 94
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
P P U II,,,,,A II 10N AND 11,,,,MUSING
w �
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING.Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an
area,either directly(for example, by proposing new X
homes and businesses) or indirectly(for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement X
housing elsewhere?
Demographic Se-tting
According to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), in 2018, the City had a
total population of 82,344 residents and approximately 28,118 housing units.1' As reported by
the California Department of Finance (DOF), the vacancy rate is a measure of the availability of
housing in a community. It also demonstrates how well the available units meet the market
demand. A low vacancy rate suggests that residents may have difficulty finding housing within
their price range and a high supply of vacant units may indicate either the existence of a high
number of desired units, or an oversupply of units. A healthy vacancy rate is generally accepted
at seven or eight percent. A low vacancy rate is about two percent. The City's current vacancy
rate is approximately 4.9 percent.19 SCAG projects the County to grow in population to
approximately 22 million people by 2040, which totals nearly 4 million additional people.20
a) Induce .substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly ((ass example,
by proposing new homes and businesses) or.indirectly (( s example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would require a temporary construction
workforce and a permanent operational workforce, both of which could potentially induce
population growth in the area. The temporary workforce would be needed to construct
the warehouse distribution building and associated improvements. Because the future
tenant is not yet known, the number of jobs that the project would generate cannot be
precisely determined. However, the proposed project would replace two industrial/office
buildings (81,008 square feet and 55,090 square feet) with one 148,437 square foot
8 Southern California Association of Governments.(2019).Profile of the City of Tustin.Table 11.Retrieved from
https:Hscag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/tustin_localprofile.pdf?1606012675 Accessed March 7,2022.
9 California Department of Finance.(2022).Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,Counties,and the State,January 2011-
2021,with 2010 Benchmark.Retrieved from https:Hdof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/estimates-e5-2010-2021//.Accessed
March 7,2022.
20 Southern California Association of Governments.(2016).2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.
Retrieved from https:Hscag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/f2016rtpscs.pdf?1606005557.Accessed March 7,2022.
March 2023 Page 95
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
warehouse distribution building. Employment created by the proposed project would
likely replace existing jobs on the existing project site. Therefore, the project's temporary
and permanent employment requirements could likely be met by the City's existing labor
force without the relocation of people into the region. Therefore, impacts associated with
population growth would be less than significant.
b) Displace.substantial numbers of existing people or.housing, necessitating they construction
qf replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. No residential dwelling units exist on-site. Because there would be no
displacement of people or housing, no impacts would occur.
Cumulative (Impacts
The proposed project would not result in direct or indirect permanent or temporary impacts
related to population, housing,or employment.Therefore,the proposed project would not result
in material effects to population, housing, or employment that could be compounded or
increased when considered together with similar effects from other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. As a result, no cumulative impacts related to
population and housing would occur.
March 2023 Page 96
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
PUBLIC
w �
15. PUBLIC SERVICES.Would the project:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities,the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection? X
ii) Police protection? X
iii) Schools? X
iv) Parks? X
V) Other public facilities? X
a) Would they project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with they
provision of new or. physically altered governmentalfacilitie5, need for new or.physically
altered governmental facilltles, they construction of which could causes significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable .service ratios, response times or
other performance ohjectives.for any of the public services',
lJ Fires protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would replace two industrial/office
buildings (81,008 and 55,090 square feet) with the proposed 148,437 square foot
warehouse distribution building. The area surrounding the project site is developed with
industrial and commercial buildings. Implementation of the project would have a minimal
increase in demand for fire protections services in Tustin. Further, the project would be
developed in accordance with applicable city, county, and state regulations, codes, and
policies pertaining to fire hazard reduction and protection. The proposed warehouse
would be equipped with emergency sprinkler systems and fire detectors. Water lines with
fire-sufficient flows supplied by the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) be connected to
fire hydrants placed in accordance with Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) standards.
March 2023 Page 97
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Fire protection and emergency response services are currently provided for the project
site by OCFA, a regional fire service agency that serves 23 cities in Orange County and all
unincorporated areas. The OCFA operates 77 fire stations throughout Orange County,
including three within the City of Tustin. Fire Station 37, located at 15011 Kensington Park
Drive, is approximately 0.85 miles west of the project site, Fire Station 21, located at 1241
Irvine Boulevard, is approximately 2.2 miles north of the project site, and Fire Station 43,
located at 11490 Pioneer Road, is approximately 2.9 miles northeast of the project site.
With compliance of the applicable city, county, and state regulations, codes, and policies,
potential impacts on fire services from implementation of the project would be less than
significant.
ii) Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a
minimal increase in demand for police protections services in Tustin.The proposed project
would be served by the City of Tustin Police Department (TPD), located at 300 Centennial
Way,which is approximately 2 miles northwest of the project site.TPD currently has nearly
100 sworn officers and 55 civilian support personnel providing law enforcement services
24 hours a day, 365 days a year.zl
The project proposes to construct a new warehouse building that would operate on the
project site, replacing two existing industrial/office buildings. Further, the proposed
project is in a developed area and is currently served by the TPD. The proposed project is
not anticipated to increase response times to the project site or surrounding areas.
Further, the proposed project does not require new or physically altered police protection
facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
III) Schools?
Less Than Significant Impact.The project site is located in the Tustin Unified School District
(TUSD).The nearest schools are located approximately 0.70 miles and 1.40 miles from the
project site: Nelson Elementary School, located at 14392 Browning Ave and Heritage
Elementary School, located at 15400 Lansdowne Road respectively.
The proposed project is a non-residential land use. Implementation of the proposed
project would not directly result in an increased population in the City and therefore would
not increase the need for the construction of additional school facilities. TUSD requires
development fees to be paid by the applicant (eligible for fee credits for existing building
square footage). Upon payment of the required fees, no significant impacts would occur
for school services or facilities and no mitigation is required.
21 City of Tustin Police Department(2022).About Us.Retrieved from https://www.tustinca.org/177/About-Us.Accessed March 31,2022.
March 2023 Page 98
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
iv) Parks?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project does not have a residential
component. As such, the proposed project would not create a significant increased
demand or need for the construction or use of park facilities.The City has established park
development fees to offset the costs associated with increased maintenance and the
addition of park facilities resulting from new development. The City's Park development
fees are generated based on the type of land use. Residential uses are required to pay a
park development fee; however, nonresidential uses such as industrial uses are not
obligated to contribute to park development fees. Therefore, the impact would be less
than significant and no mitigation is required.
v) Other ublic.fat°llltles?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be subject to Development
Impact Fees (DIF) including New Construction Fees and Major Thoroughfare & Bridge Fee
(The Toll Roads/Transportation Corridor Agencies) (both of which are eligible for fee
credits for existing building square footage). The DIF levied on the proposed project would
help the City in providing for infrastructure, equipment, and staffing. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Cumulaflve Impacts
The proposed project would not result in a significant cumulative impact to public services or
facilities.The project would result in new employees and potentially new residents in the project
area. However, the proposed project would not result in growth beyond what has been planned
in the General Plan. Similar to the proposed project, future projects would be required to
compensate the City for potential increases in demand for public services. It is expected that
impacts of future projects would be required to demonstrate the availability of services or
mitigate accordingly.Therefore,the proposed project would not result in substantial incremental
effects to public services and facilities when taken in sum with other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable projects.
March 2023 Page 99
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
RECREA 11 10N
w �
16. RECREATION.Would the project:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational X
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities X
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
a) Would they project increase the use o'f existing neighborhood and regional parks or. other
recreation al.facilltles.such that substantial physical deterioration o'f they. sanity would occur
or be accelerated?
No Impact.The proposed project does not include development of residential uses, which
would directly increase population and result in increased demand for parks and
recreational facilities. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed project would not
generate an increase in demand on existing public or private parks or other recreational
facilities which could result in increased physical deterioration of the facility. Because the
proposed project involves a warehouse distribution use, the proposed project would not
be subject to the City of Tustin Development Park Impact Fee. Therefore, no impacts to
existing recreational facilities would occur and no mitigation is required.
b) Does they project include recreationalfacilities or require they construction or expansion o,f
recreationalfacilities which might have ars adverse physical effect on they environment?
No Impact.The proposed project does not include nor does it require the construction or
expansion of recreational areas. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
CUML lative Impacts
The proposed project would not result in an increased use of recreational facilities or require
construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities. Therefore, taken in sum with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, no cumulative impacts on recreational facilities
would result from implementation of the proposed project.
March 2023 Page 100
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
11,,,,RANSIPOIR 11 A1111011
w �
17. TRANSPORTATION.Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan,ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit, X
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA X
Guidelines section 15064.3,subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or X
incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
The Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Memorandum (Traffic Memo), prepared
for the project by Kimley-Horn and Associates (May 5, 2022), evaluates the change in project-
related traffic associated with the proposed project, compared to the existing land uses. The
Traffic Memo is summarized herein and included as Appendix H.
Trip Generation
A trip generation comparison between existing conditions and the proposed project was
prepared in order to evaluate whether the net change in project-related trips would cause
deficiencies on the existing roadway network. Trip generation estimates are based on daily and
peak hourtrip generation rates obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Trip
Generation Manual (11th Edition).
■ ITE Land Use 155: High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse—Sort
■ ITE Land Use 140: Manufacturing
■ ITE Land Use 710: General Office Building
■ ITE Land Use 760: Research and Development Center
■ ITE Land Use 150: Warehousing
Table 14: Trip Generation Rates, summarizes the estimated net daily and peak hour passenger
car equivalent (PCE) trips generated by the project.
March 2023 Page 101
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 14:Trip Generation Rates
AM Pea Hour PM Pea Hour
Land Use ITE Unit Daily
Code In Out Total In Out Total
High-Cube Fulfillment Center
Warehouse-Sort(Passenger 155 KSF 6.25 0.695 0.155 0.85 0.459 0.721 1.18
Vehicles)
High-Cube Fulfillment Center 155 KSF 0.19 0.010 0.010 0.02 0.009 0.011 0.02
Warehouse-Sort(Trucks)
Manufacturing 140 KSF 4.75 0.517 0.163 0.68 0.229 0.511 0.74
General Office Building 710 KSF 10.84 1.338 0.182 1.52 0.245 1.195 1.44
Research and Development Center 760 KSF 11.08 0.845 0.185 1.03 0.157 0.823 0.98
Warehousing(Passenger Vehicles) 150 KSF 1.11 0.121 0.029 0.15 0.034 0.116 0.15
Warehousing(Trucks) 150 KSF 0.60 0.010 0.010 0.02 0.016 0.014 0.03
Project Trip Generation
Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use Quantity Unit AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily In I Out I Total In Out I Total
Existing Use
Myford 14351
Warehousing
Passenger Vehicles 14.701 KSF 16 2 1 3 1 2 3
Trucks 14.701 KSF 9 0 0 0 0 0 0
Truck PCE Trips PCE Factor 3.0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Myford 14351 Warehouse PCE Trips 43 2 1 3 1 2 3
General Office Building 45.588 KSF 494 61 8 69 11 54 65
Research and Development Center 20.719 KSF 230 18 4 22 3 17 20
Total Myford 14351 PCE Trips 767 81 13 94 15 73 88
Myford 14321
Warehousing
Passenger Vehicles 15.429 KSF 17 2 1 3 1 2 3
Trucks 15.429 KSF 9 0 0 0 0 0 0
Truck PCE Trips PCE Factor 3.0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Myford 14321 Warehouse PCE Trips 44 2 1 3 1 2 3
General Office Building 16.918 KSF 183 23 3 26 4 20 24
Manufacturing 22,743 1 KSF 108 12 4 16 5 12 17
Total Myford 14321 PCE Trips 1 3351 371 81 451 101 34 44
Total Existing PCE Trips 1 1,1021 1181 211 1391 251 1071 132
Proposed Use
High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse-Sort
Passenger Vehicles 148.437 KSF 928 104 23 127 68 107 175
Trucks 148.437 KSF 28 1 1 2 1 2 3
Total Truck PCE Trips PCE Factor 3.0 84 3 3 6 3 6 9
Total Proposed Project PCE Trips 1,012 107 26 133 71 113 184
New Net Trips(Proposed-Existing) -90 1 -11 5 -6 46 6 52
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11' Edition
March 2023 Page 102
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The proposed project is estimated to result in a decrease in the total site daily and morning peak-
hour trips generated by 90 and 6 PCE trips, respectively,while increasing the afternoon peak hour
trips by 52 PCE trips. Based on this nominal increase during the afternoon peak-hour, and
decrease in the number of trips on a daily basis and during the morning peak-hour, a traffic study
is not required for the proposed project as confirmed with the City of Tustin.
Low-VMT Area Screening
Projects located in areas with low VMT, and that incorporate similar features (i.e., density, mix
of uses, transit accessibility), tend to exhibit similarly low VMT. Because new development in
such locations would likely result in a similar level of VMT, low VMT areas can be used to screen
out projects from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis.VMT data based on Orange County
Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) shows the employment (commute) VMT per employee
for the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) in which the project is located is below than the Citywide VMT
per employee. The project VMT per Employee is 23.1, which is lower than the Citywide VMT per
employee of 23.6. The project site is in a low VMT area based on OCTAM.
Project Type Screening
Projects that generate less than 110 daily trips may be screened from conducting a VMT analysis
based on the Office of Planning and Research (OPR)Technical Advisory. As stated previously, the
project is estimated to decrease the total daily trips generated by 90 trips as compared to the
existing uses on the site. Since the proposed project generates less than 110 net daily traffic trips,
the project has been determined to have a less than significant level of VMT impact.
) ' n'fllct with program s plea, ordinance s. licy ddre�.s.sin they circulation .system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. Short-term construction trips would include the transfer of
construction equipment, construction worker trips, and hauling trips for construction
materials; however, impacts in this regard would be temporary in nature and would cease
upon project completion. As shown in the Table 14, operation of the proposed project is
estimated to decrease the total site daily and morning peak-hourtrip generation by 90 and
6 PCE trips, respectively. The afternoon peak-hour trips would increase by 52 PCE trips.
Due to the nominal increase during the afternoon peak-hour and decrease in trips on a
daily basis, as well as during the morning peak-hour, the proposed project would not
adversely affect the circulation system. Thus, impacts have been concluded as less than
significant. No project components would require removal of vehicular lanes, such that
capacity would be reduced, or that would affect transit service. Therefore, impacts would
be less than significant.
pJ Would they project conflict or. be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section '150643,
subdivision (p)e
Less than Significant Impact. Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was approved by the California
legislature in September 2013. SB 743 requires changes to CEQA, specifically directing the
March 2023 Page 103
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
OPR to develop alternative metrics to the use of vehicular LOS for evaluating
transportation projects. OPR has prepared a technical advisory for evaluating
transportation impacts in CEQA and has recommended that VMT replace LOS as the
primary measure of transportation impacts. The Natural Resources Agency has adopted
updates to CEQA Guidelines to incorporate SB 743 that requires use of VMT for the
purposes of determining a significant transportation impact under CEQA.
Truck Trips Related -to Shipping Activities
The OPR guidance indicates that,although heavy vehicle traffic can be included for analysis
convenience, the SB 743 analysis requirements are specific to passenger-vehicles and light
duty trucks. While it may be appropriate to consider heavy vehicle traffic if directed by the
lead agency, it is generally understood that interstate commerce and related heavy vehicle
traffic are regulated by the federal government as it relates to commerce. Irrespective of
this and considering that the end-user of this facility is unknown at this time (thus the
nature of the business enterprise and its probable origins and destinations are unknown),
it is reasonable to assume that the ultimate end user would select this location, at least in
part, as to how it effects their transportation costs. Most often businesses who have
shipping as a significant part of their operations are sensitive to transportation costs and
their relative proximity to customers and suppliers.Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume
that warehouses are often located in a manner to reduce VMT, given that it is the interest
of the business.
As described above, the project site is in a low VMT area based on OCTAM and generates
less than 110 net daily trips. As such the project would result in a less than significant
impact under SB 743.
cJ Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e,g,, .sharp curves or.
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e,g,,farm equipment)?
No Impact.The design features of the proposed project do not incorporate any hazardous
or incompatible features. The drive aisles/fire lanes within the project site have been
designed to be both efficient and safe for vehicular traffic. Additionally, the project would
not be an incompatible use, nor would it be hazardous due to its design. Therefore, no
impact would occur.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project provides two 35-foot and one 27-foot driveway
entries on Myford Road. Project design features and ingress and egress are developed to
comply with all relevant emergency regulations.Additionally,construction of the proposed
project is not expected to require road closures or otherwise adversely affect emergency
access around the site perimeter.
March 2023 Page 104
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
As a standard practice, if road closures (complete or partial) were necessary, the Police
and Fire Departments would be notified of the construction schedule and any required
detours would allow emergency vehicles to use alternate routes for emergency response.
The impact on emergency access would be less than significant.
UMLflaflve IImpacts
The proposed project would not result in direct or indirect significant impacts related to
transportation. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in incremental effects to
transportation that could be compounded or increased when considered together with similar
effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. As a
result, no cumulative impacts related to transportation would occur.
March 2023 Page 105
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
II R11BAL CU11.....11 U IIRAII RESOURCES
w �
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a tribal cultural resource,defined in Public Resources
Code section 21074 as either a site,feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms
of the size and scope of the landscape,sacred place,or
object with cultural value to a California Native American
tribe,and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register
of Historical Resources,or in a local register of X
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k)?
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c)of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in X
subdivision (c)of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1,the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe?
The discussion below relies on the City's General Plan as it relates to the cultural and tribal
resources and the project site.
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in they significance o,f a tribal cultural resource, de,(ined
in Public Resources Code.section . :1014 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically de,(ined in terms o,f they .size and scope o,f they landscape, s creel place, or.
object with cultural value to a California NativeAmerican tribe, and that is',i)I isted or.eligible
,for listing in they California:
I..isted or.eligible for listing in they California Register i.ster . Ili.st sie l Resources, orire a local
register o,f historical resources as de,(ined in Public Resources uncus dei section 5020,1(k),
No Impact. As discussed above in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, the proposed project
would result in no impact on sites that are listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historic Resources.
ii) A resource determined by they lead agency, iso its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria .sept .Bartle in .subdivision (c) of Public
March 2023 Page 106
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Resources Code Section 5024,1, In applying they criteria .sept forth in .subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code Section 5024, 1, they lead agency shall t°onsider they.significance o,f
they resource to a California Native American tribe,
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Per the City's standard practice
and in accordance with Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), including Section 21080.3.1(d), the City
circulated letters via certified mail on June 30, 2022 to the tribes referenced in Section 3.0
(10) to request comments and input on the proposed project and the potential to affect
Tribal and Cultural Resources.
At the expiration of the AB-52 noticing period (30 days) on August 1, 2022, the City only
received one response letter from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation
("Kizh Nation") to request consultation. On August 16, 2022, Kizh Nation proposed three
(3) mitigation measures to the City,which are included verbatim below as MM TCR-1,TCR-
(,and TCR-3.With implementation of MM TCR-1,TCR-2,and TCR-3,the proposed project's
potential impacts would be reduced to a level considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
TCR-1: Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing
Activities:
A. The project applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from or
approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians—Kizh Nation (the "Kizh"orthe
"Tribe").The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any"ground-
disturbing activity" for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site
and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition
and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work).
"Grounddisturbing activity" shall include, but is not limited to, demolition,
pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading,
excavation, drilling, and trenching.
B. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency
prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the
issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.
C. The monitorwill complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the
relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed,
locations of grounddisturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and
any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe.
Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not
limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of
significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or "TCR"), as well as any
discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of
monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written
request to the Tribe.
March 2023 Page 107
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
D. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written
confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project
applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may
involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the
project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to
the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity
and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential
to impact Kizh TCRs.
E. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of
the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not
resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or
Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form
and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe's sole discretion, and for
any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or
historic purposes. Subsequent to the discovery and assessment of the TCR(s), if the
Kizh does not relocate the TCR(s)to a location off-site, the project applicant shall be
permitted to relocate the TCR(s) to a location within the project site boundary
outside of the building footprint, truck court, and paved drive aisles and walkways.
The project applicant shall be required to work in coordination with the Kizh to
determine the exact location the TCR(s) is to be placed.
TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects:
A. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1)as an inhumation
or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary
objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98,
are also to be treated according to this statute.
B. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods discovered or recognized on
the project site, then all construction activities shall immediately cease. Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material
shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and all ground-disturbing
activities shall immediately halt and shall remain halted until the coroner has
determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains
to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe they are Native American,
he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage
Commission, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 shall be followed.
C. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public
Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).
D. Construction activities may resume in other parts of the project site at a minimum
of 200 feet away from discovered human remains and/or burial goods, if the Kizh
determines in its sole discretion that resuming construction activities at that
distance is acceptable and provides the project manager express consent of that
March 2023 Page 108
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
determination (along with any other mitigation measures the Kizh monitor and/or
archaeologist deems necessary). (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f).)
E. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for
discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any historic archaeological
material that is not Native American in origin (non-TCR) shall be curated at a public,
non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural
History Museum of Los Angeles County orthe Fowler Museum, if such an institution
agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material,
it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational
purposes.
F. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent
further disturbance, except as required to be disclosed by project applicant or its
successor in interest.
G. Subsequent to the discovery and assessment of human remains and/or burial
goods, the project applicant shall be required to work in coordination with the Kizh
to reintern the human remains in the discovered location within the project site
boundary, or if in the discretion of the Kizh, it is determined that reinternment is
not possible without material project delays, then to relocate the human remains
and/or burial goods to a location within the project site boundary outside of the
building footprint, truck court, and paved drive aisles and walkways. The project
applicant shall be required to work in coordination with the Kizh in good faith to
determine the exact location the human remains and/or burial goods are to be
placed. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 5097.98(e).)
TCR-3: Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains:
A. As the Most Likely Descendant ("MLD"), the Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be
implemented. To the Tribe, the term "human remains" encompasses more than
human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but
were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary
objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains.
B. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the discovery
location shall be treated as a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be
created.
C. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone
fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part
of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been
placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other
items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be
considered as associated funerary objects. Cremations will either be removed in
bulk or by means as necessary to ensure complete recovery of all sacred materials.
March 2023 Page 109
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
D. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and
recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a
steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation
opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour
guard should be posted outside of working hours.
E. In the event preservation in place is not possible despite good faith efforts by the
project applicant/developer and/or landowner, before ground-disturbing activities
may resume on the project site, the landowner shall arrange a designated site
location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human
remains and/or ceremonial objects.
F. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects will be stored
using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and
objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if
possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of
recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a
location agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected
in perpetuity.There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered.
G. The Tribe will work closely with the project's qualified archaeologist to ensure that
the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is
approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be prepared and shall include (at a
minimum) detailed descriptive notes and sketches. All data recovery data recovery-
related forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the Tribe. If any
data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report shall be submitted to the
Tribe and the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The Tribe
does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or
destructive diagnostics on human remains.
H. Subsequent to the discovery and assessment of human remains and/or burial goods
(three or less burials), the project applicant shall be permitted to inter or relocate
the human remains and/or burial goods (three or less burials) to a location within
the project site boundary outside of the building footprint, truck court, and paved
drive aisles and walkways in accordance with California Public Resources Code
§5097.98(e).
Cumuflaflve Impacts
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to tribal cultural resources after
incorporation of mitigation. The chances of cumulative impacts occurring as a result of project
implementation plus implementation of other projects in the region is not likely since all past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable project would have been or subject to individual project-
level environmental review. Since project-related impacts would be reduced to a less than
significant level with mitigation, and because existing laws and regulations are in place to protect
tribal cultural resources and prevent significant impact to such resources, the potential
incremental effects of the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable.
March 2023 Page 110
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
U,,,,II,,,,II LII,,,,II,,,,II S AND SERMCE SYS 11 EIMS
w �
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new
or expanded water,wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage,electric power, natural gas,or
telecommunications facilities,the construction or x
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably foreseeable future development x
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected x
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards,or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of x
solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state,and local management and
reduction statutes and regulations related to solid x
waste?
Utility providers for the proposed Project were contacted and the correspondence with these
providers is included in Appendix I. As described in Appendix I, power will be provided by SCE,
natural gas will be provided by SoCalGas, domestic water, irrigation water, fire water, and sewer
will be provided by IRWD, and telecommunications will be provided by AT&T, fiber will be
provided by Charter Communications, and cable will be provided by Cox Communications.
a) Require or result in they relocation or.construction of new or.expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm watersdrainage, electric powers, natural .s, or. telecommunications
facilltles, they construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City does not own or operate wastewater treatment
facilities or sewers and sends all collected wastewater to the Orange County Sanitation
District (OCSD) for treatment and disposal. Wastewater services within the City are
March 2023 Page 111
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
provided by OCSD and IRWD. Collected wastewater is sent to OCSD's facilities located in
the Cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley. OCSD's Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley
has a capacity of 320 million gallons per day (MGD) and Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach
has a capacity of 312 MGD.zz
The proposed project is located within an urbanized area of the City of Tustin.Accordingly,
the proposed project does not increase the need for utility facilities beyond what was
evaluated in the City's General Plan.The proposed project includes uses that are consistent
with the approved land use and zoning for the project site, thus the wastewater pipelines
would be sufficient to convey project wastewater. Additionally, sewer, water, and
wastewater lines are currently in place to serve the proposed project and relocation or
expansion of these lines beyond the scope of the proposed project site, or construction of
a new or expanded sewer, water, wastewater treatment facilities as a result of the
proposed project would not be required. Stormwater, drainage, electric power, natural
gas, and telecommunications facilities are in place to serve the project without the need
for construction or relocation of utility facilities. Further, the applicant obtained "will
serve" letters from required utility providers (see Appendix I) to provide service to the
project including domestic water, fire water, and sewer (IRWD), power (SCE
telecommunications (AT&T), fiber (Charter Communications), cable (Cox
Communications), and natural gas (SoCalGas). Therefore, the proposed project would not
require the construction of new sewer, water, wastewater, stormwater, drainage, electric
power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities which could cause significant
environmental effects. Significant impacts would not occur, and no mitigation is required.
b) llave .sufficient waters supplies available to .serve they project and reasonablywforeseeable
,future development during normal, rlry and multiple dryyears?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be served with potable water
by the IRWD. According to IRWD's 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), IRWD's
will meet the projected water demands of existing and planned uses through 2040 under
a single dry-year condition and over five years of consecutive drought, as well as in normal
year conditions because IRWD sources imported water, groundwater, recycled water, and
local surface water. Further, local supplies make up about 80%of IRWD's water supplies.za
The project would not require a zone change as it would be consistent with the City's
approved land use and zoning. Thus, the project would be consistent with the water
demand estimated for these parcels in the analysis provided in the UWMP.
Potable water would be supplied using imported water supplies, local surface and
groundwater supplies and through recycling and water conservation. Water demand
during construction would be temporary and would not require additional water beyond
22 City of Tustin.(2016).2015 Urban Water Management Plan.Retrieved from I_rtt_p...,,//www,tu,ra,„r7c„a,,,cz,r„,;/ ,,r„tl,7,iyga,/ ,tD„_ c,c,E;>ss,E;>d„_CVI,,a„r,ch.7',,2022.
21 Irvine Ranch Water District.(2021).2020 Urban Water Management Plan.Page ES-3.Retrieved from https://www.irwd.com/doing-
business/urban-water-management-plan.Accessed March 7,2022.
March 2023 Page 112
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
the needs of typical construction projects of this type. Given that the project's proposed
use is consistent with the project site's zoning and General Plan designation, and therefore
consistent with the City's planned growth, which was accounted for in the City's UWMP,
adequate water supplies would be available to serve the proposed project, impacts would
be less than significant, and mitigation is not required.
sJ Result in a determination by they wastewater treatment provider whish .serves or.ssay serve
they project that It has adequate capacity to .serve they pro ect,s ton I�? t d desnand in
addjth���)n the pun:���n,rdes"ws e,xr�trng c�:���)rnrnjtrnentsill
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, there are sufficient wastewater
treatment facilities and capacity to service the project.The project would also be required
to develop appropriately sized water and wastewater conveyance facilities to and from
the project site. Thus, less than significant impacts would occur.
d) Generate .solid waste is excess o,f State or local str ndard5, or is excess o,f they capacity o,f
local lsw r .structure, or otherwise impair they attainment o,f s lid waste reduction goals?
Less Than Significant Impact. The County of Orange owns and operates the Frank R.
Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, which serves the City of Tustin. The proposed project is
anticipated to generate solid waste during the temporary, short-term construction phase,
as well as the operational phase, but it is not anticipated to result in inadequate landfill
capacity. The Bowerman landfill has a maximum permitted capacity of approximately 266
million cubic yards, and a remaining capacity of approximately 205 million cubic yards.The
landfill has an expected operational life through the year 2053, with the potential for
vertical, or downward expansion.21 The proposed project would replace two
industrial/office buildings with footprints of approximately 81,008 square feet and 55,090
square feet with one 148,437 square foot proposed warehouse distribution building.
Therefore, solid waste generated by the 148,437 square feet of proposed warehouse
distribution uses would be similar to the solid waste currently generated by the 136,098
square feet of industrial/office uses that would be replaced by the proposed project. For
these reasons, the proposed project's solid waste disposal needs can be met by the Frank
R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill.
e) Comply withw federal, .states, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations
related to .solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project, as with all other developments in the
City, would be required to adhere to City ordinances with respect to waste reduction and
recycling. As a result, no impacts related to State and local statutes governing solid waste
are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
24 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.(2022).Frank R.Bowerman Sanitary Landfill Detail(30-AB-0360).Retrieved from
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Solid Waste/SiteActivity/Details/2767?sitelD=2103.Accessed March 7,2022.
March 2023 Page 113
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
CUMLflaflve IImpacts
The proposed project would have a less than significant impact with respect to utilities/service
systems. The project would require water and wastewater infrastructure, as well as solid waste
disposal for building facility construction and operation. Development of public utility
infrastructure is part of an extensive planning process involving utility providers and jurisdictions
with discretionary review authority. The coordination process associated with the preparation of
development and infrastructure plans is intended to ensure that adequate resources are
available to serve both individual projects and cumulative demand for resources and
infrastructure as a result of cumulative growth and development in the area. Each individual
project is subject to review for utility capacity to avoid unanticipated interruptions in service or
inadequate supplies. Coordination with the utility companies would allow for the provision of
utility service to the proposed project and other developments. The project and other planned
projects are subject to connection and service fees to assist in facility expansion and service
improvements triggered by an increase in demand. Because of the utility planning and
coordination activities described above, the proposed Project, taken in sum with past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant cumulative utility impacts.
March 2023 Page 114
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
WILDFIRE
w �
20. WILDFIRE.If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones,would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response X
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds,and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project X
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure(such as roads,fuel breaks,emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities)that may X
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides,as a X
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability,or drainage
changes?
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or.emergency evacuation plan
No Impact. As discussed in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Threshold 4.9
(f), the proposed project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response or evacuation plan, including the City of Tustin Emergency
Operations Plan, which was revised in November 2019. The project does not include the
construction of new roadways or vacation of roadways that would alter the Circulation
Plan. Primary access to all major roads would be maintained during construction of the
proposed project. Further, the conditions of approval for the project would include any
additional requirements set forth by the City to ensure proper radio coverage for first
responders in case of emergency at the project site. Therefore, no associated impacts
would occur.
b) Duey to slopes, prevailing winds, and other . actors, exacerbate wildfires risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or. they uncontrolled
spread o'f a wildfire?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located in a predominately
developed area consisting of industrial and commercial uses. The project site is currently
March 2023 Page 115
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
improved with two industrial/office buildings (81,008 and 55,090 square feet), ancillary
auto parking lot, and landscaping. On-site vegetation consists of landscaped ornamental
vegetation. According to wind rose data for the project area, wind generally travels to the
south and southwest and has an average speed of 6.5 mph.25 The surrounding area is
largely developed and does not include large areas of vacant or open spaces areas, thus
minimizing the likeliness of an uncontrolled spread of wildfire emanating from the project
site. In addition,the project site does not include any steep slopes which would exacerbate
the spread of wildfires. Further, as discussed in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, Threshold 4.9 (g), the project site is mapped as a non-very high fire hazard
severity zone (VHFHSZ). Impacts would be less than significant.
CJ Require they installation or. maintenance o,f associated in,fr structure (such .s roads, filel
seak5, emergency waters s ur ens, powers lines or.others utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or.that m aY result in temporary or.ongoing impacts to they environment
Less than Significant Impact. As described in Section 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems,
Threshold 4.19 (b) above, water for the proposed project would be provided by the IRWD
and additional water facilities would not be required to serve the project. The addition of
the proposed project would not create an additional demand for water beyond those
identified in the City's General Plan. Thus, adequate water required for fire emergency
services would be available to the proposed project.
Additionally, the project would not include the installation of above ground utilities or
power lines that could exacerbate the fire risk. The construction of underground utilities
would reduce the fire risk associated with above ground utilities to a less than significant
level.
d) Expose people or. .structure.s to .significant risks, including downslope or. downstream
flooding din s landslides, as a result o,f runoff, post- re.slopes instability, or.drainage changes?
Less than Significant Impact. As described in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality,
Threshold 4.10 (c) above, potential hazards related to downstream flooding are less than
significant. Under proposed conditions, on-site surface runoff would be captured and
routed through a Bio Clean Modular Wetlands System for stormwater treatment before
being discharge off-site. As discussed in Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, Threshold 4.7 (a),
the project site is not located within an area susceptible to landslides. The proposed
project would be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and
CBC, as well as the Geotechnical Investigation conducted for the project and the grading
requirements contained within Article 8 of the City's Development Code. Thus, impacts
would be less than significant.
zs Iowa State University.(2022).Iowa Environmental Mesonet.Retrieved from
https:Hmesonet.agron.i@state.edu/sites/windrose.phtmI?station=SNA&network=CA_ASOS.Accessed March 31,2022.
March 2023 Page 116
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
UMLflaflve IImpacts
The proposed project would not result in direct or indirect significant impacts related to wildfires.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in incremental effects to wildfires that could
be compounded or increased when considered together with similar effects from other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. As a result, no cumulative impacts
related to wildfires would occur.
March 2023 Page 117
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
MANDA II 011RY FINDINGS III 011,,,. S11GN1111:::.]CANCE
w �
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project:
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of
the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,substantially X
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection X
with the effects of past projects,the effects of other
current projects,and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, X
either directly or indirectly?
) Have they potential to substantially degrade they quality o,f they environment, .substantially
reduce they habitat o,f a.fids or. wildlife species, cause awfish or. wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten t eliminate a pleat or. animal community,
substantially reduce they number or restrict they range o,f a rare or endangered plant or.
animal or. eliminate important examples o,f they major periods o,f California history or.
prehistory?
No Impact. All impacts to the environment, including impacts to habitat for fish and
wildlife species, fish and wildlife populations, plant and animal communities, rare and
endangered plants and animals, and historical and pre-historical resources were evaluated
as part of this IS/MND. As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, the project would
not have a significant impact on a sensitive habitat or species.
pJ Doers they project have impacts that are individually limited, but eum11latively considerable"?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that they incremental effects o,f a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with they effects o,f past projects, they effects o,f
other current projects, and the effects o,f probable future projects)?
March 2023 Page 118
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Less Than Significant Impact.As discussed throughout this IS/MND, implementation of the
proposed project has the potential to result in effects to the environment that are
individually limited, and cumulatively may be considerable in specific areas in conjunction
with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development. In all instances where the
proposed project has the potential to contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact to
the environment, mitigation measures have been imposed to reduce potential effects to
less-than-significant levels.As such, with incorporation of the Project Design Features and
mitigation measures imposed throughout this IS/MND, the project would not contribute
to environmental effects that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, and
impacts would be less than significant.
c) Does they project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human bein95, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project's potential to result in environmental effects
that could adversely affect human beings, either directly or indirectly, has been discussed
throughout this IS/MND. In instances where the project has potential to result in direct or
indirect adverse effects to human beings, mitigation measures have been applied to
reduce the impact to below a level of significance. With required implementation of
Project Design Features and mitigation measures identified in this IS/MND, construction
and operation of the proposed project would not involve any activities that would result
in environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly.
March 2023 Page 119
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
5.0 REFERENCES
Avocet Environmental, Inc. (2022). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 14321 Myford
Road, Tustin, California 92780.
Avocet Environmental, Inc. (2022). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 14351 Myford
Road, Tustin, California 92780.
Avocet Environmental, Inc. (2022). Soil Vapor Assessment.
California Department of Conservation. (2022). California Important Farmland Finder. Retrieved
from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed March 2, 2022.
California Department of Finance. (2022). Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for
Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2011-2021, with 2010 Benchmark. Retrieved
from https:Hdof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/estimates-e5-2010-
2021//. Accessed March 7, 2022.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. (2011). Tustin Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zones in LRA. Retrieved from
https:Hosfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5896/c30_tustin_vhfhsz.pdf. Accessed March 7, 2022.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. (2022). Frank R. Bowerman
Sanitary Landfill Detail (30-AB-0360). Retrieved from
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2767?sitel D=2103.
Accessed March 7, 2022.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2022). DTSC's Hazardous Waste and
Substances Site List-Site Cleanup (Cortese List). Retrieved from
https:Hdtsc.ca.gov/dtscs-cortese-list/. Accessed March 7, 2022.
California Department of Transportation. (2022). California Scenic Highways. Retrieved from
https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=l&layers=f0259blad
Ofe4093a5604c96838a486a. Accessed March 16, 2022.
California Energy Commission. (2022). 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential
and Non-residential Standards. Retrieved from
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/defa u It/fi les/2022-12/CEC-400-2022-010_CM F.pdf.
Accessed February 7, 2023.
City of Tustin. (1980). The Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community District Regulations.
Retrieved from ttps://www.tustinca.org/documentcenter/view/594Accessed March 4,
2022.
March 2023 Page 120
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Tustin. (2016). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Retrieved from
https://www.tustinca.org/Archive/39. Accessed March 7, 2022.
City of Tustin. (2018). City of Tustin General Plan, Figure COSR-1. Retrieved from
https:Htustinca.org/396/General-Plan. Accessed March 4, 2022.
City of Tustin. (2018). City of Tustin General Plan, Open Space and Recreation Element. P. 41.
Retrieved from https:Htustinca.org/396/General-Plan. Accessed March 7, 2022.
City of Tustin Police Department. (2022).About Us. Retrieved from
https://www.tustinca.org/177/About-Us. Accessed March 31, 2022.
County of Orange. (2012). Orange County General Plan, Resources Element. Retrieved from
https:Hocds.ocpublicworks.com/sites/ocpwocds/files/import/data/files/40235.pdf.
Accessed March 17, 2022.
Geotechnical Professionals, Inc. (2022). Geotechnical Investigation.
Iowa State University. (2022). Iowa Environmental Mesonet. Retrieved from
https:Hmesonet.agron.iastate.edu/sites/windrose.phtmI?station=SNA&network=CA_AS
OS. Accessed March 31, 2022.
Irvine Ranch Water District.(2021). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Retrieved from
https://www.irwd.com/doing-business/urban-water-management-plan. Accessed
March 7, 2022.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (2022).Air Quality Assessment.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (2022). Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (2022). Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled
Memorandum.
Southern California Association of Governments. (2019). Profile of the City of Tustin. Table 11.
Retrieved from https://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/Tustin.pdf. Accessed March 7,
2022.
Southern California Association of Governments. (2016). 2016-2040 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Retrieved from
http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx. Accessed March 7, 2022.
Thienes Engineering, Inc. (2022). Preliminary Hydrology Calculations.
Thienes Engineering, Inc. (2022). Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan.
March 2023 Page 121
Myford II Project
City of Tustin Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
United States Energy Information Administration. (2022). California State Profile and Energy
Estimates. Retrieved from www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA. Accessed April 27, 2022.
United States Geological Survey. (2022). Quaternary Faults. Retrieved from
https:Hearthquake.usgs.gov/education/geologicmaps/gfauIts.php. Accessed August 3,
2022.
March 2023 Page 122