The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOCSD 15-09 RESOLUTION NO. OCSD 15-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE YORBA LINDA PUMP STATION ABANDONMENT, PROJECT NO. 2-73; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND APPROVING THE YORBA LINDA PUMP STATION ABANDONMENT, PROJECT NO. 2-73 WHEREAS, the Orange County Sanitation District (the "District") is presently considering the approval of a project known as the Yorba Linda Pump Station Abandonment, Project No. 2-73 (the "Project"); WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. ("CEQA")) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.), the District as lead agency prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative ("IS/MND") for the Project that analyzes the potential impacts of the Project, and identifies mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, the District has consulted with other public agencies and the general public, and provided such agencies and the public with the opportunity to provide written and oral comments on the Project and the IS/MND as required by CEQA, including a public review period of 30 days which commenced on December 16, 2014 and ended on January 16, 2015 WHEREAS, on January 8, 2015 OCSD staff held a public meeting to provide a further opportunity for public agencies and the general public to comment on the IS/MND; WHEREAS, the District has reviewed the comments received and has responded to the significant environmental issues raised during the review and consultation process; WHEREAS, the comments received on the IS/MND, either in full or in summary, together with the District's responses have been included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Project; and 1001043.1 15-09-1 WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, has been presented to the District's Board of Directors (the "Board") for review and consideration prior to the approval of, and commitment to, the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Orange County Sanitation District DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: 1. The Board has independently reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration together with all comments received during the public review process; 2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Board; 3. The Board finds on the basis of the whole record before it that there is no substantial evidence that the Project, as mitigated, will have a significant effect on the environment; 4. The Board adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (the "MMRP"), attached as Attachment B to ensure that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration are implemented; 5. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and is hereby adopted; 6. The Board approves the Yorba Linda Pump Station Abandonment, Project No. 2-73. 7. The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which the Board's decision is based are located at the District Administration Offices, 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 and the custodian for these documents is the Clerk of the Board. 8. District staff is authorized and directed to file the Notice of Determination (NOD) and any other documents in accordance with the requirements of CEQA 1001043.1 15-09-2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors held March 25, 2015 7 Tom Beamish, Board Chair ATTEST: Kell A. re, Acting C rk of the Board 1001043.1 15-09-3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, Kelly A. Lore, Acting Clerk of the Board of Directors of the Orange County Sanitation District, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. OCSD 15-09 was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said Board on the 25th day of March 2015, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Bartlett; Beamish; Choi; Curry; Ferryman; Jones; Katapodis; Kiley; Kim, Kring; Massa-Lavitt (Alternate) Mills; R. Murphy, Nagel; Neugebauer (Alternate); Nielsen; Parker; Sebourn; Shawver; F. Smith, T. Smith; Tinajero; Wanke; and Yarc NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Withers IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of Orange County Sanitation District this 25th day of March 2015. el y A. re P,c ing C rk of the Board of Directors Orange County Sanitation District 15-09-4 1001043.1 Mitigated Negative Declaration Yorba Linda Pump Station Abandonment Project Fullerton, California Prepared for `o JNZ S A N I N r/Oy = 9 c ¢ n 0 THE Orange County Sanitation District Prepared by JACOBS" January 2015 Mitigated Negative Declaration Project Proponent: Orange County Sanitation District(Sanitation District) 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, California 92708 Project Description: The Sanitation District proposes to abandon the existing Yorba Linda Pump Station Project(Project) by demolishing it and its associated infrastructure and abandoning two gravity sewer lines and a force main. Wastewater that currently flows to the pump station would be conveyed by gravity to the Newhope-Placentia Trunk, located in State College Boulevard, west of the project site. Project Location: 2600 East Yorba Linda Boulevard, Fullerton, California. Corner of Yorba Linda Boulevard and Campus Drive (Associated Road) Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Sanitation District has determined that the proposed Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Following an Initial Study and assessment of possible adverse impacts, the proposed Project was determined not to have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, the Sanitation District has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. The Initial Study is available at www.ocsd.com. Copies are also available for viewing at: • Orange County Sanitation District,Administrative Office Bldg., Engineering Department, 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 • Fullerton Public Library, 353 W. Commonwealth Ave., Fullerton, CA 92832 • Placentia Library District, 411 E Chapman Ave., Placentia, CA 92870 Staff: Signature: Date: Initial Study Yorba Linda Pump Station Abandonment Project Fullerton, California Prepared for `o JNZ S A N I N r/Oy = 9 c ¢ n 0 THE Orange County Sanitation District Prepared by JACOBS" January 2015 Table of Contents Tableof Contents ....................................................................................................................................i 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Purpose................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Statutory Requirements and Authority ..................................................................................... 1 1.4 Permits and Approvals............................................................................................................. 2 1.5 Agency Consultation and Coordination.................................................................................... 2 2.0 Project Description...................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Project Background and Location ............................................................................................ 3 2.2 Project Elements ..................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Project Construction ................................................................................................................ 7 2.4 Project Operation..................................................................................................................... 9 3.0 Environmental Checklist Form................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Project Description and Background...................................................................................... 10 3.2 Determination ........................................................................................................................ 11 3.3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts..................................................................................... 12 3.4 CEQA Checklist..................................................................................................................... 14 4.0 Environmental Evaluation.......................................................................................................... 25 4.1 Aesthetics.............................................................................................................................. 25 4.2 Agricultural Resources........................................................................................................... 26 4.3 Air Quality.............................................................................................................................. 26 4.4 Biological Resources............................................................................................................. 30 4.5 Cultural Resources................................................................................................................ 31 4.6 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................. 33 4.7 Greenhouse gas Emissions................................................................................................... 36 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials......................................................................................... 38 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................................................. 43 4.10 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................................... 46 i 4.11 Mineral Resources.................................................................................................................47 4.12 Noise..................................................................................................................................... 47 4.13 Population and Housing......................................................................................................... 49 4.14 Public Services...................................................................................................................... 50 4.15 Recreation............................................................................................................................. 51 4.16 Transportation/Traffic............................................................................................................. 51 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems................................................................................................. 54 4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................................................................................... 55 5.0 Preparers and Contributors....................................................................................................... 57 6.0 References................................................................................................................................ 58 Appendix A: Deconstruction Emission Calculations Appendix B: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Appendix C: Comment Letters and Response to Comments Table of Figures Figure 2-1: Project Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................ 5 Figure2-2: Project Area Map................................................................................................................. 6 List of Tables Table 1-1: Project Permits and Approvals............................................................................................. 2 Table 2-1: Construction Equipment for Deconstruction of Pump Station by Construction Phase............ 8 Table 2-2: Construction Equipment for Abandonment of Force Main by Construction Phase................. 9 Table 2-3: Construction Equipment for Abandonment of Gravity Sewer Lines by Construction Phase... 9 Table 4-1: Projected Deconstruction Emissions by Phase ................................................................... 28 Table 4-2: Historic Resources within Direct and Indirect Area of Potential Effects ............................... 32 Table 4-3: On-Road Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................ 36 ii Table 4-4: Off-Road Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................ 37 iii Acronyms and Abbreviations APE Area of Potential Effect AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BMP best management practice CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CO carbon monoxide EIR Environmental Impact Report lb/day pounds per day NOx nitrogen oxides NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System PM10 particulate matter less than 10-microns Project Yorba Linda Pump Station Abandonment Project ROC reactive organic compounds Sanitation District Orange County Sanitation District SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District sox sulfur oxides SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan iv 1 .0 Introduction 1.1 Background This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines and regulations. The Initial Study examines the direct, indirect, growth-inducing, irreversible, short- and long-term, and cumulative environmental effects associated with the demolition of the proposed Yorba Linda Pump Station Abandonment Project(proposed Project). 1.2 Purpose In accordance with Section 15367 of the California Code of Regulations, the Orange County Sanitation District (Sanitation District) is identified as the Lead Agency for the proposed project. Pursuant to Section 15063(a) of CEQA Guidelines, the Sanitation District is required to undertake the preparation of an Initial Study to determine if the proposed action will have a significant effect on the environment. The purposes of this Initial Study are to: (1) identify potential environmental impacts, (2)provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration, (3) enable the Lead Agency to modify the proposed Project(through mitigation of adverse impacts), (4) facilitate assessment of potential environmental impacts early in the design of the proposed Project, and(5)provide documentation for the potential finding that the proposed Project will not have a significant effect on the environment or can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. This Initial Study is an informational document providing an environmental basis for subsequent discretionary actions that could be required from other Responsible Agencies. 1.3 Statutory Requirements and Authority In the State of California CEQA Guidelines, Section 15063 identifies specific disclosure requirements for inclusion in an Initial Study. Pursuant to those requirements, an Initial Study shall include: (1) a description of the proposed Project, including the location of the Project site; (2) an identification of the environmental setting; (3) an identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method,provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that some evidence exists to support the entries; (4) a discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any; (5) an examination of whether the proposed Project is compatible with existing zoning,plans, and other applicable land-use controls; and(6)the name(s) of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the preparation of the Initial Study. 1 The Sanitation District will hold a public meeting on January 8, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. at the City of Fullerton City Council Chambers, located at 303 West Commonwealth Avenue Fullerton, CA 92832. Written comments will be considered before action is taken to approve, approve with amendments, or deny the proposed Project. All comments must be received by January 16, 2015. Submit comments via postal mail or email to: Daisy Covarrubias, Senior Staff Analyst Orange County Sanitation District, Planning Division 10844 Ellis Ave, Fountain Valley, CA 92708-7018 Email: dcovarrubias@ocsd.com 1.4 Permits and Approvals Public agencies could use this Initial Study as the basis for their decisions to issue approvals and/or permits that could be applicable to the proposed Project. Table 1-1 provides a list of those entitlements and permits that could be required for the proposed Project. Table 1-1: Project Permits and Approvals Agency Name Permit or Approval Caltrans District 12 Encroachment Permit California State University Construction Permit Fullerton South Coast Air Quality Permit to Construct Management District City of Fullerton Building Division Permit/Approval of Traffic Control Plan City of Placentia Building Permit/Approval of Traffic Control Plan 1.5 Agency Consultation and Coordination The agencies listed in Table 1-1 could require the Sanitation District to obtain approvals for the proposed Project. Coordination with other agencies may be required to determine the specific nature of any future permits or approvals. Agencies would be notified pursuant to CEQA guidelines, any subsequent comments would be considered accordingly. In addition, this document is intended to provide agencies and the general public with an environmental basis under CEQA to facilitate the dissemination of information deemed necessary to the discretionary approvals process and the approval, or conditional approval, of any aspect of the proposed Project within the jurisdiction of the agency. 2 2.0 Project Description 2.1 Project Background and Location The Sanitation District is proposing to demolish the existing Yorba Linda Pump Station, as well as an existing below ground force main and two gravity sewer lines located in the City of Fullerton (Figure 2-1). The existing pump station facility and gravity sewer lines are located at the corner of Yorba Linda Boulevard and Campus Drive (Associated Road) and north of California State University, Fullerton. The force main is located along Yorba Linda Boulevard, on private property(Tribeca Apartments), and Palm Drive (Figure 2-2). The Sanitation District maintains a wastewater collection system composed of sewers and pump stations. The collection system conveys wastewater from the Sanitation District's member agencies and other local agencies to Reclamation Plant No. 1 located in Fountain Valley and Treatment Plant No. 2, located in Huntington Beach. Currently the Yorba Linda Pump Station pumps flow away from the Sanitation District gravity sewer located on State College Boulevard, the Newhope-Placentia Trunk, due to lack of capacity necessary to meet current dry weather flow conditions. The wastewater is conveyed east ultimately joining with flow in the Santa Ana River Interceptor and is treated at Treatment Plant No. 2. The Sanitation District has determined that upgrading the equipment and associated facilities at the existing Yorba Linda Pump Station is not practical due to the high costs of rehabilitating the pump station and the apparent redundancy of the facility after the Newhope-Placentia Trunk is upsized to meet additional demand for future land development projects in the area. The wastewater currently pumped away from the Newhope-Placentia Trunk will be allowed to gravity flow to the facility once it is upsized. The Sanitation District is currently in the design phase of the Newhope-Placentia Trunk Replacement Project. Construction of this project will be completed prior to the abandonment of the Yorba Linda Pump Station. The proposed Project would be located in an area comprising primarily education(California State University, Fullerton) and commercial uses. 2.2 Project Elements The proposed Project would consist of the following elements: • Demolition and abandonment of Yorba Linda Pump Station o Removal of the existing wall, gates and berms enclosing the pump station o Removal and disposal of all mechanical and electrical equipment o Removal of the below ground dry well, wet well, and access stairwells o Backfill and compaction of soils o Rough-grading of the site o Landscaping to be determined in coordination with California State University, Fullerton 3 • Abandonment in-place of 7,270 feet of an existing below grade 30-inch force main located along Yorba Linda Boulevard, private property, and Palm Drive o Excavation of an estimated 15 grout injection holes (approximately 5-foot by 5-foot) located at approximately 500 foot intervals along the length of the force main o Restoration of road pavement and landscaping to pre-existing conditions • Abandonment of 140 feet of 24-inch gravity pipe, located in the public right of way using grout injection • Removal of approximately 50 feet of 24-inch gravity sewers located on the pump station site • Abandonment of 50 feet of 15-inch gravity pipe, located in the public right of way using grout injection • Removal of approximately 40 feet of 15-inch gravity sewer located on the pump station site • Modification of the downstream manhole located at the intersection of Kraemer Boulevard and Palm Drive 4 Figure 2-1: Project Vicinity Map I La Habra Brea 90 La Mirada 39 Fullerton Placentia 57 Buena Park I� 91 Anaheim Orange County 57 - Project Area 0 2 4 N Fullerton City Limits i Mlles 5 Figure 2-2: Project Area Map Gravity Sewers Force Main Grout ' tInjection �• Pump Site Station Source:Esri,DigitalGicbe. GeoEye.i-cubed. Earthstar — — Geographics,CNE&AirbU` Yorba Linda Pump Station DS USGS.AEX, CD r � CD D � 3 U) A N 0 , 03 C1 _ a ` ' Pa/,17 a ;0 ' Or j* ` - Yorba Linda$wd. �� c , w i 'v Cn CCD 0 California State o '4 0 0 University Fullerto 03 Newhope-Rla -"ntia Trunk 1 Source:Esri,DigitalGlobe.GeoEye.i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics r CNES/Airbus DS, USDA.USGS.AEX.Getmapping,Aerogrid, IGN. IGR swisstopo,and the GIS User Community - Project Area Force Main /Grout Injection Site 0 1,000 2,000 N Feet - - - Fullerton City Limits 6 2.3 Project Construction All proposed Project construction would take place within the proposed Project areas (i.e. existing pump station site and the proposed grout injection sites). Construction access to the existing pump station would occur from Campus Drive and access to the below grade force main and gravity sewer lines would occur along Yorba Linda Blvd and Palm Drive. Construction Schedule Under the current schedule, demolition of the existing pump station and abandonment in-place of force main and gravity sewers would occur between 2019 and 2022. Demolition would occur during permitted hours identified in the City of Fullerton Building Code. No demolition activities would occur outside these hours, on Sundays, or federal holidays unless a temporary waiver is granted by an authorized agency representative. Traffic Control The proposed Project would require the demolition and removal of all above grade and below grade debris and equipment from the existing pump station site. Below ground structures, located in the public right of way, such as the existing force main and gravity sewer lines would be abandoned in place using grout injected into the piping from grout injection holes spaced at 500-foot intervals along Yorba Linda Boulevard and Palm Drive. Equipment, debris removal, and vehicle parking would be coordinated with the City of Fullerton and California State University, Fullerton to minimize impacts to local traffic. Vehicles entering and exiting the pump station site during demolition would use Campus Drive and access to the grout injection sites (total 15 sites)would occur along Yorba Linda Boulevard and Palm Drive. Use of equipment for grout injection into the force main is anticipated to encroach on one lane of traffic along Yorba Linda Boulevard and Palm Drive. Abandonment of the gravity sewer lines located in the public right away will require access to the upstream manholes located in the intersection of Yorba Linda Boulevard and Campus Drive and in Yorba Linda Boulevard northwest of the pump station site. A traffic management plan, approved by the City of Fullerton and the City of Placentia, would be implemented during demolition of the pump station and abandonment in place of the force main and gravity sewer lines. Traffic control will allow vehicle traffic to continue along Yorba Linda Boulevard and Palm Drive at all times during work activities and could include flagmen and/or signs to direct traffic. During hours when demolition does not occur, all lanes of traffic would be open along Yorba Linda Boulevard and Palm Drive. Nighttime work may be used to limit impacts to traffic along Yorba Linda Boulevard and Palm Drive. Excavation Demolition of the existing pump station and abandonment of the force main would include excavation at the pump station site and at approximately 15 locations along the force main. No excavation is anticipated for the abandonment of the gravity sewer lines. All excavation would be limited to the 7 proposed Project footprint, as depicted in Figure 2-2. Excavation spoils and all solid waste produced during demolition and grout injection activities would be disposed at a properly permitted facility in accordance with federal and state laws. Construction Equipment The types of equipment anticipated for use during construction activities are listed in Table 2-1. Table 2-1: Construction Equipment for Deconstruction of Pump Station by Construction Phase Construction Equipment Hours of Number of Total Days/ Total Worker Activity Type Operation/Day Working Days Hours of Trips Operation' per day) Excavator 6 20 Front-end loader 8 20 Dump truck 8 20 Demolition/ Water truck 4 20 185/1,100 20 Excavation Concrete saw 4 5 Concrete breaker 4 20 Pick-up trucks(4) 6(24) 20(80) Site Prep 0 0 0 0 Grading 0 0 0 0 Dump Truck 6 5 Building/ Skid-steer/mini excavator 6 5 25/150 5 Construction Pick-up trucks(4) 6(24) 5(20) Paving/ Dump truck 4 2 2/8 2 landscape Total days equates to the sum of working days for all construction equipment types 8 Table 2-2: Construction Equipment for Abandonment of Force Main by Construction Phase Construction Equipment Hours of Number of Total Total Trips Activity Type 0 eration/Da Working Days Days/Hours of Worker yp p y g y Operations per day) Excavator 6 15 Front-end loader 6 14 Demolition Dump truck 6 14 113/650 14 Concrete saw 4 14 Pick-up trucks(4) 6(24) 14(56) Site Prep 0 0 0 0 Grading 0 0 0 0 Building/ Concrete pump truck 4 28 140/784 28 Construction Pick-up trucks(4) 6(24) 28(112) Asphalt delivery truck 6 14 Paving Asphalt Wheel Roller 6 14 84/504 14 Pick-up trucks(4) 6(24) 14(56) Total days equates to the sum of working days for all construction equipment types Table 2-3: Construction Equipment for Abandonment of Gravity Sewer Lines by Construction Phase Construction Equipment Hours of Number of Total Total Trips Activity Type Operation/Day Working Days/Hoursof Worker Days Operation' (per day) Demolition 0 0 0 0 Site Prep 0 0 0 0 Grading 0 0 0 0 Building/ Concrete pump truck 6 2 2148 2 Construction Pick-up trucks(4) 6(24) 2(8) Paving 0 0 0 0 Total days equates to the sum of working days for all construction equipment types 2.4 Project Operation Prior to the demolition of the pump station and abandonment of the gravity sewer lines and force main, wastewater will be conveyed by gravity to the Newhope-Placentia Trunk. The trunk line will be upsized to accommodate the increased flows. There will not be any operational impacts associated with the demolished pump station, and abandoned force main, or gravity sewers. 9 3.0 Environmental Checklist Form 3.1 Project Description and Background 1. Project Title Yorba Linda Pump Station Abandonment Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Orange County Sanitation District, 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Daisy Covarrubias, (714) 593-7119 4. Project Location: The project is located in the City of Fullerton and the City of Placentia. The existing pump station and gravity sewer lines are located at the corner of Yorba Linda Boulevard/Campus Drive. The force main is located east along Yorba Linda Boulevard, on private property(Tribeca Apartments), and in Palm Drive. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Orange County Sanitation District, 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 6. General Plan Designation: The proposed Project site is designated as Education and Mixed Use under the City of Fullerton General Plan. 7. Zoning: The proposed Project site is zoned as Public Land, General Commercial, and Residential. 8. Description of Project: The proposed Project would deconstruct the existing Yorba Linda Pump Station and abandon the associated underground sewer lines and force main. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Land use surrounding the Project site is mainly educational, commercial, residential, and mixed use. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: The Sanitation District could be required to obtain approval from Caltrans District 12, the cities of Fullerton and Placentia, and California State University, Fullerton. 10 11. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below potentially would be affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Please see the Environmental Checklist for additional information. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forestry ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Hazards and Hazardous El EmissionsEl Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance 3.2 Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ 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 Signature: / "lam` Date: /L r �6 Zl1I Printed name: �� /"L /,`��! For: 11 3.3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved(e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact" to a"Less Than Significant Impact." The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses,"may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation," describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared 12 or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 13 3.4 CEQA Checklist Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation I. AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ❑ ❑ ❑ scenic vista b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock ❑ ❑ ❑ outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its ❑ ❑ ❑ surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland ❑ ❑ ❑ Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act ❑ ❑ ❑ contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section ❑ ❑ ❑ 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production 14 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest ❑ ❑ ❑ use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of ❑ ❑ ❑ Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ❑ ❑ ❑ the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in ❑ ❑ ❑ local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 15 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional ❑ ❑ ❑ plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, ❑ ❑ ❑ vernal pool, coastal, etc.)through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native ❑ ❑ ❑ resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ❑ ❑ ❑ resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other ❑ ❑ ❑ approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as ❑ ❑ ❑ defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological ❑ ❑ ❑ resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique ❑ ❑ ❑ geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal ❑ ❑ ❑ cemeteries? 16 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area ❑ ❑ ❑ or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ❑ liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the ❑ ❑ ❑ loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and ❑ ❑ ❑ potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil (Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code), creating ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems ❑ ❑ ❑ where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of ❑ ❑ ❑ reducing greenhouse gas emissions? 17 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Vill. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine ❑ ® ❑ ❑ transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident ❑ ® ❑ ❑ conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ❑ ® ❑ ❑ one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would ❑ ❑ ❑ the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in ❑ ❑ ❑ a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency ❑ ® ❑ ❑ response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where ❑ ❑ ❑ wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 18 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table ❑ ❑ ❑ level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a ❑ ❑ ❑ stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase ❑ ❑ ❑ the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or ❑ ❑ ❑ provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ❑ ❑ ❑ quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood ❑ ❑ ❑ Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect ❑ ❑ ❑ flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ❑ ❑ ❑ m udflow X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plan? XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the ❑ ❑ ❑ region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local ❑ ❑ ❑ general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XII. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundborne ❑ ❑ ❑ vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ❑ ❑ ❑ above levels existing without the project? 20 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would ❑ ❑ ❑ the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose ❑ ❑ ❑ people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or ❑ ❑ ❑ indirectly(for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ replacement housing elsewhere? XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Police protection? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 21 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ XV. RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which ❑ ❑ ❑ might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance a circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized ❑ ® ❑ ❑ travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other ❑ ❑ ❑ standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic ❑ ❑ ❑ levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or ❑ ❑ ❑ dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 22 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise ❑ ® ❑ ❑ decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional ❑ ❑ ❑ Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, ❑ ❑ ❑ the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing ❑ ❑ ❑ entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has ❑ ❑ ❑ adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 23 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or ❑ ❑ ❑ animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when ❑ ❑ ❑ viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial ❑ ® ❑ ❑ adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 24 4.0 Environmental Evaluation The following evaluation provides responses to the questions in the Environmental Checklist. A brief explanation for each question in the Environmental Checklist is provided to adequately support each impact determination. All responses consider the whole of the action involved including construction and operational impacts as well as direct and indirect impacts. Environmental factors potentially affected by the proposed Project are presented below and organized according to the format of the Checklist. 4.1 Aesthetics Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact-No scenic vista is located within the vicinity of the proposed Project. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact—Although the proposed Project is located within a landscaped area that includes trees, no trees will be removed. There are no other scenic resources within the project area. Thus, no impacts to scenic resources will occur as a result of this project. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? No Impact—Demolition of the pump station and grout injection into the force main and gravity sewer lines would result in a temporary visual impact at the Project site due to the presence of heavy machinery and demolition activities. However, the level of activity is minor in scope and duration. Thus, demolition activity related to the proposed Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Landscaping of the pump station site after demolition is completed will improve the visual quality of the site. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact—Temporary construction activities would generally occur during daytime hours, but may occur during nighttime hours,which would require additional lighting. The proposed Project could temporarily create a new source of light and glare from the nighttime construction activities but it would be short in duration. Furthermore, light 25 would be directed downward on the pump station site and the grout injection sites along Yorba Linda Boulevard and Palm Avenue. Mitigation Measures The proposed Project would not result in a significant adverse impact to Aesthetics. Therefore, no mitigation measures are proposed. 4.2 Agricultural 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. a-e) No Impact—The project site does not contain any farmlands,parcels encumbered under the Williamson Act, forested, or timberland production zones. Thus, no impacts to these resources would occur as a result of this Project. Mitigation Measures The proposed Project would not result in a significant adverse impact to Agricultural Resources. Therefore, no mitigation measures are proposed. 4.3 Air Quality Criteria for determining the significance of air quality impacts are based on Federal, State, and Local air pollution standards and regulations. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make significance determinations. Significance Criteria The proposed Project is located within the South Coast Air Basin(SCAB). Construction and operation activities associated with the proposed Project must be consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan(AQMP)that is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Thresholds of significance for allowable construction and operational air emissions have been established by the SCAQMD and are provided below. 26 Thresholds of Significance for Construction Emissions: • 75 pounds per day of reactive organic compounds (ROC) • 100 pounds per day of nitrogen oxides (NOx) • 550 pounds per day of carbon monoxide (CO) • 150 pounds per day of particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter(PMIo) • 150 pounds per day of sulfur oxides (SOX) Projects in the South Coast Air Basin with construction-related emissions that exceed any of the emissions thresholds may be considered to have significant air quality impacts. Thresholds of Significance for Operational Emissions.- * 55 pounds per day of ROC • 55 pounds per day of NOX • 550 pounds per day of CO • 150 pounds per day of PMIo • 150 pounds per day of SOX Projects in the South Coast Air Basin with operation-related emissions that exceed any of the emissions thresholds may be considered to have significant air quality impacts. Methodology An air quality analysis was conducted using the SCAQMD air quality analysis model, CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2. In addition, emission factors were obtained from SCAQMD for years 2007—2026. The complete analysis is contained in Appendix A of this document. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact-Deconstruction-related emissions primarily would be dust generated from excavation and grading, exhaust emissions from equipment, and motor vehicle emissions associated with deconstruction activities. Deconstruction of the proposed Project would not result in a significant air quality impact (see Table 4-1). Project deconstruction activities would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD Air Quality Plan. To evaluate potential deconstruction-related air quality impacts, anticipated deconstruction emissions were determined and compared to the thresholds of significance 27 for construction emissions listed above. Deconstruction emissions were evaluated based on projected 2007 data from SCAQMD (see Appendix A). Table 4-1 below summarizes the deconstruction emissions of criteria pollutants (NO, CO, PMIo, ROC, and SOx)that would occur from the operation of construction vehicles for all phases of construction (deconstruction of pump station, abandonment of force main, and abandonment of gravity sewer lines). Emissions associated with deconstruction of the proposed Project would be below thresholds of significance for construction. Therefore, the deconstruction emissions impacts would not have any impact to air quality. Table 4-1: Projected Deconstruction Emissions by Phase Attribute Emissions Criteria Pollutant NOX CO PM10 ROC SOX Deconstruction of Pump Station Max Project, pounds per day 1.6816 0.2804 2.9438 0.0041 0.1259 (lb/day) SCAQMD Significance 100 550 150 75 150 Threshold (lb/day) Project Significance No No No No No Abandonment of Force Main Max Project, pounds per day 3.5801 0.5673 6.4023 0.0100 0.2300 (lb/day) SCAQMD Significance 100 550 150 75 150 Threshold(lb/day) Project Significance No No No No No Abandonment of Gravity Sewer Lines Max Project, pounds per day 0.5465 0.0597 0.8088 0.0020 0.0179 (lb/day) SCAQMD Significance 100 550 150 75 150 Threshold (lb/day) Project Significance No No No No No Source: Orange County Sanitation District 2006 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact—The proposed Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin. The SCAQMD regulates stationary mobile air emission sources within 28 the South Coast Air Basin. Potential air quality impacts associated with the proposed Project could result from temporary deconstruction activities. As discussed in Section 4.3.a, the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in the exceedance of SCAQMD- established air quality standards during deconstruction. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Impact—New emissions associated with the proposed Project would be limited to temporary construction activities. As described in Response 4.3.a above, the proposed Project would not result in the exceedance of SCAQMD-established air quality standards during deconstruction. For this reason, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the South Coast Air Basin is in nonattainment. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact— Sensitive receptors include schools, hospitals and convalescent homes. Children, elderly people and the infirm are considered to be more sensitive than others to criteria air pollutants. Criteria air pollutants are those that are associated with numerous effects on human health. The proposed Project site is in the City of Fullerton and the surrounding area is mainly public land and commercial and professional businesses. As described in Response 4.3.b, above, temporary increased emissions of criteria air pollutants during deconstruction are not anticipated to exceed SCAQMD-established air quality standards. Because the proposed Project is not within a residential area and because of its low-level of emissions, the proposed Project is not anticipated to have any impacts on sensitive receptors during deconstruction. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact—Project activities may create a small amount of objectionable odors during deconstruction from exhaust emissions from the operation of heavy machinery. However, the amount of odor from machinery exhaust is anticipated to be minor. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact associated with the creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Mitigation Measures The proposed Project would not result in a significant adverse impact related to Air Quality. No mitigation measures are proposed. 29 4.4 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 or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact—The proposed Project site is located in an area zoned Public Land, General Commercial, and Residential and is located within a developed urban area north of the California State University Fullerton campus. It does not support native habitat of any identified species. No impacts to any species are anticipated. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact—The proposed Project site is located in an area zoned Public Land, General Commercial, and Residential and is located within a developed urban area north of the California State University Fullerton campus. It does not support any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans,policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service. No impact to these resources is anticipated. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact—The proposed Project site is located in an area zoned Public Land, General Commercial, and Residential and is located within a developed urban area north of the California State University Fullerton campus . It does not contain any federally protected wetlands nor is it located near any federally protected wetlands. No federally protected wetlands would be affected. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact—The proposed Project site is located in an area zoned Public Land, General Commercial, and Residential and is located within a developed urban area north of the California State University Fullerton campus. It does not support native habitat or any migratory fish or wildlife species. Furthermore, the proposed project site is not located 30 within a migratory wildlife corridor or native wildlife nursery site. No impacts to these resources are anticipated as a result of the proposed Project. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact—No local policies or ordinances have been enacted to protect biological resources for the area surrounding the proposed Project site. No impact with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would occur. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact—The proposed Project is outside of the Coyote Hills (East and West) Habitat Conservation Plan. The proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan;Natural Community Conservation Plan; or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Mitigation Measures The proposed Project would not result in a significant adverse impact to Biological Resources. No mitigation measures are proposed. 4.5 Cultural Resources Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? No Impact—Results from a 2014 record search conducted at the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton, indicated that the proposed Project site does not contain any cultural resources with the Area of Potential Effects (APE). Construction and operation of the proposed Project would have no impacts on historic resources as defined in Section 15064.5. Four cultural resources, all historic structures, have been identified within the %2 mile search radius of the proposed Project site (indirect APE). None of these resources would be affected by the proposed Project because they do not occur within the construction footprint. In addition, 15 cultural resource studies have been conducted within the %2 31 mile search radius, as identified in the Table 4-2, none of which will be affected by the proposed project because none occur within the construction footprint. Table 4-2: Historic Resources within Direct and Indirect Area of Potential Effects Within Direct Within Indirect Impacts to Site Number or Resources Identified Area of Area of Cultural Report Number Potential Potential Effects? Effects? Resources? Site P-30-157295 Historic Structure-1931 Mahr House No Yes None Site P-30-157296 Historic Structure- 1886 Henry T. Hetebrink No Yes None House Site P-30-157297 Historic Structure-1895 Dr.George C.Clark No Yes None Home Site P-30-177446 Historic Structure-1964 Pollak Library No Yes None Report OR-00474 1977 Survey,945 acres, remains of historic No Yes None town of Olinda,no archaeological resources Report OR-00678 1975 Survey,50 acres,California State No Yes None University, Fullerton, no resources Report OR-00985 1989 Survey,375 acres,historic building No Yes None foundation,no other resources Report OR-02256 1999 Survey,340 square mile area; numerous No Yes None resources,none in the project vicinity Report OR-02280 2000 Survey,less than 1 acre; no resources No Yes None Report OR-02795 2002 Survey,less than 1 acre, no resources No Yes None Report OR-02799 2002 Survey,less than 1 acre, no resources No Yes None Report OR-02808 2002 Survey,less than 1 acre, no resources No Yes None Report OR-03393 2006 Survey,less than 1 acre, no resources No Yes None Report OR-03733 1999 Survey,less than 1 acre, no resources No Yes None Report OR-03822 2006 Survey,State Route 57,resources No Yes None identified Report OR-0460 2009 Survey,less than 1 acre,3 historic No Yes None resources Report OR-04104 2002 Regional Survey, City of Placentia, No Yes None resources identified 32 Report OR-04284 2012 Survey, 1964 Pollak Library,California No Yes None State University, Fullerton Report OR 04342 1990 Survey, 375 acres, no resources identified No Yes None Source: California Office of Historic Preservation. 2014 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? No Impact—The proposed Project site is located on developed land and contains a pump station. As such, the proposed Project would affect areas that already have been disturbed and would not involve any excavation into undeveloped lands. Therefore, the proposed Project would not affect archeological resources and would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource on site or unique geologic feature? No Impact—The proposed Project site is located on developed land and contains a pump station. As such, the proposed Project would affect areas that already have been disturbed and would not involve any excavation into undeveloped lands. Therefore, the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource on site or unique geologic feature. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact—The proposed Project site is located on developed land and would affect areas that have already been disturbed. As such, the proposed Project would not involve any excavation into undeveloped lands. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a significant adverse impact related to the disturbance of human remains. Mitigation Measures The proposed Project would not result in a significant adverse impact to Cultural Resources. No mitigation measures are proposed. 4.6 Geology and Soils Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 33 i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? No Impact— Surface fault rupture is the offset or rupture of the ground surface by relative displacement across a fault during a seismic event or earthquake. The 2007 edition of Special Publication 42 (California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology), shows that the proposed Project is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone. Demolition of the pump station and abandonment of the gravity sewer lines and force main would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from the rupture of a known earthquake fault. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? No Impact—The proposed Project site is located in a seismically active area, as is the majority of southern California, and the potential exists for strong ground motion. The closest fault to the proposed Project site is the Whittier fault, which is located approximately 3 miles north of the Project site. Demolition of the pump station and abandonment of the gravity sewer lines and force main would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from strong seismic ground shaking. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact- The potential for seismic-related ground failure is associated with the probability of severe ground shaking as a result of an earthquake or a nearby active fault. Liquefaction is the phenomenon that occurs when saturated granular soils develop high pore water pressures during seismic shaking and behave like a heavy fluid. This phenomenon generally occurs in areas of high seismicity where groundwater is shallow and loose granular soils or hydraulic fill soils subject to liquefaction are present. For liquefaction to develop, loose granular sediments below the groundwater table must be present; and shaking of sufficient magnitude and duration must occur. The proposed Project is located in an area mapped as a liquefaction zone according to the maps of seismic hazard zones prepared by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. However, demolition of the pump station and abandonment of the gravity sewer lines and force main would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from liquefaction. iv. Landslides? 34 No Impact—The proposed Project is not located in an area of probable landslides. Demolition of the pump station and abandonment of the gravity sewer lines and force main would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from landslides. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact—The proposed Project area includes a paved pump station and paved roadways. Demolition of the proposed Project and abandonment in place of force main and gravity sewer lines require an estimated total of 484 cubic yards. Abandonment of the force main would require an estimated total of 83 cubic yards of soil. Demolition of the pump station is expected to generate an estimated total of 246 cubic yards of soil. And removal of the gravity sewer lines is expected to generate an estimated total of 155 cubic yards of soil. Excavated soil not replaced as fill would be disposed at a properly permitted facility in accordance with federal and state laws. Because the proposed Project site is contained and the amount of excavation is relatively small, the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in impacts related to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No Impact—Evaluation of liquefaction and landslides is provided in Responses 4.6.a.iii and iv, above. No impacts due to an unstable geologic unit or soil, including onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse are anticipated. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact—Demolition of the pump station and abandonment of the gravity sewer lines and force main would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from expansive soils. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? i Excavation volume of soil associated with the 15 grout injection sites along the force main was calculated by the following: (5 feet [width]X 5 feet [height]X 6 feet[depth]X 15 [sites]=2,250 cubic feet [83 cubic yards]) 2 Excavation volume of soil associated with the pump station removal was calculated by the following: (196 feet [pump station perimeter]X 34[depth]feet X 1 feet[width] =6,664 cubic feet [246 cubic yards]) 3 Excavation volume of soil associated with the gravity sewer lines removal was calculated by the following:(140 feet+90 feet [length of sewer lines]X 6[depth]feet X 3 feet[width] =4,140 cubic feet[155 cubic yards]) 35 No Impact—No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would serve the proposed Project. The proposed Project would not result in impacts related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Mitigation Measures The proposed Project would not result in a significant adverse impact to Geology and Soils. No mitigation measures are proposed. 4.7 Greenhouse gas Emissions Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant—Emissions from demolition and abandonment activities would be short-term and within the SCAQMD's draft thresholds (see Table 4-3 and Table 4-4 below) and would not create a significant increase in GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed project's impacts on greenhouse-gas emissions would be less than significant. Table 4-3: On-Road Greenhouse Gas Emissions Parameters CO2 CO2 Emissions Number Total Distance CO2 Emissions Emissions Source Factor of Number Traveled Emissions (metric Threshold Vehicles of Trips per Trip (lbslday) tons/year) (metric tons) ear Construction Workers 1.1067 16 32 20 708.288 117.3421 Commuting Light-duty 2.7225 5 5 5 68.0625 11.27591 Trucks Onsite Daily Delivery 2.7225 1 3 20 253.308 41.96554 Trucks Dump Trucks 4.2218 1 7 10 295.526 48.95979 Total 1325.185 219.5433 10,000 36 Table 4-4: Off-Road Greenhouse Gas Emissions CO2 CO2 CO2 Equipment Hour/Day Horse Emission CO2 Emission Emission Type Number Operation power Factors Emission (metric Threshold (lbs/hr) (lbs/day) tons/ (metric tons/ ear) ear Pump Station Concrete Saw 1 4 81 74.1 296.4 49.10459 - Concrete 1 4 81 74.1 296.4 49.10459 - Breaker Dump Truck 1 8 16 7.6 60.8 10.07274 - Dump Truck 1 6 16 7.6 45.6 7.554552 - Dump Truck 1 4 16 7.6 30.4 5.036368 - Excavator 2 6 162 112 672 111.3302 - Off-Highway 8 6 400 272 1632 270.3734 - (pick-up trucks) Off-Highway 1 4 400 272 1088 180.249 - (water truck) Front End 1 8 97 51.7 413.6 68.52111 - Loader Total 4535.2 751.3466 10,000 Force Main Concrete Saw 1 4 120 74.1 296.4 49.10459 Concrete Truck 1 4 500 272 1088 180.249 Dump Truck 1 6 25 7.6 45.6 7.554552 Excavator 1 6 175 112 672 111.3302 Off-Highway 1 6 500 272 1632 270.3734 (asphalt truck) Off-Highway 12 6 500 272 1632 270.3734 (pick-up trucks) Roller 1 6 120 59 354 58.64718 Front End 1 6 120 51.7 310.2 51.39083 Loader Total 6030.2 999.0232 10,000 37 CO2 CO2 CO2 Equipment Hour/Day Horse Emission CO2 Emission Emission Type Number Operation power Factors Emission (metric Threshold (lbs/hr) (lbs/day) tons/ (metric tons/ ear) year Gravity Sewer Off-Highway (concrete pump 1 6 400 272 1632 270.3734 trucks) Off-Highway 4 6 400 272 1632 270.3734 (pick-up trucks) Total 3264 540.7469 10,000 b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? No Impact—The Sanitation District does not have any specific plans,policies, nor regulations adopted for reducing the emissions of GHGs. SCAQMD has several programs available for reducing GHG emissions, including the Green Policy, approved in 2009. The Climate Change Policy was enacted for the purpose of assisting businesses and local government agencies with reducing carbon emissions, while the Green Policy guides SCAQMD decisions relative to reducing its own carbon emissions. The SCAQMD has adopted interim GHG significance thresholds of 10,000 metric tons per year for CO2 equivalent. As shown in Tables 1 and 2 above,project GHG emissions would not exceed this threshold. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Mitigation Measures The proposed Project would not result in a significant adverse impact to GHGs.No mitigation measures are proposed. 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 38 Less Than Significant with Mitigation—The proposed Project could generate hazardous materials through the demolition of the pump station, which may contain asbestos, lead paint, or polychlorinated biphenyls. Therefore, the proposed Project would require the implementation of mitigation measures (HAZ 1-9) to ensure that any potential impacts from removal of asbestos, lead paint, or polychlorinated biphenyls are less than significant. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant with Mitigation—The proposed Project could require the removal of hazardous materials associated with the pump station. Therefore, the proposed Project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment by the removal of materials containing asbestos, lead paint, or polychlorinated biphenyls. Therefore, the proposed Project would require the implementation of mitigation measures (HAZ 1-9) to ensure that any potential impacts from the asbestos removal are less than significant. In addition, there are two sites that pose a risk to the project: o Target Store T-293 —This facility is located at 2978 Yorba Linda Boulevard and is listed in the leaking underground storage tank(LUST) and historic Cortese databases. A violation was reported for this site and on-going remedial activities and investigation are being performed. Since a portion of this site currently needs to be investigated and contamination could still exist on site, this site poses a risk to the Project and would require implementation of mitigation measures (HAZ 1-9) to ensure that any potential impacts are less than significant. o Shell Station—This facility is located at 2960 Yorba Linda Boulevard and is listed in the LUST and historic Cortese databases. A violation was reported for this site and on-going remedial activities are being performed. Therefore, this site poses a risk to the Project and would require implementation of mitigation measures (HAZ 1-9) to ensure that any potential impacts are less than significant. Remedial activities may be required to ensure any potential impacts are less than significant. Although remedial activities have been conducted on the following sites and no further action has been granted, proposed activities would be conducted adjacent to these facilities that are registered as having underground storage tanks. The location of the tanks should be determined on these sites before commencement of demolition activities. 39 o Tosco #5722 (Currently Service Station 76)—This facility is located at 3001 Yorba Linda Boulevard and is listed in the LUST and historic Cortese databases. A violation was reported for this site and no further action was granted in 1991. o Texaco (Currently Arco Station)—This facility is located at 3370 Yorba Linda Boulevard and is listed in the LUST and historic Cortese databases. A violation was reported for this site and remedial activities were performed. In 2000, no further action was granted for this site. o Exxon (Currently Shell Station)—This facility is located at 3000 Yorba Linda Boulevard and is listed in the LUST and historic Cortese databases. A violation was reported for this site and soil vapor extraction was performed. In 2002, no further action was granted for this site. o Chevron #9-8976—This facility is located at 2961 Yorba Linda Boulevard and is listed in the LUST and historic Cortese databases. A violation was reported for this site and remedial activities were performed. In 1992, no further action was granted for this site. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant with Mitigation—The pump station is located on the campus of California State University Fullerton. Therefore, the proposed Project would require the implementation of mitigation measures (HAZ 1-9) to ensure that any potential impacts from the handling of hazardous materials are less than significant. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less Than Significant—Refer to Response 4.8.b, above,which addresses impacts hazardous materials sites included in the Cortese List. Although there are two sites that are listed in the LUST and Cortese databases, the proposed Project is not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment because none of these sites are located within the construction footprint. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact—The proposed Project would not be located within two miles of a public airport. The nearest airport is the Fullerton Municipal Airport, which is located 40 approximately five miles east of the project area. The proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard to people residing or working in the Project area. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact—The proposed Project would not be located within the vicinity of a private airport. The proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard related to a private airstrip to people residing or working in the Project area. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant with Mitigation—Demolition activities associated with abandonment of the force main and gravity sewers may create traffic delays along Yorba Linda Boulevard and Palm Drive. However, implementation of the Transportation/Traffic mitigation measures TT 1-7 (see Transportation/Traffic 4.16) would ensure that the Project would not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact—The proposed Project is not located near wildland areas or areas where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas. The proposed Project is not anticipated to have an adverse impact related to the exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Mitigation Measures The following avoidance and minimization measures will reduce potential impacts related to hazardous wastes and materials during construction of the project. HAZ-1 Asbestos, lead-based paint, and polychlorinated biphenyl surveys for any structures that would be demolished as part of the project shall be conducted during the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates phase of the project by a certified consultant. HAZ-2 If analytical results indicate building materials contain asbestos, the contractor shall prepare an Asbestos Operations and Maintenance Plan in accordance with applicable regulations. The plan will address worker training and safety 41 measures to be taken when disturbing asbestos-containing materials during abatement activities. HAZ-3 The contractor shall ensure that proper removal and disposal of asbestos- containing material is conducted by a licensed contractor registered with the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration for asbestos-related work, or by a licensed and certified asbestos abatement contractor HAZ-4 If the analytical results indicate that lead-based paint is present, the contractor shall ensure that demolition materials are handled and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. HAZ-5 Prior to construction, the contractor shall prepare a Materials Management Plan that identifies potential recognized environmental conditions, locations, extent of impact,proposed remediation work, waste management procedures, avoidance measures, investigation measures, and a contingency plan for addressing unforeseen conditions. Documentation of completed waste profiles, manifest forms, and bill-of-lading forms for proper transportation and disposal of materials off-site will be maintained by the contractor. The plan shall include the following provisions: • Characterization and handling of contaminated soils requiring off-site disposal, • Soils to be stockpiled for further characterization, • Process for identifying soils with waste concentrations below regulatory thresholds that can be reused without restriction, • Process for identifying and handling wastewater requiring off-site disposal and/or treatment, and • Procedures for handling asbestos-containing material potentially discovered during construction activities. HAZ-6 Prior to initiating demolition and abandonment activities, the contractor shall prepare a site-specific Health and Safety Plan that identifies key personnel and provides a summary risk assessment for workers, the community, and the environment. The Health and Safety Plan shall include an Air Monitoring Plan and Emergency Response Plan. HAZ-7 Prior to construction, the contractor shall prepare a Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures Plan to ensure that construction best management 42 practices are adequate for site conditions and to prevent discharge of any sediment or pollutants into any storm drains, and receiving waters. HAZ-8 Before construction, the contractor shall notify all utility companies to ensure that the locations of underground transmission lines and facilities are marked. In addition, Underground Service Alert shall be contacted at least two working days before subsurface excavation. HAZ-9 The contractor shall adhere to the requirements of SCAQMD during all construction activities. 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact—Excavation would occur during demolition of the pump station and injection of grout into the force main and gravity sewer lines. No excavation is anticipated for the abandonment of the gravity sewer lines, located in the public right of way. All excavation associated with the pump station demolition would occur within the enclosed proposed Project site, thereby preventing erosion and sedimentation associated with stormwater. Minor excavation associated with the grout injection would occur at an estimated 15 locations along the force main. However, because the amount of excavated material at each location would be small (i.e., 5.6 cubic yards 4), any potential impacts to water quality would be minor and insignificant. Additionally, groundwater is not anticipated to be encountered. In the event that groundwater is encountered during excavation, dewatering would occur; and the extracted water would be discharged to the sanitary sewer, which is part of the Sanitation District collection system, and would not affect water quality. Equipment staging would occur on the pump station site and along Yorba Linda Boulevard and Palm Drive. Any residual oil, grease, and other fuel products from equipment on the pump station site would be contained and would not affect surface waters. Likewise, any oil, grease, or other fuel products from construction vehicles associated with the abandonment of the force main would be contained through the implementation of BMPs. Equipment would be inspected to prevent leaks and would be maintained as part of customary construction practices. Therefore, any residual oil, 4 Total volume of excavated material determined by the following calculation: (5 feet X 5 feet X 6 feet=150 cubic feet [5.6 cubic yards]) 43 grease, and other fuel products from equipment would be negligible and would not affect surface or groundwater. Because of the size of the proposed Project would disturb less than one acre of soil (0.30 acres) a General Construction Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan would not be required. However, the Sanitation District requires that a Stormwater Pollution Control Plan be developed for any construction site not covered by the General Construction Stormwater NPDES Permit. The Stormwater Pollution Control Plan addresses the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) for construction sites when a formal Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan is not required. Additionally, construction activities would comply with the requirements of the applicable County of Orange Drainage Area Management Plan for public works construction projects, which includes details for management of stormwater throughout Orange County and compliance with the individual NPDES permit that regulates the municipal separate storm sewer system. All public works construction contracts are governed by "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction". Section 7 of these standard specifications imposes specific construction practices,which are included within Drainage Area Management Plan's Appendix H as structural and nonstructural BMPs for public works construction. In general, the standard specifications require the Contractor to keep informed of, observe, and comply with state and federal laws and county and municipal ordinances and regulations. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact—Demolition of the pump station or abandonment of the gravity sewer lines and force main would not result in a depletion of groundwater supplies and demolition of the proposed Project would not interfere with groundwater recharge. The proposed Project would not result in a significant adverse impact related to groundwater supply or recharge. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 5 The total area of disturbance was determined by calculating the area of disturbance for each project component. 1) Pump station [100 feet X 130 feet= 13,000 square feet(0.29 acre)]. 2) Force main abandonment [5 feet X 5 feet X 15 locations=375 square feet(<0.01 acre)] 44 No Impact—No natural surface bodies of water, including streams, or other bodies of water, are present on the proposed Project site. Furthermore, the proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. Therefore, the proposed Project is not anticipated to alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and would not result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-site or off-site? No Impact—The proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not alter the course of a stream or river and would not cause a substantial increase in the volume of runoff that would result in flooding on-site or off-site. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No Impact—The proposed Project would not create or contribute to runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Construction activities would include the implementation of BMPs to control erosion and sedimentation of excavated soil from stormwater runoff. This would prevent erosion and sedimentation associated with stormwater from affecting surface waters. The proposed Project is not anticipated to result in a significant adverse impact related to polluted runoff or on the capacity of stormwater drainage systems. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact—Refer to Response 4.9.a), above, which addresses impacts to water quality. The proposed Project is not anticipated to substantially degrade water quality. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact—No housing development associated with the proposed Project would be within a 100-year flood hazard area. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact—The proposed Project would demolish and remove an existing pump station and associated below grade structures including a force main and gravity sewer lines. Additionally, it would not include structures that would impede or redirect flood flows. 45 Therefore, no impacts would be associated with the placement of structures that would impede or redirect flood flows within a 100-year flood hazard area. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact—No levee or dam is within the vicinity of the proposed Project. Therefore, no impacts would be associated with risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact—Based on the location of the proposed Project site, the site is not likely to be inundated by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Mitigation Measures The proposed Project would not result in significant adverse impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality. Therefore, no mitigation measures are proposed. 4.10 Land Use and Planning Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact—The proposed Project would occur on the California State University Fullerton campus and along Yorba Linda Boulevard and Palm Drive. The removal of the pump station and ancillary equipment and abandonment in place of below grade force main and sewer lines would not physically divide an established community. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact—The proposed Project would not change existing land uses and would not conflict with existing general plan designations or zoning ordinances. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 46 No Impact—The proposed Project is not within an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan area. The proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Mitigation Measures The proposed Project would not result in a significant adverse impact related to Land Use and Planning. Therefore, no mitigation measures are proposed. 4.11 Mineral Resources Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact—The proposed Project would not use mineral resources and would not affect the availability of any known mineral resources. The proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact—The proposed Project site is not located in a delineated mineral resource area. The proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Mitigation Measures The proposed Project would not result in a significant adverse impact related to Mineral Resources. Therefore, no mitigation measures are proposed. 4.12 Noise Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact—Noise generated from equipment used during demolition of the pump station and abandonment of the gravity sewer lines and force main would be the primary source of noise associated with the proposed Project. 47 Demolition would occur during permitted hours identified in the City of Fullerton Building Code, and demolition activities would comply with the City of Fullerton Noise Ordinance. Noise created by construction activities is exempt from the noise ordinance during the hours of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Noise levels on Sundays and federal holidays must conform to the City's noise standards (measured from the interior of a residence: 55 db during the hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and 45 db 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). No construction activities would occur outside these hours or on federal holidays unless a temporary waiver is granted by an authorized representative. These same limitations would be extended to the trucks, vehicles, and equipment that are involved with material deliveries, loading, or transfer of materials, equipment service, and maintenance. Noise measurements were conducted for the Collegetown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report. Noise measurements were recorded to quantify the ambient background noise. A noise measurement was collected adjacent to Yorba Linda Boulevard and east of State College Boulevard. The results from the previous noise analysis concluded that ambient noise levels (approximately 73 decibels (A-weighted)) are higher than the allowable noise levels specified in the noise ordinance for the City of Fullerton primarily due to heavy traffic along Yorba Linda Boulevard. The proposed Project would not result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No Impact—Demolition activities associated with removal of the pump station and abandonment of the gravity sewer lines and force main would not require the substantial duration or amount of activities commonly known to produce excessive groundborne vibration or noise (e.g., pile driving). The proposed Project would not result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibrations or groundborne noise levels. Therefore, the deconstruction activities would not have any impact to groundborne vibration or noise levels. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact—A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels would not occur because the facility will be removed. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 48 Less Than Significant Impact—Refer to Response 4.12.a. above. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact—The proposed Project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport. The proposed Project would remove an existing pump station and abandon two gravity sewer lines and a force main and is not anticipated to have any effect associated with an airport on people residing or working in the Project area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the exposure of people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact—The proposed Project would not be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. Mitigation Measures The proposed Project would not result in a significant adverse impact related to Noise. No mitigation measures are proposed. 4.13 Population and Housing Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly(for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact—The proposed Project would deconstruct a pump station and abandon two gravity sewer lines and a force main. It would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth in the area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in an impact related to inducing population growth. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact—The proposed Project would have no impact associated with displacing existing housing or necessitating the construction of replacement housing. 49 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact—The proposed Project would have no impact associated with displacing people or necessitating the construction of replacement housing. Mitigation Measures The proposed Project would not result in a significant adverse impact related to Population and Housing. Therefore, no mitigation measures are proposed. 4.14 Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: • Fire protection? • Police protection? • Schools? • Parks? • Other public facilities? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation—Adequate emergency access will be maintained throughout the duration of the project construction. Although, the proposed Project could cause traffic delays in the project area,which could delay emergency services, the implementation of Transportation/Traffic mitigation measures (TT 1-7)would ensure that any potential impacts to emergency access would be less than significant. Therefore, with the implementation of mitigation measures, the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in a significant adverse impact related to emergency access. Refer to Response 4.16 for Transportation/Traffic mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures The avoidance and minimization measures (TT-1-7) from Section 4.16 (Traffic/Transportation) will reduce potential impacts related to public service during construction of the project. 50 4.15 Recreation a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact—The proposed Project would not increase the use of parks of other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or would be accelerated. The proposed Project would have no impact on the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact—The proposed Project does not include recreational facilities, and would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The proposed Project would not have an adverse physical effect on the environment related to recreational facilities. Mitigation Measures The proposed Project would not result in a significant adverse impact related to Recreation. Therefore, no mitigation measures are proposed. 4.16 Transportation/Traffic Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation—The proposed Project site is located along Yorba Linda Boulevard and Palm Drive. Vehicles entering and exiting the pump station site during demolition would use Yorba Linda Boulevard. A small increase in traffic at the Yorba Linda Boulevard/Campus Drive (Associated Road) intersection could result during demolition of the pump station from the transport of workers or materials to and from the site. However, any increases in traffic associated with the pump station demolition are anticipated to be negligible. Work along Yorba Linda Boulevard and Palm Drive associated with the abandonment of the gravity sewer lines and force main 51 would require the closure of one lane of traffic along Yorba Linda Boulevard and Palm Drive during construction. However,both streets would remain open at all times. Traffic control would allow vehicle traffic to continue during construction and could include flagmen and/or signs to direct traffic. During hours when construction does not occur, all lanes of traffic would be open along Yorba Linda Boulevard and Palm Drive. Nighttime construction may occur, when needed to reduce any impacts to traffic along Yorba Linda Boulevard and Palm Drive. The proposed Project is not anticipated to result in an adverse impact related to traffic with the implementation of Transportation/Traffic mitigation measures (TT 1-7), including the preparation of a traffic control plan. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including,but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact—The minimal increase in traffic along Yorba Linda Boulevard and Palm Drive during demolition and removal of the pump station is not expected to result in change to the existing level of service. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact—The proposed Project would have no impact on air traffic patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact—The proposed Project would not increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant with Mitigation—Adequate emergency access will be maintained throughout the duration of the project construction. Although, the proposed Project could cause traffic delays in the project area, which could delay emergency services, the implementation of Transportation/Traffic mitigation measures (TT 1-7) would ensure that any potential impacts to emergency access would be less than significant. Therefore, with the implementation of mitigation measures, the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in a significant adverse impact related to emergency access. f) Conflict with adopted policies,plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 52 Less than Significant With Mitigation—The proposed Project may impact the Orange County Transportation Authority bus route along Yorba Linda Boulevard, but access to the transit system will be maintained at all times. Impacts may include the temporary re- location of the Yorba Linda-Campus and Yorba Linda-Deerpark stops and delays due to traffic. However, the implementation of Transportation/Traffic mitigation measures (TT- I through TT-7)would ensure that any potential impacts to the transit system would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures The following avoidance and minimization measures will reduce potential impacts related to transportation/traffic during construction of the project. TT-1 Traffic control plans shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer as required prior to construction of the Project. TT-2 Traffic control plans shall consider the ability of alternative routes to carry additional traffic and shall identify the least disruptive hours of construction, site truck access routes, and the type and location of warning signs, lights, and other traffic control devices. Consideration shall be given to maintaining access to commercial parking lots and sidewalks to the greatest extent feasible. TT-3 Traffic control plans shall comply with the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook and/or the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, as determined by each affected local agency, to minimize any traffic and pedestrian hazards that exist during project construction. TT-4 Public roadways shall be restored to their pre-existing condition after project construction is completed. TT-5 The Sanitation District shall attempt to schedule construction of relief facilities to occur jointly with other public works projects already planned in the affected locations, through careful coordination with all local agencies involved. TT-6 Emergency service purveyors shall be contacted and consulted to preclude the creation of unnecessary traffic bottlenecks that shall seriously impede response times. Additionally, measures to provide an adequate level of access to private properties shall be maintained to allow delivery of emergency services. 53 TT-7 Orange County Transportation Authority shall be contacted when construction affects roadways that are part of the OCTA bus transit network. Adequate procedures shall be implemented to keep bus routes and station accessible to users. 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact—The proposed Project would remove the existing Yorba Linda Pump Station and abandon two gravity sewer lines at the Yorba Linda Boulevard/Campus Drive intersection and a force main along Yorba Linda Boulevard and Palm Drive. It would not exceed the existing wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact—The proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or in the expansion of existing facilities. However, this project requires the reconstruction of the Newhope-Placentia Trunk to increase the size of the sewer from 18 inches to 30 inches to accommodate projected flows from planned developments in the surrounding area. The Newhope-Placentia Trunk Replacement project is included in the Sanitation District's 2007 Collection System Improvement Plan Programmatic Environmental Impact Report. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact—No new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities would result or be required as part of the proposed Project. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact—The proposed Project would not require the provision of new water supplies. Water entitlements and resources would not be impacted by the proposed Project. 54 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact—The proposed Project would not have a significant effect on the wastewater treatment capacity of the Sanitation District. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? No Impact—Debris or solid waste generated during demolition of the pump station and abandonment of the gravity sewer lines and force main would be transported to an approved solid waste disposal facility. Based on the anticipated quantity of solid waste material (estimated to be 700 cubic yards6), the proposed Project is not expected to affect the capacity of existing landfills. The proposed Project would not generate solid waste following completion of the proposed Project. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact— Solid waste produced by the proposed Project would be disposed at a properly permitted facility in accordance with federal and state laws. Mitigation Measures The proposed Project would not result in a significant adverse impact related to Utilities and Service Systems. Therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary. 4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact—The proposed Project is located in a developed area. The proposed Project would not result in a significant adverse impact on the environment including biological and cultural resources, nor would the proposed Project eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. 6 Volume of debris estimated by the following: (33 feet [width]X 65 feet [height]X 34 feet [depth]X 0.10 [density factor]) =270 cubic yards(rounded to 300 cubic yards) 55 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? No Impact—The proposed Project would not result in any significant adverse cumulative impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant with Mitigation—The proposed Project could have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. However, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of mitigation measures,previously described in Chapter 4. 56 5.0 Preparers and Contributors Orange County Sanitation District Daisy Covarrubias— Senior Staff Analyst Wendy Smith—Engineer Jacobs Lauren Abom—Project Manager, Senior Environmental Planner Gary Fink, RPA— Senior Archaeologist Phill Peters—Environmental Planner Paige Peyton, RPA— Senior Architectural Historian Dana Ragusa—Air Quality,Noise and Hazardous Materials Specialist Misha Seguin—Environmental Planner, QA/QC 57 6.0 References California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. 2007. Special Publication 42, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/Index.aspx. Accessed October 1, 2014. California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2014. Hazardous Water and Substances List (Cortese List). http://www.enviro stor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?cmd=search&reporttype=C ORTE SE&si te_type=C SITES,OPEN,FUDS,CLOSE&status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDO US+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST. Accessed October 1, 2014. California Office of Historic Preservation. 2014. California Historical Resources Information System. South Central Coast Information Center. Records Search File No.: 14421.570. City of Fullerton, Planning Department. 2012. The Fullerton Plan, Land Use Element. http://www.cityoffullerton.com/depts/dev_serv/general_plan_update/the_fullerton_plan.asp. Accessed October 1, 2014. City of Fullerton, Community Development. 2012. Zoning Maps. http://www.cityoffullerton.com/depts/dev_serv/planning_/zoning/maps/default.asp. Accessed October 1, 2014. Environmental Data Resources (EDR). 2014. The EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck for the Yorba Linda Pump Station Abandonment Project. Inquiry Number: 4098722-2s, October 8, 2014. Orange County Sanitation District. Collection System Improvement Plan Program Environmental Impact Report. 2007. Orange County Water District. 2012. Orange County Groundwater Contour Maps. http://www.ocwd.com/Portals/0/ProgramsProj ects/Hydrogeology/GroundwaterContourMaps/ June_WL2012L2.pdf. Accessed September 9, 2014. South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD). 2014. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. http://www.agmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook. Accessed September 9, 2014. 58 Appendix A Deconstruction Emission Calculations A-1 EMISSIONS FROM THE YORBA LINDA PUMP STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT Maximum Daily Deconstruction Emissions for the Pump Station Attribute Emissions CO ROG NOx Sox Combustion Fugitive Total Phase PM10 PM10 PM10 (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) Excavation 1.6816 0.2804 2.9438 0.0041 0.1259 0.0134 0.1396 SCAQMD Threshold (lb/day) 550 75 100 150 -- -- 150 Significant No No No No No Maximum Daily Deconstruction Emissions for the Abandonment of the Force Main Attribute Emissions SOX Combustion Fugitive Total PM10 CO ROG NOX Phase PM10 PM10 (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) Excavation 3.5801 0.5673 6.4023 0.0100 0.2300 0.0871 0.3170 SCAQMD 550 75 100 150 -- -- 150 Threshold (lb/day) Significant No No No No No A-2 Maximum Daily Deconstruction Emissions for the Abandonment of Gravity Sewer Lines Attribute Emissions CO ROG NOx Sox Combustion Fugitive Total PM10 Phase PM10 PM10 (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) Excavation 0.5465 0.0597 0.8088 0.0020 0.0179 0.0534 0.0712 SCAQMD 550 75 100 150 -- -- 150 Threshold (lb/day) Significant No No No No No A-3 Table 1-1: Heavy Construction Equipment Exhaust Emission Factors Equipment Type Fuel CO ROG NOx Sox PM10 (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/hr) Concrete Saws/Breakers Diesel 0.5152 0.1654 1.0187 0.0009 0.083 Dumpers/Tenders Diesel 0.0383 0.0137 0.0709 0.0001 0.0049 Excavators Diesel 0.6758 0.1792 1.3897 0.0013 0.0794 Off-Highway Trucks Diesel (asphalt trucks) 0.9451 0.287 2.853 0.0027 0.1051 Off-Highway Trucks Diesel (concrete trucks) 0.9451 0.287 2.853 0.0027 0.1051 Off-Highway Trucks (pick- Diesel up trucks) 0.9451 0.287 2.853 0.0027 0.1051 Off-Highway Trucks (water Diesel truck) 0.9451 0.287 2.853 0.0027 0.1051 Roller Diesel 0.4326 0.145 0.865 0.0007 0.0734 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Diesel 0.3748 0.1179 0.6979 0.0006 0.0635 Source: SCAQMD. Off-Road Mobile Source Emission Factors Scenario Year 2007. A-4 Table 1-2: On-Road Mobile Emission Factors from California ARB EMFAC2007 Scenario Year: 2007 -- Model Years: 1965 to 2007 Vehicle CO Emissions ROG Emission NOx Emissions SOx Emissions PM10 Emissions Type Factor (lb/mile) Factor(lb/mile) (lb/mile) (lb/mile) (lb/mile) Construction Workers 0.01155 0.00118 0.00121 0.00001 0.00008 Commuting Light-duty 0.02407 0.00323 0.02508 0.000026 0.00091 Trucks Heavy Diesel 0.01446 0.00372 0.04718 0.000039 0.00230 Trucks Source: SCAQMD. On-Road Mobile Source Emission Factors Scenario Year 2007. Table 1-3: Fugitive Emission Factors for Construction Activities Activity PM10 Emissions Ibs/ton Storage Pile Filling/Truck Dumping 0.009075 Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November 1993.Table 9-9 Table 1-4: Fugitive Emission Factors for On-Road Trucks and Employee Vehicles Source Type Emission Factor I b/vmt Passenger Vehicle/On Paved Roadways 0.018 Trucks on Paved Roadways 0.214 Light Duty Trucks on Unpaved Roads" 1.45 Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November 1993.Table A9-9 &Table A9-9C * Emissions calculated from SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November 1993. Table A9-9-D. G=14. H=15,J=4 tons, 1=4 and K=10. A-5 HEAVY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT COMBUSTION CALCULATIONS FOR DECONSTRUCTION OF PUMP STATION Table 2-1: Excavation Hour/day CO ROG NOx Sox Combustion Equipment Type Number Fuel Operation (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) PM10 (lb/hr) Concrete Saw 1 Diesel 4 2.0608 0.6616 4.0748 0.0036 0.332 Concrete Breaker 1 Diesel 4 2.0608 0.6616 4.0748 0.0036 0.332 Dump Truck 1 Diesel 8 0.3064 0.1096 0.5672 0.0008 0.0392 Dump Truck 1 Diesel 6 0.2298 0.0822 0.4254 0.0006 0.0294 Dump Truck 1 Diesel 4 0.1532 0.0548 0.2836 0.0004 0.0196 Excavator 2 Diesel 6 4.0548 1.0752 8.3382 0.0078 0.4764 Off-Highway Trucks (pick-up 8 Diesel 6 trucks) 5.6706 1.722 17.118 0.0162 0.6306 Off-Highway Trucks (water 1 Diesel 4 truck) 3.7804 1.148 11.412 0.0108 0.4204 Front End Loader 1 Diesel 8 2.9984 0.9432 5.5832 0.0048 0.508 Total 21.3152 6.4582 51.8772 0.0486 2.7876 Source: SCAQMD. Off-Road Mobile Source Emission Factors Scenario Year 2007. A-6 HEAVY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT COMBUSTION CALCULATIONS FOR ABANDONMENT OF FORCE MAIN Table 2-2: Excavation Hour/day CO ROG NOx sox Combustion Equipment Type Number Fuel Operation (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) PM10 (lb/day) Concrete Saw 1 Diesel 4 2.0608 0.6616 4.0748 0.0036 0.332 Concrete Truck 1 Diesel 4 3.7804 1.148 11.412 0.0108 0.4204 Dump Truck 1 Diesel 6 0.2298 0.0822 0.4254 0.0006 0.0294 Excavator 1 Diesel 6 4.0548 1.0752 8.3382 0.0078 0.4764 Off-Highway Trucks (asphalt truck) 1 Diesel 6 5.6706 1.722 17.118 0.0162 0.6306 Off-Highway Trucks (pick-up trucks) 12 Diesel 6 5.6706 1.722 17.118 0.0162 0.6306 Roller 1 Diesel 6 2.5956 0.87 5.19 0.0042 0.4404 Front End Loader 1 Diesel 6 2.2488 0.7074 4.1874 0.0036 0.381 Total 24.2506 7.3268 63.789 0.0594 3.0088 Source: SCAQMD. Off-Road Mobile Source Emission Factors Scenario Year 2007. A-7 HEAVY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT COMBUSTION CALCULATIONS FOR ABANDONMENT OF GRAVITY SEWER LINES Table 2-3: Excavation Hour/day CO ROG NOx Sox Combustion Equipment Type Number Fuel Operation (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) PM10 (lb/day) Off-Highway Trucks (concrete 1 Diesel 6 5.6706 1.722 17.118 0.0162 0.6306 pump trucks) Off-Highway Trucks (pick-up 4 Diesel 6 5.6706 1.722 17.118 0.0162 0.6306 trucks) Total 11.3412 3.444 34.236 0.0324 1.2612 Source: SCAQMD. Off-Road Mobile Source Emission Factors Scenario Year 2007. A-8 VEHICLE EMISSIONS Table 3-1: Excavation Parameters Peak Day Emissions, Ibs/da Number Total Distance Combustion Fugitive Source of Number Traveled CO ROG NOx sox PM10 PM10 Vehicles of Trips per Trip Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Construction 16 32 20 7.392 0.7552 0.7744 0.0064 0.0512 n/a Workers Commuting Light-duty Trucks 5 5 5 0.60175 0.08075 0.627 0.00065 0.02275 n/a Onsite Daily Delivery 1 3 20 1.4442 0.1938 1.5048 0.00156 0.0546 n/a Trucks Dump Trucks 1 7 10 1.0122 0.2604 3.3026 0.00273 0.161 0.147 Totals 10.45015 1.29015 6.2088 0.01134 0.28955 0.147 Emission calculations assume that all construction phases overlap. Worker commute is assumed to be 20 miles per trip. Daily Delivery Truck trip distance is assumed to be 20 miles trip. Fugitive PM10 is from paved roads for commuters, dump trucks, and delivery trucks and unpaved road for onsite trucks. A-9 SOIL HAULING Table 4-1: Soil Hauling Export Material Total Amount Soil 5.57 cubic yards Table 4-2: Soil Hauling and Pile Filling by Phase Cubic Tons Average Phase Yards Exported Tons Exported Exported per Day Excavation 5.57 4.64 4.64 Calculation assumes a soil density of 1.45 g/cubic cm Calculation assumes that all soil hauling occurs during a single day(worst case) Table 4-3: Soil Hauling and Pile Filling Daily PM10 Emissions by Phase Phase Emissions (lb/day) Excavation 0.051 A-10 Appendix B Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Monitoring Agency Entity Section 4.18 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Asbestos, lead-based paint, and polychlorinated biphenyl surveys for any structures that would be renovated or demolished as part Before Contractor OCSD of the project shall be conducted during the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates phase of the project by a certified consultant. Construction Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: If analytical results indicate building materials contain asbestos, the contractor shall prepare an Asbestos Operations and Before Contractor OCSD Maintenance Plan in accordance with applicable regulations.The plan will address worker training and safety measures to be Construction taken when disturbing asbestos-containing materials during abatement activities. Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: The contractor shall ensure that proper removal and disposal of asbestos-containing material is conducted by a licensed contractor During Contractor OCSD registered with the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration for asbestos-related work, or by a licensed and Construction certified asbestos abatement contractor. Mitigation Measure HAZ-4: If the analytical results indicate that lead-based paint is present,the contractor shall ensure that demolition materials are handled Before Contractor OCSD and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. Construction B-1 Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Monitoring Agency Entity Mitigation Measure HAZ-5: Prior to construction,the contractor shall prepare a Materials Management Plan that identifies potential recognized environmental Before Contractor OCSD conditions, locations, extent of impact, proposed remediation work,waste management procedures, and avoidance measures, Construction investigation measures, and a contingency plan for addressing unforeseen conditions. Documentation of completed waste profiles, manifest forms,and bill-of-lading forms for proper transportation and disposal of materials off-site will be maintained by the contractor.The plan shall include the following provisions: • Characterization and handling of contaminated soils requiring off-site disposal, • Soils to be stockpiled for further characterization, • Process for identifying soils with waste concentrations below regulatory thresholds that can be reused without restriction, • Process for identifying and handling wastewater requiring off-site disposal and/or treatment, and • Procedures for handling asbestos-containing material potentially discovered during construction activities. Mitigation Measure HAZ-6: Prior to initiating demolition and abandonment activities,the contractor shall prepare a site-specific Health and Safety Plan that Before Contractor OCSD identifies key personnel and provides a summary risk assessment for workers,the community, and the environment. The Health Construction and Safety Plan shall include an Air Monitoring Plan and Emergency Response Plan. Mitigation Measure HAZ-7: Prior to construction,the contractor shall prepare a Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures Plan to ensure that construction Before Contractor OCSD best management practices are adequate for site conditions and to prevent discharge of any sediment or pollutants into any storm Construction drains,and receiving waters. B-2 Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Monitoring Agency Entity Mitigation Measure HAZ-8: Before construction,the contractor shall notify all utility companies to ensure that the locations of underground transmission lines Before Contractor OCSD and facilities are marked. In addition, Underground Service Alert shall be contacted at least two working days before subsurface Construction excavation. Mitigation Measure HAZ-9: The contractor shall adhere to the requirements of SCAQMD during all construction activities. During Contractor OCSD Construction Section 4.16:Traffic/Transportation Mitigation Measure TT-1: A traffic control plan shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer as required prior to the construction phase of the Before Contractor OCSD Project. Construction Mitigation Measure TT-2: Traffic control plans shall consider the ability of alternative routes to carry additional traffic and shall identify the least disruptive Before Contractor OCSD hours of construction, site truck access routes, and the type and location of warning signs, lights, and other traffic control devices. Construction Consideration shall be given to maintaining access to commercial parking lots and sidewalks to the greatest extent feasible. Mitigation Measure TT-3: Traffic control plans shall comply with the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook and/or the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Before Contractor OCSD Devices, as determined by each affected local agency,to minimize any traffic and pedestrian hazards that exist during project Construction construction. Mitigation Measure TT-4: Public roadways shall be restored to their pre-existing condition after project construction is completed. After Contractor OCSD Construction Mitigation Measure TT-5: The Sanitation District shall attempt to schedule construction of relief facilities to occurjointly with other public works projects Before OCSD OCSD already planned in the affected locations, through careful coordination with all local agencies involved. Construction B-3 Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Monitoring Agency Entity Mitigation Measure TT-6: Emergency service purveyors shall be contacted and consulted to preclude the creation of unnecessary traffic bottlenecks that Before Contractor OCSD shall seriously impede response times.Additionally, measures to provide an adequate level of access to private properties shall be Construction maintained to allow delivery of emergency services. Mitigation Measure TT-7: Orange County Transportation Authority shall be contacted when construction affects roadways that are part of the OCTA bus Before OCSD OCSD transit network.Adequate procedures shall be implemented to keep bus routes and station accessible to users. Construction B-4 Appendix C Comment Letters and Response to Comments E-No G.BROWN JR. Water Boards HEw R RooRiouez `/ M Mnr ATT R RRorEZHOR State Water Resources Control Board JAN D 5 20% Daisy Covarrubias,Senior Staff Analyst Orange County Sanitation District, Planning Division 10844 Ellis Ave Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Dear Ms. Covarrubias: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION(IS/MND)FOR ORANGE COUNTY SANTITATION DISTRICT(DISTRICT);YORBA LINDA PUMP STATION ABANDONMENT PROJECT(PROJECT);ORANGE COUNTY;2014121054 We have received a copy of the District's draft IS/MND from the State Clearinghouse for the Project. We understand that the District is not pursuing Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)financing for this Project. Since the Project may be eligible for CWSRF financing,the State Water Resources Control Board(State Water Board)is providing information on the environmental review requirements of the CWSRF Program, should the District decide to pursue CWSRF financing in the future. The CWSRF Program provides low-cost financial assistance for a wide variety of water quality improvement and enhancement projects that protect water quality and public health. It has grant funds under certain conditions with limited availability. Three enclosures are included that further explain the CWSRF Program environmental review process and the additional federal requirements. For the complete environmental application package please visit: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/grants loans/srf/srf forms.shtml. For further information on the CWSRF Program,please contact Mr.Ahmad Kashkoli,at(916)341- 5855. It is important to note that prior to a CWSRF financing commitment, projects are subject to provisions of the Federal Endangered Species Act(ESA),and must obtain Section 7 clearance from the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS),and/or the United States Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS)for any potential effects to special status species. Please be advised that the State Water Board will consult with the USFWS, and/or the NMFS regarding all federal special-status species that the Project has the potential to impact if the Project is to be financed by the CWSRF Program. The District will need to identify whether the Project will involve any direct effects from construction activities,or indirect effects such as growth inducement,that may affect federally listed threatened,endangered,or candidate species that are known, or have a potential to occur in the Project site, in the surrounding areas, or in the service area,and to identify applicable conservation measures to reduce such effects. FELICIA MARCUS,CHAIR I THOMAS HOWARD,EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 1001 1 Street,Sacramento,CA 96814 I Mailing Address:P.O.Box 100,Sacramento,Ca 95812-0100 1 www,waterboards.ca.gov C7 REcvnED-ER C-1 -2- In addition,CWSRF projects must comply with federal laws pertaining to cultural resources, specifically Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act(Section 106). The State Water Board has responsibility for ensuring compliance with Section 106 and the State Water Board must consult directly with the California State Historic Preservation Officer(SHPO). SHPO consultation is initiated when sufficient information is provided by the CWSRF applicant. The District must retain a consultant that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards(http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch stnds 9.htm)to prepare a Section 106 compliance report. Note that the District will need to identify the Area of Potential Effects(APE),including construction and staging areas,and the depth of any excavation. The APE is three-dimensional and includes all areas that may be affected by the Project. The APE includes the surface area and extends below ground to the depth of any Project excavations. The records search request should extend to a Yz-mile beyond project APE. The appropriate area varies for different projects but should be drawn large enough to provide information on what types of sites may exist in the vicinity. Other federal environmental requirements pertinent to the Project under the CWSRF Program include the following(for a complete list of all environmental requirements please visit: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/grants loans/srf/docs/forms/application environmental package.pdf): A. Compliance with the Federal Clean Air Act:(a)Provide air quality studies that may have been done for the Project;and(b)if the Project is in a nonattainment area or attainment area subject to a maintenance plan;(i)provide a summary of the estimated emissions (in tons per year)that are expected from both the construction and operation of the Project for each federal criteria pollutant in a nonattainment or maintenance area, and indicate if the nonattainment designation is moderate,serious,or severe(if applicable); (ii)if emissions are above the federal de minimis levels, but the Project is sized to meet only the needs of current population projections that are used in the approved State Implementation Plan for air quality,quantitatively indicate how the proposed capacity increase was calculated using population projections. B. Compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act: Identify whether the Project is within a coastal zone and the status of any coordination with the California Coastal Commission. C. Protection of Wetlands: Identify any portion of the proposed Project area that should be evaluated for wetlands or United States waters delineation by the United States Army Corps of Engineers(USACE),or requires a permit from the USACE,and identify the status of coordination with the USACE. D. Compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act: Identify whether the Project will result in the conversion of farmland.State the status of farmland(Prime, Unique,or Local Statewide Importance)in the Project area and determine if this area is under a Williamson Act Contract. E. Compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act: List any birds protected under this act that may be impacted by the Project and identify conservation measures to minimize impacts. C-2 -3- F. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Act: Identify whether or not the Project is in a Flood Management Zone and include a copy of the Federal Emergency Management Agency flood zone maps for the area. G. Compliance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: Identify whether or not any Wild and Scenic Rivers would be potentially impacted by the Project and include conservation measures to minimize such impacts. Following are specific comments on the District's draft IS/MND: 1. On page 27 the response for 4.3.a begins by stating that there will be no impact in regards to conflicting with or obstructing the implementation of an air quality plan. However, the response ends by stating that there will be a less than significant impact.The same thing happens on page 48 in section 4.12.b regarding excessive groundborne vibrations or groundborne noise levels. Please ensure that impact levels are consistent through all responses. 2. In section 4.5.a,on pages 31-32, it is stated that there will be no impact on cultural resources in the area.Please elaborate on why the project will not affect the fifteen cultural resources recorded within a half mile of the project. 3. In section 4.8.d on page 40 it is stated that the"proposed project is not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment."However,it is also stated that the impact will be less than significant with mitigation.These two statements seem contradictory. Please elaborate on either how mitigation measures will lead to reducing any significant hazards to the public and the environment or on how the project will not create the above mentioned hazards. 4. On page 50 in section 4.14 it is stated that there will be no impact to public services, including fire protection and police protection.Additionally it asks that the response to 4.16.e be referred to.The response to 4.16.e states that there will be a less than significant with mitigation impact regarding inadequate emergency access. Please clarify in section 4.14 on how fire protection and police protection will not be impacted if mitigation is needed to ensure adequate emergency access. 5. For Transportation and Traffic mitigation measures TT-1 through TT-7 please change all mentions of"will"to"shall"as CEQA Guidelines(Article 1,Section 15005)defines"shall"as a mandatory element. For example,change TT-1 to"Traffic control plans shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer as required prior to construction of the Project." 6. Page 52 states that there are no mitigation measures for Transportation and Traffic. However sections 4.16.a,4.16.e,and 4.16.f reference mitigation measures TT-1 through TT-7 and on page 53 these mitigation measures are explained. Please fix the error on page 52 to say that mitigation measures will make project impacts less than significant. C-3 -4- Please provide us with the following documents applicable to the proposed Project if seeking CWSRF or other State Water Board funding:(1)one copy of the draft and final IS/MND,(2)the resolution adopting the IS/MND and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(MMRP) making California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)findings,(3)all comments received during the review period and the District's response to those comments,(4)the adopted MMRP, and (5)the Notice of Determination filed with the Orange Clerk and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research,State Clearinghouse. In addition,we would appreciate notices of any hearings or meetings held regarding environmental review of any projects to be funded by the State Water Board. Thank you for your consideration of the CWSRF Program. State Water Board staff is more than happy to discuss the CWSRF Program environmental requirements in more detail if you decide to apply for CWSRF financing. If you have any questions or concerns about the State Water Board CWSRF Program environmental review process or the information provided in this letter, please feel free to contact me at(916)341-5855,or by email at Ah mad.Kash koli(cDwaterboards.ca.gov,or contact Amanda Dwyer at(916)341-5739 or by email at Amanda.Dwver(a)waterboards.ca.gov. Sincerely, / Ahmad Kashkoli Senior Environmental Scientist Enclosures(3) 1. Clean Water State Revolving Fund Environmental Review Requirements 2.Quick Reference Guide to CEQA Requirements for State Revolving Fund Loans 3. Basic Criteria for Cultural Resources Reports cc: State Clearinghouse (Re: SCH#2014121054) P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 C-4 1 For Section 106 Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) under the National Historic Preservation Act CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT RECORDS SEARCH The Cultural Resources Report must be prepared by a • A records search(less than one year old)extending to a half- qualified researcher that meets the Secretary of the Interior's mile beyond the project APE from a geographically appropriate Professional Qualifications Standards. Please see the Information Center is required.The records search should Professional Qualifications Standards at the following website include maps that show all recorded sites and surveys in at:http://www.cr,nps,gov/local-law/arch_stnds_9.htm relation to the APE for the proposed project,and copies of the The Cultural Resources Report should include one of the confidential site records included as an appendix to the Cultural four"findings'listed in Section 106.These include: Resources Report. •'IVo historic properties affected" The APE is three-dimensional(depth,length and width)and all areas(e.g.,new construction,easements,staging areas,and (no properties are within the area of potential access roads)directly affected by the proposed project. effect(APE;including below the ground). "No effect to historic properties" (properties may be near the APE,but the „RE project will not have any adverse effects). rx "No adverse effect to historic properties" (the project may affect"historic properties", ;,� but the effects will not be adverse). 'Adverse effect to historic properties" Note:Consultation with the SHIM will be required if a ,no adverse effect to historic properties"or an"adverse effect to historic properties"determination is made, to develop and evaluate alternatives or modifications to the proposed project that could avoid,minimize or < mitigate adverse effects on"historic properties" We've got the green... to keep California's water clean. -AN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND C-5 y low NATIVE AMERICAN and INTERESTED PARTY CONSULTATION PRECAUTIONS • Native American and interested party consultation should A finding of"no known resources"without supporting be initiated at the planning phase of the proposed project evidence is unacceptable.The Cultural Resources Report to gather information to assist with the preparation of an must identify resources within the APE or demonstrate adequate Cultural Resources Report. with sufficient evidence that none are present. • The Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)must be 'The area is sensitive for buried archaeological contacted to obtain documentation of a search of the Sacred resources,"followed by a statement that"monitoring is Lands files for or near the project APE. recommended."Monitoring is not an acceptable option without good-faith effort to demonstrate that no known • All local Native American tribal organizations or individuals resource is present. identified by the NAHC must be contacted by certified mail, If"the area is already disturbed byprevious and the letter should include a map and a description of the construction"documentation is still required to demonstrate proposed project. that the proposed project will not affect"historic properties." An existing road can be protecting a buried archaeological • Follow-up contact should be made by telephone and a phone deposit or may itself be a"historic property"Additionally, log maintained to document the contacts and responses. previous construction may have impacted an archaeological • Letters of inquiry seeking historical information on the site that has not been previously documented. project area and local vicinity should be sent to local historical SHPO CONSULTATION LETTER societies,preservation organizations,or individual members Submit a draft consultation letter prepared by the qualified of the public with a demonstrated interest in the proposed researcher with the Cultural Resources Report to the State Water project. Resources Control Board.A draft consultation letter template is Copies of all documents mentioned above(project available for download on the State Water Board webpage at: description,map,phone log and letters sent to the http://www,waterboards.(a.gov/water issues/programs/ NAHC and Native American tribal organizations grants loans/cwsrf requirements.shtml or individuals and interested parties)must be included in the Cultural Resources Report. Contact Information:For more Information related to the CWSRF Program Water Boards Cultural Resources and Requirments,please contact Mr.Ahmad Kashkoli at o,o..,w.=.a.,_.o�.a•,eo.wo, 916-341-5855 or Ahmad.Kashkoli@waterboards.ca.gov waterboards.ca.gov orasm i.v r)1+ C-6 REVOLVINGCLEAN WATER STATE CaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality ActRequirements State Water Resources Board The State Water Resources Control Board B LEAD AGENCY Division f Financial Assistance (State Water Board),Division of Financial The applicant is usually the"Lead Agency"and Assistance,administers the Clean must prepare and circulate an environmental REQUIRED DOCUMENTS Water State Revolving Fund(CWSRF) document before approving a project.Only The Environmental Review Unit requires the a public agency,such as a local,regional or documents listed below to make findings and Program.The CWSRF Program is partially state government,may be the"Lead Agency" complete its environmental review.Once the funded by grants from the United States under CEQA. If project will be completed by a State Water Board receives all the required non-governmental organization,"Lead Agency" documents and makes its own findings,the Environmental Protection Agency. All responsibility goes to the first public agency environmental review for the project will be applicants seeking CWSRF financing providing discretionary approval for the project. complete. must comply with the California RESPONSIBLE AGENCY �Draft and Final Environmental Documents: Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),and The State Water Board is generally a Environmental Impact Report,Negative provide sufficient information so that "Responsible Agency"under CEQA.As a Declaration,and Mitigated Negative Decla- the State Water Board can document "Responsible Agency,"the State Water Board ration as appropriate to the project must make findings based on information ✓Resolution adopting/certifying the environ- compliance with federal environmental provided by the"Lead Agency"before financing mental document,making CEQA findings, laws.The"Environmental Package" a project. and approving the project provides the forms and instructions ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW `1 All comments received during the public needed to complete the environmental The State Water Board's environmental review review period and the"Lead Agency's" review requirements for CWSRF Program of the project's compliance with both CEQA responses to those comments financing. It is available at: and federal cross-cutting regulations must be ✓Adopted Mitigation Monitoring and completed before a project can be financed by Reporting Plan,if applicable http.//wwwwaterboards.(a.govl the CWSRF Program. water issues/programs/grants— DOCUMENT REVIEW Date-stamped copy of the Notice of loans/srf/srf forms.shtml Determination or Notice of Exemption filed Applicants are encouraged to consult with with the County Clerk(s)and the Governor's State Water Board staff early during preparation Office of Planning and Research of CEQA document if considering CWSRF financing.Applicants shall also send their ✓CWSRF Evaluation Form for Environmental environmental documents to the State Water Review and Federal Coordination with ( Board,Environmental Review Unit during supporting documents ,> the CEQA public review period.This way,any r environmental concerns can be addressed early We've got the green... in the process. to keep California's water clean. neex w"teR sere RevoLww4:Ruxo Contact Information:For more information related to the CWSRF Program environmental �s review process and requirements,please contact your StateWater Board Project Manager Water Boards .'\or Mr.Ahmad Kashkoli at 916-341-5855 orAhmad.Kashkoli@waterboards.ca.gov """y°"'Ee`°^'° ^°° waterboards.ca.gov REVISED:FEB.2014 C-7 Orange County Sanitation District 10844 Ellis Avenue,Fountain Valley,CA 92708 Anaheim 714.962.2411 • www.ocsewers.com Buena Park Brea Cypress 1 February 3,2015 Fountain Valley Fullerton Mr.Ahmad Kashkoli GroveGarden State Water Resources Control Board 100 1 St. Sacramento,CA 95812 La Habra J Re: Response to Comment Letter Dated January 5,2015 Project Name:Yorba Linda Pump Station Abandonment Project Lz Palma Los Alainitos Newport Beach Dear Mr. Kashkoli, Orange The Orange County Sanitation District(Sanitation District)appreciates the comments Placentia provided by the State Water Resources Control Board in your letter dated January 5,2015 Santa Ana Se-al Bearh regardingthe Yorba Linda Pump Station Abandonment Project.The letter identifies one primary area of interest,as summarized below in italics, immediately followed by the Stanton Sanitation District's response. Tustin Ville Park • We understand that the District is not pursuing Clean Water State Revolving fund CounryofOran (CWSRF)financing for this project.Since the Project may be eligible for CWSRF financing,the environmental review requirements of the CWSRF Program,should Cosia - the District decide to pursue CDSRF financing in the future. MidwaySanitary 01strici The Sanitation District is not planningto apply for CWSRF financing at this time. SawNry District Water Dirtrict • One page 27 the response for 4.3a begins by stating that there will be no impact in Yoroa Linda regards to conflicting with or obstructing the implementation of on air quality plan. DistrictWatpr However, the response ends by stating that there will be a less than significant impact. The some thing happens on page 48 in section 4.12.b regarding excessive groundborne vibrations or groundborne noise levels.Please ensure that impact levels are consistent through all responses. oJ•z� SpN Sections 4.3.a and 4.12.b have been revised so that the discussion of impact levels are consistent. 9 Tj E pv� t ro protect public health and the environment by providing tr effective wastewater collection,treatment,and recycling. C-8 I I, • In section 4.5.a,on pages 31-32,it Is stated that there will be no impact on cultural resources in the area, Please elaborate on why the project will not affect the fifteen cultural resources recorded within a holfmile of the project. Section 4,5.a has been revised to include the followingtext:"None of these resources would be affected by the proposed Project because they do not occur within the construction footprint." • In section 4,S.d on page 40 it is stated that the"proposed project is not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment,"However, it is also state that the impact will be less than significant with mitigation, These two statementsseem contradictory.Please elaborate on either how mitigation measures will lead to reducing any significant hazards to thepublic and the environment or how the project will not create the above mentioned hazards, Section 4,8.d has been revised to state that impacts will be"Less Than significant," Additionally,this section has been revised to include the followingtext; "Although there are two sites that are listed in the LUST and Cortese databases,the proposed Project is not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public.or the environment because none of these sites are located within the construction footprint," • On page 50 in section 4,14 it is stated that there will be no impact to public services, including fire protection and police protection. additionally,it asks that the response to 4,16.e be referred to, The response to 4,16,e states that there will be a less than significant impact with mitigation impact regarding inadequate emergency access, Please clarify section 4,14 on how fire protection and police protection will not be impacted if mitigation is needed to ensure adequate emergency access, Section 4.14 has been revised to state that im pacts will be"Less Than Significant with Mitigation," This change has also been made on page 21 in the CEQA Checklist for fire and police protection,Additionally, section 4,14 has been revised to include thefollowingtext; "Adequate emergency access will be maintained throughout the duration of the project construction, Although,the proposed Project could cause traffic delays in the project area,which could delay emergency services, the implementation of Transportation/Traffic mitigation measures(TT 1-7)would ensure that any potential impacts to emergency access would be less than significant, Therefore,with the implementation of mitigation measures,the proposed Project is not anticipatedto result In a significant adverse impact related C-9 to emergency access, Referto Response 4,16 for Transportation/Traffic mitigation measures," • For Transportation and Traffic mitigation measures TT-1 through TT-7 please change all mentions of"will"to"shalt"as CEQA Guidelines(Article 1,Section 15005)defines "shall"as a mandatory element,For example, change TT-1 to"Traffic control plans shalt be prepared by a qualified professional engineer as required prior to construction of the Project." Mitigation measures TT-1 through TT-7 have been revised to replace all mentions of "will'with"shall." • Page 52 states that there are no mitigation measures for Transportation and Traffic, However,sections 4.16.a, 4.16.e, and 4.16,f reference mitigation measures TT-I through TT-7 and on page 53 these m itigotion measures are explained.Please fix the erroron page 52 to say that mitigation measures will make the project impacts less than significant, Section 4,16,e has been revised to include the followingtext;"Therefore, with the implementation of mitigation measures,the proposed Project is not anticipatedto result in a significant adverse impact related to emergency access." Additionally, the text after the Mitigation Measures heading on page53 has been revised to include the following; "The following avoidance and minimization measures will reduce potential impacts related to transport ation/traffic during construction of the project," We appreciate your input on the Project and are available to discuss this or any of other Issues you may have. If you have any questions, please contact me at 714-593-7119, Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Dalsy Covarrubias,Senior Staff Analyst Orange County Sanitation District C-10 STA'f_f OF C'ALfF09N1A--C'ALIFORN1I STATE TI AVSrORTATION AOFNCY EDMt1 ND G._BROWN 3-.Govemo DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 3347 MICHELSON DRIVE,SUITE 100 IRVINE.CA 92612-8894 PHONE (949)724-2000 Fle;}nurpower.' FAX (949)724-2019 Be energy efficient! TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov Jan. 16,2014 Daisy Covarrubias Orange County Sanitation District File: lGR/CEQA 10844 Ellis Boulevard SCH#: 2014121054 Fountain Valley,CA 92708 IGR Loa#:4157 SR-57 Dear Ms.Covamlbias, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Yorba Linda Pump Station Abandonment Project.The Sanitation District is proposing to demolish the existing Yorba Linda Pump Station,as well as an existing below ground force main and two gravity sewer lines located in the City of Fullerton.The existing pump station facility and gravity sewer lines are located at the comer of Yorba Linda Boulevard and Campus Drive(Associated Road)and north of California State University, Fullerton.The force main is located along Yorba Linda Boulevard,on private property(Tribeca Apartments), and Palm Drive.Under the current schedule,construction is anticipated to occur between July 2019 and July 2022. The nearest State Route to the project site is SR-57. Caltrans is a commenting agency on this project and has the following comments: 1. If the cost of work within the State R/W is below one Million Dollars the Encroachment Permit process will be handled by Caltrans Permits Branch,otherwise the permit should be authorized through Caltrans Project Development. 2. Allow 2 to 4 weeks for a complete submittal to be reviewed and for a permit to be issued. When applying for Encroachment Permit,please incorporate Environmental Documentation,SWPPP/WPCP,Hydraulic Calculations,Traffic Control Plans, Geotechnical Analysis, Materials spccifications,and all relevant design details including design exception approvals.Maintenance Agreement shall be required between State and the City. 3. If MWD's contractor has not been exempt from permit fees in the Cooperative Agreement,a deposit of$820 will be needed at the time of Double Permit Application submittal. 4. For specific details on Caltrans Encroachment Permits procedure,please refer to Caltrans Encroachment Permits Manual.The latest edition of the Manual is available on the web site:htto://www.dot.ca.gov/bci/traffops/dcvclgpserv/permits/ "Cultrans improves mobility across Calefonda" C-11 5. A`traffic Management Plan(TMP)for construction vehicles should be submitted to Caltrans in order to minimize the impacts to State highway facilities.Coordination of this project with other construction activities on SR-57 may be needed.Any hauling of materials should not occur during A.M and P.M peak periods of travel on State facilities during demolition and/or construction of the proposed project.All vehicle loads should be covered so that materials do not blow over or onto the Caltrans Right-of-Way. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. if you have any questions or need to contact us,please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at(949)724-2241. Sincerely, MAUREEN EL HARAKE Branch Chief,Regional-Community-Transit Planning District 12 "Caltrans improves mohilityacrom California" C-12 Orange County Sanitation District 10844 Ellis Avenue,Fountain Valley,CA 92708 Anaheim 714.962.2411 • www.ocsewers.com Brea Buena Pao Cypress February 3, 2015 FountainFullerton Ms. Maureen El Harake, District].2 Branch Chief California Department of Transportation Garden Grove 3347 Michelson Drive,Suite 100 Irvine,CA 92612 It One Re: Response to Comment Letter Dated January 16,2015 La Habra Project Name:Yorba Linda Pump Station Abandonment La Palma Los Alamitos Dear Ms. El Harake, Newport Beach The Orange County Sanitation District(Sanitation District)appreciates the comments Orange provided by the California Department of Transportation in your letter dated January 16, Placentia 2015 regardingthe Yorba Linda Pump Station Rehabilitation Project. Santa Ana The letter identifies several areas of concern,as summarized below in italics, immediately followed by the Sanitation District's response. Stanion Tustin Comment 1 Ville Park • If the cost of work within the State R/W is below one Million Dollars the 1)minry rif OranZ# Encroachment Permit process will be handled by Caltrans Permits Branch,otherwise _ the permit should be authorized through Caltrans Project Development. Sanftary District Comment noted. Sanitary District Irvine Ranil—M-111 Comment 2 Water Di"ricl • Allow 2 to 4 weeks for a complete submittal to be reviewed and for a permit to be I Yorba Linda Water District issued. When applying for an Encroachment Permit,please incorporate Environmental Documentation,SWPPP, WPCP, Hydraulic Calculations, Traffic Control Plans, Geotechnical Analysis,Materials specifications, and ail relevant design details including design exception approvals.Maintenance Agreement shall be required between State and the City. c � P Comment noted 9 • F Z. Tip E N�� ro protect public health and the environment by providing effective wastewater collection,treatment,and recycling- C-13 Comment 3 • if MWD's contractor has not been exempt from permit fees Jr?the Cooperative Agreement,a deposit of$820 will be needed at the time of Double Perm it Application submittal, Comment noted, Comment4 • For specific details on Caltrans Encroachment Permits procedure,please refer to Caltrans Encroachment Permits Manual. The latest edition of the Manual is available on the web site;http;//www.dot,co.govlhq/traffops/developserv/permits/ The Caltrans Encroachment Permits Manual will be referenced when applying for the E ncroachm ent Perm It. comment 5 • ATraffiic Management Plan(TMP)for construction vehiclesshould be submitted to Caltrans in or to minimize the impacts to State highway facilities. Coordination of this project with other construction activities on SR 57 may be needed,Any hauling of materialsshould not occur during A,M,and A M.peak periods of travel on State facilities during demohNon and/orconstruction of the proposed project. All vehicle loads should be covered so that materials do not blow over onto the Caltrans Right- of-Way, As described in Section 4.16 Traffic/Transportation M itigation Measures TT1•TT3,a Traffic Managem ent Plan will be prepared for the project.Priorto construction,the Traffic Management Plan will be submitted to Caltrans. No hauling of materials will occur during A.M. or P.M.peak periods of travel on.State facilities. The contractor shall cover vehicle loads containing materials that could blow over or onto Caltrans' right-of-way duringtransport. C-14 s n i In summary, we appreci ate the comments provided by the California Department of Transportation,trust that this Ietterfully responds to them,and are available to discuss any of these issues further. If you have any questions, please contact me at 714-593-7119. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Daisy Covarrubias,Senior Staff Analyst Orange County Sanitation District C-15