Recycled Water Tertiary Treatment Plant

Transcription

1 for the Recycled Water Tertiary Treatment Plant MARCH 2012 LEAD AGENCY: El Toro Water District Los Alisos Boulevard Lake Forest, CA P R E PA R E D BY: 605 Third Street Encinitas, CA 92024

2

3 DRAFT Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Recycled Water Tertiary Treatment Plant Prepared for: El Toro Water District Los Alisos Boulevard Lake Forest, California Contact: Mr. Dennis Cafferty, Director of Operations and Engineering Telephone: Prepared by: DUDEK 605 Third Street Encinitas, California Contact: Shawn Shamlou, AICP MARCH 2012

4 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. 1.0 INTRODUCTION Background Project Need and Objectives California Environmental Quality Act Compliance CEQA-Plus Evaluation List of Discretionary Actions Other Agencies that May Use the Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Process PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Location Environmental Setting Project Characteristics Project Description Project Construction and Schedule Project Design Features FINDINGS No Impact or Less-Than-Significant Impact Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services i March 2012

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Section Page No Recreation Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL REFERENCES...93 APPENDICES (PROVIDED ON ENCLOSED CD) A B C D E Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Biological Resources Letter Report Archaeological Survey Report Environmental Hazards Report Memorandum Hydrology and Water Quality Technical Report ii March 2012

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page No. LIST OF FIGURES 1 Regional Map Vicinity Map Aerial Photograph Site Plan...13 LIST OF TABLES 1 Anticipated Construction Equipment SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds Estimated Daily Maximum Construction Emissions (lbs/day unmitigated) Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis for Construction Emissions Estimated Project Construction and Operational Air Emissions Estimated Annual Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimated Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Conceptual Peak Flow Summary Maximum Permissible Noise Levels Measured Noise Levels Construction Equipment Noise Levels Outdoor Mechanical Equipment Noise...81 iii March 2012

8 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Acronym/Abbreviation Definition ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers afy acre-feet per year APE Area of Potential Effects AQMP Air Quality Management Plan AST aboveground storage tank BEP Business Emergency Plan BMP Best Management Practice CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CARB California Air Resources Board Caltrans California Department of Transportation CBC California Building Code CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFS cubic feet per second CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CO carbon monoxide CO2E carbon dioxide equivalent CWSRF Clean Water State Revolving Fund DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan db decibel EDR Environmental Data Resources EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA Environmental Protection Agency ETWD El Toro Water District gpm gallons per minute GPS Global Positioning System HCP Habitat Conservation Plan I-5 Interstate 5 kwh kilowatt-hour IBC International Building Code Leq time-averaged sound level LID Low-impact development LUP Linear Underground Project LST Localized Significance Threshold MG million gallon MND Mitigated Negative Declaration MRZ Mineral Resource Zone MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County iv March 2012

9 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS NAAQS NAHC NCCP NOx NO2 NPDES O3 OCFA OCHCA PM2.5 PM10 RWQCB SCAB SCAQMD SCCIC SMARA SO2 SOCWA SWPPP SWRCB TDS TMDL UST VOC WRP WQMP WQO Acronym/Abbreviation Definition National Ambient Air Quality Standards Native American Heritage Commission Natural Communities Conservation Plan oxides of nitrogen nitrogen dioxide National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ozone Orange County Fire Authority Orange County Health Care Agency particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to10 microns Regional Water Quality Control Board South Coast Air Basin South Coast Air Quality Management District South Central Coastal Information Center Surface Mining and Reclamation Act sulfur dioxide South Orange County Wastewater Authority Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan State Water Resources Control Board total dissolved solids total maximum daily load underground storage tank volatile organic compound Water Recycling Plant Water Quality Management Plan water quality objective v March 2012

10 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK vi March 2012

11 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The El Toro Water District (ETWD), founded in 1960, provides domestic water; recycled water; and sanitary sewer collection, treatment, and disposal services to a population of over 50,000 in a 5,430-acre service area that includes portions of the Cities of Aliso Viejo, Lake Forest, Laguna Hills, Mission Viejo, and all of the City of Laguna Woods. ETWD receives its water from two main sources: recycled water and imported water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). MWDOC is a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). ETWD operates an existing Water Recycling Plant (WRP) that supplies approximately 500 acrefeet per year (afy) of disinfected secondary-treated recycled water for irrigation of the Laguna Woods Village Golf Course and for irrigation and plant process water at the WRP. The remaining secondary effluent is discharged to the Pacific Ocean via the South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA) Effluent Transmission Main. ETWD is proposing to expand their recycled water treatment plant to allow for the delivery of up to 1,175 afy of additional tertiary-treated recycled water to existing dedicated irrigation customers within the ETWD service area, for a total of 1,675 afy. The additional recycled water produced at the proposed Tertiary Treatment Plant would be distributed through a proposed Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion project. The proposed Distribution System Expansion project possesses independent utility per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section and would function on its own, without construction of the proposed treatment plant. As such, the proposed Distribution System Expansion project is being analyzed under CEQA in a separate CEQA document. 1.2 Project Need and Objectives ETWD relies on imported treated water from MWD to meet 95% of their water demands. The remaining 5% comes from recycled water from the WRP. The WRP is one of the oldest water recycling plants in Orange County, having provided recycled water for golf course irrigation since The existing WRP was designed and permitted to provide recycled water for restricted irrigation at the golf course, which does not require filtration prior to disinfection. The absence of filtration increases chlorine demand during chlorine disinfection. With the lack of recycled water storage and adequate chlorine dosing control, varying recycled water demands can cause fluctuations in water level of the chlorine contact basin, which can make maintenance of the target contact time 1 March 2012

12 difficult. As a result, much higher chlorine doses are applied to adequately disinfect the wastewater. High chlorine usage and maintaining a high chlorine residual in recycled water are of concern because they create an adverse impact on the health of the greens at the golf course, and increase the total dissolved solids (TDS) content of the recycled water. The current recycled water demand for the existing users is estimated at approximately 500 afy (310 gallons per minute (gpm)); however, recycled water demand as high as 1,950 gpm occurs during summer months. The proposed Tertiary Treatment Plant would increase the amount of recycled water available within the service area and the 500 afy of recycled water currently produced by ETWD would be upgraded to tertiary quality. Tertiary treated water is less restrictive than secondary-treated water and can be used more extensively for commercial and public applications. 1.3 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance ETWD is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agency responsible for the review and approval of the proposed Recycled Water Tertiary Treatment Plant project. Based on the findings of the Initial Study, ETWD has made the determination that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the appropriate environmental document to be prepared in compliance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section et seq.). As stated in CEQA, Section 21064, an MND may be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when an Initial Study has identified no potentially significant effects on the environment. This MND has been prepared by ETWD in conformance with Section 15070(a) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR et seq.) and in compliance with the ETWD 2012 Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. The purpose of the MND and the Initial Study checklist is to determine if any potentially significant impacts are associated with the proposed project and to incorporate mitigation measures into the project design as necessary to reduce or eliminate the significant or potentially significant effects of the project. 1.4 CEQA-Plus Evaluation ETWD is seeking a loan from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Program administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Financial Assistance. As required by SWRCB, a CEQA-Plus evaluation was completed for the proposed project. The CWSRF requires that projects undergo CEQA-Plus evaluations to comply with federal regulations. The results of this evaluation are provided in the CEQA-Plus Evaluation sections within each relevant resource area (e.g., biological resources). 2 March 2012

13 1.5 List of Discretionary Actions Approval of the following discretionary actions will be required in order to implement the proposed project: Approval of the project by the ETWD Board of Directors City of Laguna Hills Encroachment Permit City of Laguna Woods Encroachment Permit. 1.6 Other Agencies that May Use the Mitigated Negative Declaration This MND is intended for use by responsible and trustee agencies that may have an interest in reviewing the project. All responsible and trustee agencies for the project, listed as follows, will, therefore, be asked to review this document: SWRCB Regional Water Quality Control Board California Department of Public Health City of Laguna Woods City of Laguna Hills. 1.7 Public Review Process In accordance with CEQA, a good-faith effort has been made during the preparation of this MND to contact affected agencies, organizations, and persons who may have an interest in this project. In reviewing the MND, affected public agencies and the interested public should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the project s possible impacts on the environment. A copy of the Draft MND and related documents are available for review at ETWD (see address below) between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 7:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. alternate Fridays. It should be noted that ETWD is closed every other Friday. El Toro Water District Los Alisos Boulevard Lake Forest, California March 2012

14 The document is also available on ETWD s website ( Comments on the MND may be made in writing before the end of the public review period. A 30-day review and comment period from March 30, 2012, to April 30, 2012, has been established in accordance with Section 15072(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Following the close of the public comment period, ETWD will consider this MND and comments thereto in determining whether to approve the proposed project. Written comments on the MND should be sent to the following address by 4:00 p.m., April 30, El Toro Water District Los Alisos Boulevard Lake Forest, California Contact: Mr. Dennis Cafferty, Director of Operations and Engineering Telephone: dcafferty@etwd.com 4 March 2012

15 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Location The proposed Recycled Water Tertiary Treatment Plant project (proposed project or project) is located in Orange County, within the Cities of Laguna Woods and Laguna Hills. The City of Laguna Woods consists of approximately 4 square miles developed with senior residential communities and accompanying commercial and recreational facilities. The City of Laguna Hills consists of approximately 6.7 square miles developed with a variety of commercial and residential uses, of varying intensities. The Cities of Laguna Woods and Laguna Hills are located approximately 5 miles inland from the coast, east of the Laguna Coast Wilderness Park, north of the City of Aliso Viejo, and south of the City of Irvine. Regional access to the project area is via Interstate 5 (I-5; Figure 1). The project site is located within ETWD s WRP in the northeast corner of the Laguna Woods Village Golf Course, and extends west along Ridge Route Drive to Santa Vittoria Drive (Figures 2 and 3). Local access to the project site is via Moulton Parkway and Ridge Route Drive. 2.2 Environmental Setting The project site is located on the existing ETWD WRP site, in the northeastern corner of the Laguna Woods Village Golf Course, and includes a transmission pipeline that would extend beneath Ridge Route Drive from the WRP site to Santa Vittoria Drive to the west (Figure 2). Construction staging and parking areas would be located on the WRP site. The ETWD currently owns the entire WRP site, including construction staging and parking areas; however, the transmission pipeline would be located beneath the public right-of-way of Ridge Route Drive. Vehicular access into the project site is from Moulton Parkway, which is a north south thoroughfare. The general vicinity surrounding the project site is developed with a mix of residential and commercial uses. North of the site, across Ridge Route Drive, are commercial and residential development and an associated drainage facility. East of the project site, past the golf course, is the Laguna Woods Village retirement community. The project site extends west along Ridge Route Drive, which passes through a large commercial center along Moulton Parkway, and residential developments further west. Surrounding General Plan designations are OS Open Space to the north, CC Community Commercial to the west, Medium Density Residential to the east, and Open Space to the south and west (City of Laguna Woods 2010). Surrounding zoning designations are OS-2, Drainage Facility and MXU, Mixed Use to the north, RC, Residential Community District to the east, OS- R, and Open Space Recreation District to the south and west (City of Laguna Woods 2011a). 5 March 2012

16 2.3 Project Characteristics Project Description The proposed Recycled Water Tertiary Treatment Plant project, shown in Figure 3, would include the construction of new tertiary treatment facilities and a 5,000-foot recycled water transmission pipeline. The proposed tertiary treatment facilities would consist of the following components (Figure 4): A new filtration system using cloth media filters Tertiary effluent transfer pumps to be installed in the existing wet well for the irrigation pumps A new 2.4-million-gallon recycled water storage tank/chlorine contact basin Upgrades to the existing sodium hypochlorite feed system A new coagulant (i.e., aluminum sulfate (alum), ferric chloride) and/or polymer storage and feed system Electrical, instrumentation, and controls upgrades A new cover for the existing chlorine contact basin A new recycled water pump station with a surge tank. The proposed tertiary treatment facilities would be located on approximately 1.65 acres within previously disturbed and/or paved areas of the ETWD WRP site. The 5,000-foot recycled water transmission pipeline would be located underground and would extend north from the WRP site to Ridge Route Drive, where it would then extend west to Santa Vittoria Drive, within the existing right-of-way of Ridge Route Drive (Figure 3). Once constructed, the transmission pipeline would require minimal maintenance. The proposed tertiary treatment facilities would be checked daily to ensure that the facilities are operating properly. The ETWD routinely performs similar maintenance activities for existing facilities; therefore, regular inspection of the proposed tertiary treatment plant would be performed by existing ETWD employees and would not require additional employees to operate. 6 March 2012

17 eles County ardino County Crestline Lake Arrowhead La Canada 18 Running Springs Flintridge 170 Altadena 206 Burbank Glendale Monrovia San 330 Pasadena Duarte Bernardino San Arcadia Azusa Glendora Rancho Fontana Marino La Verne 210 Upland Rialto Irwindale Cucamonga Highland 101 Temple San San 66 Beverly Covina Alhambra Gabriel City El Baldwin Dimas Claremont Los 83 West Hills Rosemead Monte Park Montclair Angeles Pomona Colton Monterey Covina Ontario Bloomington Loma Redlands East Los Park Hacienda Linda Heights Walnut Yucaipa Angeles Montebello Glen Culver Industry 60 Avon City 110 Pico Vernon Commerce Diamond Chino Rivera Mira Rubidoux Riverside County Rowland Bar Chino Loma Pedley South La Habra Heights Hills 105 Whittier Inglewood Gate HeightsLos Angeles County 71 Riverside Downey Santa Fe South La Orange County Brea Norco Moreno egundo Springs Whittier Hawthorne 19 Habra Valley March Gardena Compton Norwalk tan La Mirada Bellflower Fullerton Placentia Yorba Linda Woodcrest AFB 91 ondo Cerritos Buena Corona 710 ach 405 Lakewood Park Anaheim Torrance Carson Cypress 215 Nuevo Los Orange Long Perris Alamitos Garden ates Rancho Beach 22 Tustin Seal Grove Palos Foothills Verdes Beach Westminster Santa Ana Fountain Sun Tustin 241 Winchester Huntington Valley City Beach 55 El Toro Project Site Costa Irvine Lake Station El Mesa Elsinore Toro 1 Newport Beach 73 Laguna Beach Laguna Hills Aliso Viejo Laguna Niguel San Juan Capistrano Dana Point Riverside County Orange County Mission Viejo Rancho Santa Margarita Coto De Caza San Clemente Trabuco Highlands 5 Orange County San Diego County 74 Wildomar 15 Fallbrook San Bernardino County Temecula Rainbow 79 P a c i f i c O c e a n Camp Pendleton North Camp Pendleton South Oceanside 78 Carlsbad Bonsall Vista 76 San Marcos Hidden Meadows V Ce Escondido Encinitas P Miles RECYCLED WATER TERTIARY TREATMENT PLANT PROJECT FIGURE 1 Regional Map

18 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 8 March 2012

19 5 Project Site 0 1,000 2,000 Feet SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series San Juan Capistrano Quadrangle. FIGURE 2 Vicinity Map RECYCLED WATER TERTIARY TREATMENT PLANT PROJECT

20 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 10 March 2012

21 Project Boundary Feet Proposed Transmission Pipeline SOURCE: El Toro Water District, Bing Maps. RECYCLED WATER TERTIARY TREATMENT PLANT PROJECT FIGURE 3 Aerial Photograph

22 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 12 March 2012

23 PROPOSED NEW TERTIARY EFFLUENT TRANSFER PUMPS WAREHOUSE PROPOSED CLOTH MEDIA FILTER FACILTY SC NO. 4 PROPOSED RECYCLED WATER PUMP STATION PROPOSED ELECTRICAL ENCLOSURE BLOWER/ GENERATOR BLDG RAS PUMP STATION STORAGE BLDG SC NO. 3 PROPOSED RECYCLED WATER RESERVOIR/CCB WAC SC NO. 2 SC NO. 1 DAF NO. 2 AWMA PUMP STATION SCE SUE STATION DAF NO. 1 SLUDGE STORAGE TANK EQUALIZATION BASIN NO. 2 EQUALIZATION BASIN NO. 1 SOIL SCRUBBER NO. 2 SOIL SCRUBBER NO. 1 Project Boundary Proposed Pipeline Proposed Building Existing Building Feet SOURCE: Tetra Tech, Dec Building to be Modified FIGURE 4 Site Plan RECYCLED WATER TERTIARY TREATMENT PLANT PROJECT

24 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 14 March 2012

25 2.3.2 Project Construction and Schedule Construction of the proposed project is expected to commence in February 2013, and would last approximately 16 months, ending in May Construction activities would consist of installation of a new filtration system using cloth media filters; installation of tertiary effluent transfer pumps to replace the irrigation pumps in the existing wet well; construction of a new recycled water storage tank/chlorine contact basin; upgrades to the existing sodium hypochlorite feed system; construction of a new coagulant and/or polymer storage and feed system; electrical, instrumentation, and controls upgrades; and construction of a cover for the existing chlorine contact basin. In addition, the project will include construction of a recycled water pump station with a surge tank and a 5,000 foot recycled water transmission pipeline. Construction of the project is anticipated to be completed in the following phases, which may overlap: Site preparation 3 weeks Grading 7 weeks Building construction, recycled water storage tank/chlorine contact basin and cover for existing chlorine contact basin 29 weeks Trenching, transmission pipeline installation 13 weeks Paving, transmission pipeline 2 weeks Building construction, filtration system and tertiary effluent transfer pumps, recycled water pump station and surge tank 28 weeks Paving, WRP 2 weeks. The construction equipment mix for the proposed project is shown in Table 1, Anticipated Construction Equipment. The equipment mix is meant to represent a reasonably conservative estimate of construction activity. It is assumed that heavy construction equipment would be operating at the site for approximately 8 hours per day, 5 days per week (22 days per month). Table 1 Anticipated Construction Equipment Construction Phase Equipment Quantity Site Preparation Truck trips, no equipment n/a Grading Backhoe (Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes) 1 Front End Loader (Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes) 1 Building Construction (Storage Tank) Cranes 1 Forklifts 1 Generator Sets 1 15 March 2012

26 Table 1 Anticipated Construction Equipment Construction Phase Equipment Quantity Trenching (Transmission Pipeline Installation) Excavators 1 Hand Compactor/Drum Roller (Plate Compactors) 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 Paving (Transmission Pipeline) Pavers 1 Paving Equipment 1 Building Construction ( WRP) Boring/Jack Machine (Bore/Drill Rigs) 1 Cranes 1 Forklifts 1 Generator Sets 1 Welding Equipment (Welders) 1 Paving (WRP) Paving Equipment 1 Notes: Equipment types noted in parenthesis represent the equipment equivalent used in CalEEMod construction modeling Project Design Features The project includes, as part of the project design, certain features that would be implemented during project construction and/or operation to minimize potential impacts. Additionally, there are applicable regulatory requirements to which the project will be required to adhere. These design features and regulatory requirements are presented below. Geology/Soils All proposed facilities will be designed and built in accordance with seismic design provision of the International Building Code (IBC) or the California Building Code (CBC). Additionally, all facets of excavation, construction, and facility design will meet the standards established during final engineering design. Specifically, this will include measures such as the over-excavation of unsuitable base soils and geologic units, the proper composition, placement, and compaction of all construction fill, the use of additional foundation design techniques as necessary, and the utilization of appropriate construction materials and methods. ETWD will perform design-level geotechnical investigations to evaluate the potential for landslide, liquefaction, and seismic instability to affect the approved project and all associated facilities. Where these hazards are detected, appropriate engineering design and construction measures will be incorporated into the project designs. Appropriate measures could include ground improvement of liquefiable zones. 16 March 2012

27 Hazards/Hazardous Materials Hazardous materials will not be disposed of or released onto the ground, the underlying groundwater, or any surface water. Totally enclosed containment will be provided for all trash. All construction waste, including trash and litter, garbage, other solid waste, petroleum products, and other potentially hazardous materials, will be removed to a waste facility permitted to treat, store, or dispose of such materials. Transportation and Traffic ETWD will develop a traffic control plan in coordination with the City of Laguna Hills and the City of Laguna Woods to ensure that adequate residential and emergency access is maintained during project construction. The traffic control plan will meet the requirements of the City of Laguna Hills Traffic Control Plan General Notes (City of Laguna Hills 2009). 17 March 2012

28 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 18 March 2012

29 3.0 FINDINGS ETWD finds that the project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Potentially significant effects have been identified and mitigation measures have been incorporated to ensure that these effects remain at less-than-significant levels. An MND is proposed to satisfy the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (California Public Resources Code, Section et seq.; 14 CCR et seq.). 3.1 No Impact or Less-Than-Significant Impact Based on the environmental discussion contained in Section 4 of this MND, ETWD has determined that the proposed project would have no impact or a less-than-significant impact in the following environmental issue areas: aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, and recreation. 3.2 Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Based on the environmental discussion contained in Section 4 of this MND, ETWD has determined that the proposed project would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated in the following environmental issue areas: biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, utilities and service systems, and mandatory findings of significance. 19 March 2012

30 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 20 March 2012

31 4.0 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1. Project title: Recycled Water Tertiary Treatment Plant 2. Lead agency name and address: El Toro Water District Los Alisos Boulevard Lake Forest, California Contact person and phone number: Mr. Dennis Cafferty, Director of Operations and Engineering Project location: Treatment Plant: Located within the existing ETWD WRP in the northeast corner of the Laguna Woods Village Golf Course, in the City of Laguna Woods, Orange County, California. Transmission Pipeline: Located within the existing Ridge Route Drive right-of-way from the ETWD WRP west to Santa Vittoria Drive, in the Cities of Laguna Woods and Laguna Hills, Orange County, California. 5. Project sponsor s name and address: El Toro Water District Los Alisos Boulevard Lake Forest, California General Plan designation: Treatment Plant: City of Laguna Woods General Plan Map: Open Space Transmission Pipeline: City of Laguna Hills General Plan Map: Local Street. 7. Zoning: Treatment Plant: City of Laguna Woods Zoning Map: OS-R, Open Space Recreation District 21 March 2012

32 Transmission Pipeline: Located within existing road right-of-way, no zoning designation assigned. 8. Description of project/environmental setting, and surrounding land uses. Refer to Section 2 of this MND for detailed information on the project description, environmental setting, and surrounding land uses. 9. Other public agencies whose approval is required: The following agencies may be responsible agencies under CEQA. They may need to issue approvals for the project and, thus, rely upon this Initial Study. Regional Water Quality Control Board California Department of Public Health City of Laguna Hills Encroachment Permit City of Laguna Woods Encroachment Permit. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a Potentially Significant Impact, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance 22 March 2012

33

34 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 off-site as well as on-site, 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 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. 4) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from Potentially Significant Impact to a Less-Than-Significant Impact. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-thansignificant level (mitigation measures from Earlier Analyses, as described in (5) below, 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. (14 CCR 15063(c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated, describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated 24 March 2012

35 or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address sitespecific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies 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 significant. 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 25 March 2012

36 II. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. 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 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 (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 pollutant concentrations? 26 March 2012

37 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 specialstatus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section of the CEQA Guidelines? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section of the CEQA Guidelines? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 27 March 2012

38 Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact Potentially Significant Impact 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 onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. 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 the emissions of greenhouse gases? VIII. 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? 28 March 2012

39 Potentially Significant Impact 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 that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 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? 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 preexisting 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? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 29 March 2012

40 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 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 mudflow? 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 that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 30 March 2012

41 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) Exposure of persons to or 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? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 31 March 2012

42 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? 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 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 baths, 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 32 March 2012

43 Potentially Significant Impact d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) 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? 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, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than- Significant Impact No Impact 33 March 2012