Garfield Reservoir Replacement Project

Prepared by:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.

7578 El Cajon Boulevard, Suite 200

La Mesa, CA 91942

Prepared for:

The City of South PasadenaPublic Works Department

1414 Mission Street

South Pasadena, CA 91030

Garfield Reservoir Replacement Project

Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study

August 2013


Mitigated Negative Declaration/

Initial Study

Prepared for:

The City of South Pasadena Public Works Department

1414 Mission Street South Pasadena, CA 91030

Prepared by:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard, Suite 200

La Mesa, CA 91942

August 2013

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

i

FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO: CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

PROJECT TITLE: Garfield Reservoir Replacement Project

LEAD AGENCY: City of South Pasadena, Public Works Department

PROJECT SPONSOR: City of South Pasadena, Public Works Department

PROJECT LOCATION: The project site is located in the northeast portion of the City of South Pasadena, at the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Hardison Lane. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of South Pasadena (City) proposes the construction of a replacement for the Garfield Reservoir. The Garfield Reservoir is a 6.25-million-gallon (MG) reservoir, constructed of concrete and covered by a metal roof supported on a wood frame. A replacement reservoir is needed to bring the Garfield Reservoir up to current seismic standards. The proposed project includes demolition of the existing Garfield Reservoir and pump station and construction of two replacement reservoirs, a pump station, inlet/outlet vault, rechlorination room, and a Water Distribution support yard on the project site. The support yard would include a two-story building that would contain the garage, storage space, and office space. The proposed project also includes the replacement of a storm drain within an existing easement through the adjacent Blair High School athletic field, which would connect with the on-site storm drainage system that would be constructed as part of the project and to an existing Los Angeles County storm channel located with the Blair High School athletic field. Access to the project site would be provided via a driveway at the northwestern corner of the site, off of Garfield Avenue. Construction of the proposed project is expected to begin in fall 2013 and is expected to last for 18 months. Construction of the storm drain through the adjacent athletic field would be conducted in coordination with Pasadena Unified School District and would occur during summer when school is not in attendance. FINDINGS The City finds that the Garfield Reservoir Project WILL NOT have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons:

1. The proposed project would not conflict with existing surrounding land uses.

2. The proposed project would not result in impacts associated with geologic problems and would improve seismic safety of the reservoir.

3. The proposed project would comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

guidelines for municipal storm water runoff.

4. The proposed project would not violate any air quality standard, or substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation.

5. The proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts to nesting migratory birds and

significant trees; however, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, below, would reduce associated impacts related to biological resources to below a level of significance.

6. The proposed project may result in significant hazardous material impacts associated with the

potential presence of asbestos-containing materials and lead; however, implementation of Mitigation

ii

Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, below, would reduce associated impacts related to hazardous materials to below a level of significance.

7. The proposed project would not result in impacts to cultural resources.

8. The proposed project would not result in significant traffic impacts on area roadways.

9. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to land use and planning, population and housing, geologic problems, air quality, transportation/circulation, biological, energy and mineral resources, hazards, noise, public services, utilities and service systems, aesthetics, cultural resources, recreation, and greenhouse gas emissions.

MITIGATION MEASURES Implementation of the project-specific mitigation measures identified below would reduce potentially significant impacts to below a level of significance. BIO-1 Commencement of construction activities (including any vegetation removal) at the project site

shall be conducted outside of the bird nesting season (the nesting season lasts February through August). Alternatively, a preconstruction survey shall be conducted to identify and locate all active bird nests at the project site. To ensure that construction does not result in the destruction or abandonment of an active nest, construction activities shall avoid active nests and a surrounding buffer zone. The size and shape of the buffer zone shall be determined by a qualified biologist and shall be dependent on factors that may affect the involved bird species. These restrictions shall apply until the end of the nesting season or until it can be shown that the birds have completed nesting activities at the project site.

BIO-2 Prior to the commencement of construction activities, a qualified arborist shall delineate, using

orange construction fencing or some other visible marker, areas requiring disturbance avoidance to protect significant trees. The fencing or other marker used to delineate these areas shall remain in place during the construction period to ensure these areas are avoided. No disturbance shall occur within the areas delineated by the certified arborist.

HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of demolition permits, the City or its contractor shall retain a State-certified

asbestos professional to survey the project site and determine whether sampling for asbestos-containing material is warranted. Any abatement or removal of asbestos-containing material shall be performed in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

HAZ-2 Prior to the issuance of demolition permits, the City or its contractor shall retain a State-certified

lead professional to survey the site structures and determine whether sampling for lead-based paint is warranted. Any abatement or removal of lead-based paint must be performed in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

THE INITIAL STUDY PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT IS ATTACHED.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT........................................................................................................2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ..................................................5 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...................................................................5 DETERMINATION ........................................................................................................................6 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - ISSUES ...................................................7 1. Land Use and Planning ...............................................................................................7 2. Population and Housing ..............................................................................................8 3. Geologic Problems ......................................................................................................9 4. Water .........................................................................................................................13 5. Air Quality ................................................................................................................17 6. Transportation/Circulation ........................................................................................20 7. Biological ..................................................................................................................22 8. Energy and Mineral Resources .................................................................................24 9. Hazards .....................................................................................................................25 10. Noise .........................................................................................................................27 11. Public Services ..........................................................................................................30 12. Utilities and Service Systems....................................................................................31 13. Aesthetics ..................................................................................................................33 14. Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................35 15. Recreation .................................................................................................................36 16. Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................................37 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance .........................................................................39 18. Earlier Analysis .........................................................................................................42 SOURCE REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................43

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

LIST OF FIGURES No. Title Follows Page 1 Regional Location Map........................................................................................................2 2 Project Location Map ...........................................................................................................2 3 Aerial Photograph ................................................................................................................2 4 Project Site Plan ...................................................................................................................2 5 Earthquake Faults...............................................................................................................10 LIST OF TABLES No. Title Page 1 Garfield Reservoir Construction Emissions .......................................................................18 2 Haul Truck Traffic Noise Levels .......................................................................................29

August 2013 Pg. 1

Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study

City of South Pasadena ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM

INTRODUCTION

1. Project title:


2. Lead agency name/address: The City of South Pasadena Public Works Department 1414 Mission Street South Pasadena, CA 91030

3. Contact person and phone number:

Paul Toor, P.E. City of South Pasadena 1414 Mission Street South Pasadena, CA 91030

4. Project Location:

The project site is located in the northeast portion of the City of South Pasadena (City), at the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Hardison Lane (Figures 1, 2, and 3).

5. Project sponsor’s name and address: City of South Pasadena

Public Works Department 1414 Mission Street South Pasadena, CA 91030

6. General plan designation:

Community Facilities (Reservoir)

7. Zoning: Community Facilities (CF)

August 2013 Pg. 2

8. Description of project: The Garfield Reservoir is a 6.25-million-gallon (MG) reservoir, constructed of concrete and covered by a metal roof supported on a wood frame. A replacement reservoir is needed to bring the Garfield Reservoir up to current seismic standards. The City of South Pasadena is a local water purveyor that serves retail customers within city boundaries. The City of South Pasadena has three water sources: groundwater from the Main San Gabriel Basin, purchase of imported water from The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and purchase of water from the City of Pasadena (to serve a small portion of its service area). The City has four active wells located within the Upper San Gabriel Water Basin: Graves Well 2, Wilson Well 2, Wilson Well 3, and Wilson Well 4. Booster pump stations at the Wilson and Graves reservoir sites pump water through a transmission main that leads to the Central Zone and the Central Zone distribution reservoirs, Garfield, Grand, and Westside reservoirs. The Garfield Reservoir pump station provides water to the Raymond Zone and its Raymond Hill Tank (an elevated steel tank). Other distribution reservoirs include the Bilicke Tank, an elevated steel tank serving the Bilicke Zone at the opposite end of the City from Garfield Reservoir. The proposed project is the replacement of the Garfield Reservoir, including demolition of the existing Garfield Reservoir and pump station and construction of two replacement reservoirs, a pump station, inlet/outlet vault, rechlorination room, and a Water Distribution support yard on the project site (Figure 4). Access to the project site would be provided via a driveway at the northwestern corner of the site, off of Garfield Avenue. The new reservoirs would be placed in the footprint of the existing reservoir, adjacent to each other and separated by approximately 12 feet. The reservoirs would be approximately 11 to 13 feet above final grade, and approximately 10 feet below grade. The two new reservoirs would have a capacity of 3.25 MG each, for a combined capacity of 6.5 MG. The northern portion of the site would be paved, and would include a garage, storage space, office space, parking, aggregate storage, and pipe storage to serve as the City’s Water Distribution support yard. The support yard would include a two-story (approximately 30± feet tall) building that would contain the garage, storage space, and office space. The first story would be approximately 4,880 square feet (s.f.) in area, and the second story would be approximately 3,480 s.f. in area. At this time, only approximately 1,310 s.f. of the second story would be built out into

!

Project Site

SouthPasadena

CulverCity

Lancaster

SantaMonica

Calabasas

Acton

SantaClarita

Palmdale

AgouraHills

VENTURA COUNTYMalibu

Torrance

Inglewood

BeverlyHills

Pasadena

BurbankGlendale

Pomona

Whittier

LongBeach

Los Angeles

LosAngeles

PalosVerdes

WestCovina

Norwalk

Carson

Downey

SanGabriel

San FernandoValley

AÒ

AàIÄ

IÄ

!"̀$!"̀$

%&q(

?Õ

?Õ

?q

%&g(

%&g(

?¤%&e(

AË

%&d(

%&o(

%&o(

Compton

Aÿ

Hollywood

Pacific Ocean

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

ORAN

GE C

OUNT

YORANGE COUNTY

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

SANBERNARDINO

COUNTY

LOS ANGELES COUNTYKERN COUNTY

Santa Monica MountainsAÒ

!"̂$

!"̂$

!"̂$

%&l(

%&l(

A»A»

?Ð

?Ø

?Ø

?Ý

?Õ

?Ý

?ä

?ä

?ä

?ä

?ã

µ10 0 105

MilesI:\ArcGIS\K\KJC-12 Garfield\Map\ENV\IS\Fig1_Regional.mxd -JP

Figure 1GARFIELD RESERVOIR REPLACEMENTRegional Location Map

Project Site

I:\ArcGIS\K\KJC-12 Garfield\Map\ENV\IS\Fig2_Location.mxd -EV

Figure 2GARFIELD RESERVOIR REPLACEMENT

Project Location MapJob No: KJC-12 Date: 01/12/12

µ2,000 0 2,0001,000

Feet Source: USGS 7.5' Quadrangles; Pasadena and Los Angeles

Marengo Avenue

Garfi

eld A

venu

e

Euclid Aven

ue

Foothill

Hardison Lane

Project Site

AË

I:\ArcGIS\K\KJC-12 Garfield\Map\ENV\IS\Fig3_Aerial.mxd -EV


Aerial PhotographJob No: KJC-12 Date: 01/12/12

µ200 0 200100

Feet

I:\ArcGIS\K\KJC-12 Garfield\Map\ENV\IS\Fig4_SitePlan.indd -EV Project Site PlanGARFIELD RESERVOIR REPLACEMENT

Figure 4

August 2013 Pg. 3

office space; the remaining 2,170 s.f. would be vacant until a future use (such as conference rooms or additional offices) can be decided upon. The proposed support yard would be relocated from its existing location within the South Pasadena City Public Works Yard at 825 Mission Street, approximately one mile southwest of the project site, along with the relocation of several Water Distribution storage locations around the City. Only a portion of the office space and yard from the existing South Pasadena City Public Works yard would be relocated to the project site. The Water Distribution Yard would be expected to accommodate approximately eight workers, who would use the yard as a base of operations. These workers would typically be off site for much of the day, inspecting and maintaining water utility infrastructure throughout the City’s service area. These personnel would generate roughly 50 additional trips to/from the project site compared to existing conditions. (The number of future employees—and thus, future daily trips—could increase, based upon the future use of the extra space in the two-story building, proposed to contain the garage, storage space, and office space. If and when the City selects a future use for that additional second story space, the City would evaluate the potential traffic and other environmental effects of that use pursuant to CEQA, as applicable.) The Public Works Yard on Mission Street would remain in service (it is used for other Public Works activities in addition to those related to water service), although it would generate correspondingly fewer local traffic trips based on the shift of approximately eight workers to the new yard at Garfield Reservoir. The northern portion of the project site would include the construction of a pump station. An inlet/outlet vault would be located on the western portion of the site, between the new reservoirs and the property line adjacent to Garfield Avenue. The proposed project also includes the replacement of a storm drain within an existing easement through the adjacent Blair High School athletic field. The replacement 18-inch storm drain would connect with the on-site storm drainage system that would be constructed as part of the project and would connect to an existing Los Angeles County storm channel located with the Blair High School athletic field. Construction of the proposed project is expected to begin in fall 2013 and is expected to last for 18 months. Construction of the storm drain through the adjacent athletic field would be conducted in coordination with Pasadena Unified School District and would occur during summer when school is not in attendance. During construction, buffer areas would be provided surrounding the mature oak

August 2013 Pg. 4

trees to ensure damage to the oak trees does not occur during construction activities. Some staging for construction equipment and materials would be located off site at an area or areas to be determined. The existing connection of Garfield Reservoir to the City’s water system (the 24-inch water line in Garfield Avenue) would be capped prior to the commencement of construction activities to isolate the reservoir from the City’s water system. The connection would be restored following the completion of project construction. Over the course of project construction, approximately 2,227 haul truck trips would occur to/from the site. The debris associated with reservoir demolition would be hauled off site. The reservoir demolition would require haul of approximately 2,000 cubic yards (cy) of concrete and approximately 2,300 cy of roofing and framing materials (wood framed roof). It is estimated that 327 truck trips would be required to haul the debris off site. Approximately 7,000 cy of soil would be exported, requiring 550 truck trips. Approximately 18,000 cy of imported soil would fill the site, resulting in an estimated 1,350 truck trips. All of these truck trips would use the residential street to access the site.

9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The project site currently contains the existing Garfield Reservoir and is surrounded on the north, south, and west by a concrete block wall, and on the east by a chain link fence. The project site also contains mature oak trees, which would be preserved on site. The project site is in a residential neighborhood, with uses including single-family and multi-family residences to the north, south, and west of the site within the City of South Pasadena. To the east of the project site is an athletic field for Blair High School located within the City of Pasadena. The City of Pasadena is also north of the project site, beyond the directly adjacent residential uses. Arroyo Seco Parkway (State Route 110) passes approximately 75 feet west of the project site at its closest point.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or particular agreement):

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 4 (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) Los Angeles County Flood Control (Encroachment Permit) City of Pasadena (Encroachment Permit)

August 2013 Pg. 5

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.

Land Use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics

Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Resources Cultural Resources

Geology and Soils Hazards Recreation

Water Noise Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Air Quality Public Services Mandatory Findings of Significance

Transportation/Circulation Utilities

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 cited 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 of 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 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) “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4) “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from a “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 17, “Earlier Analysis,” 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). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.

August 2013 Pg. 6

DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation that follows: 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 although the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated”. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required but 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, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects have (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project.

Signature Date

Paul Toor, P.E.

For: City of South Pasadena

August 2013 Pg. 7

Issues Sources Potentially Significant

Issues

Potentially Significant

Unless Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than Significant

Impact

No Impact

1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan

designation or zoning? 1, 2 X

b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?

1, 2 X

c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? 3 X

d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?

1, 2, 3 X

e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community?

3 X

a) The project site is designated for “Community Facilities” land use in the City of South

Pasadena General Plan and has a “Community Facilities” zoning designation. The project site already contains the existing Garfield Reservoir and is designated for this use by the City’s General Plan and zoning map. The proposed Water Distribution support yard would also be consistent with the existing land use and zoning designations of the site. The proposed project does not include any changes to the land use or zoning designations for the site, and is consistent with current designations. No impact would occur.

b) The proposed project is consistent with zoning and land use designations for the site. The proposed project would continue the existing use of the site with a replacement reservoir, along with some ancillary uses. The additional uses proposed at the project site are consistent with the City’s land use and zoning designations for the site. The project site contains existing oak trees that are protected under the City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 34, Trees and Shrubs). Chapter 34 of the City’s Municipal Code requires protection of significant and heritage trees. See the response to 7(b) in the Biological Resources section of this Initial Study for a detailed discussion of the project’s compliance with Chapter 34 of the City’s Municipal Code. Mitigation measure BIO-2 would ensure the proposed project would have less than significant impacts associated with applicable plans or policies.

c) Existing land uses in the vicinity include single-family and multi-family residential uses and Blair High School (located within the City of Pasadena). The project site is in a residential neighborhood, with uses including single-family and multi-family residences to the north, south, and west of the site within the City of South Pasadena. The proposed

August 2013 Pg. 8

two-story building in the northern portion of the project site would not be incompatible with the adjacent multi-family residences to the north as they are two stories as well. To the east of the project site is an athletic field for Blair High School located within the City of Pasadena. The City of Pasadena is also north of the project site, beyond the directly adjacent residential uses. Arroyo Seco Parkway (State Route 110) passes approximately 75 feet west of the project site at its closest point. The existing Garfield Reservoir has been present at the project site since 1924. A new reservoir in place of the existing reservoir would not be incompatible with existing land uses in the vicinity. While the proposed project does include some components that are not currently present as the site, such as office space and the City’s Water Distribution support yard, these uses would not be incompatible to existing uses in the vicinity. The City’s existing Water Distribution Yard, which is located at 825 Mission Street and is part of the City’s Public Works Yard, is located in an area consisting of office and residential uses, and is located adjacent to a park. Relocating the Water Distribution support yard would result in some workers being present at the site and a few trucks coming and going to the yard, which would not be inconsistent with existing land uses in the project vicinity. Impacts would be less than significant.

d) The project site currently contains the existing Garfield Reservoir. No agricultural uses occur at the project site, and none are planned at the project site. There are no adjacent agricultural uses that would be impacted by the project. Additionally, no adjacent areas are designated for future agricultural uses. No impact would occur.

e) The proposed project would result in the continued use of the site as a reservoir, along with some ancillary uses. The Garfield Reservoir has been located at the site for almost 90 years. The replacement reservoir and associated uses would not disrupt or divide an established community; they would be a continuation of the uses already existing at the site. The introduction of some new components, such as the office space and Water Distribution support yard, would not result in the placement of any structures that would divide the community. No impact would occur.


Issues


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official

regional or local population projections?

X

b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)?

X

c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X

August 2013 Pg. 9

a) The proposed project does not include any housing or any employment-generating uses. Some City employees would work at the Water Distribution support yard, however, these employees are already working for the City at the existing Water Distribution support yard (located at 825 Mission Street). The proposed project would result in the creation of construction jobs; however, these jobs would be temporary in nature and would likely be filled by construction workers already living in the area. Because the proposed project does not include the construction of any housing or large employment-generating uses, it would not result in an increase in population and would therefore, not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects. No impact would occur.

b) The proposed project does not include any housing or any employment-generating uses. The proposed project is located within an area that is completely built-out. The proposed project would expand the reservoir capacity by 0.25 MG (the existing reservoir is 6.25 MG, while the new reservoirs would have a 6.5-MG capacity). The Garfield Reservoir serves as the City’s main storage reservoir. Water is delivered to the Garfield Reservoir from the Graves and Wilson reservoirs through transmission mains. Water is distributed from the Garfield Reservoir to the Raymond tank and acts as a pressure sustainer for the zone. The increase in capacity that would occur as a result of the construction of the new Garfield reservoirs would not change the capacity of the overall water system or increase water usage in the system. The proposed project does not include any extension of major infrastructure or change in water availability for City users. Thus, the new reservoirs would not induce growth indirectly, through increased water supplies or extensions of major infrastructure. No impact would occur.

c) The proposed project would not displace any existing housing. The project site currently contains the existing Garfield Reservoir, and the proposed project would be located entirely within the site. No impact would occur.


Issues


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:

a) Fault rupture? 4, 5 X b) Seismic ground shaking? 4, 5, 6 X c) Seismic ground failure, including

liquefaction? 4, 5 X

d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? 5 X

e) Landslide or mudflows? 5 X f) Erosion, changes in topography

or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?

5, 6 X

g) Subsidence of the land? 5, 6 X h) Expansive soils? 5 X i) Unique geologic or physical

features? 3, 5, 6 X

August 2013 Pg. 10

a) The City is located in a seismically active region. There are several regional faults in the area, including the Sierra Madre Fault system, the Whittier Fault, and the San Andreas fault. Additionally, there are several local faults in the area, including the Raymond Hill fault, the Eagle-Rock/San Rafael fault, the York Boulevard fault, and the Elysian Park fault. The east-west striking Raymond Hill fault, located approximately 0.1 mile south of the project site, is designated as an active fault and is an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone (Figure 5). The project site is located outside of the Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone associated with the Raymond Hill fault. The northwest-southeast striking Eagle-Rock/San Rafael fault is located directly northeast of the site (refer to previously referenced Figure 5). It is considered a potentially active fault and has been mapped within several hundred feet of the project site. While the site is located within close proximity to two faults and there are several other local and regional faults that could impact the site during a seismic event, the project site does not lie within an Alquist-Priolo fault rupture hazard zone, and no known faults or potentially active faults traverse the project site. Additionally, one of the specific goals of the proposed project is to replace a 90-year-old reservoir with modern facilities constructed to current seismic standards. Based on these factors, impacts associated with fault rupture would be less than significant.

b) As described in response 3(a), there are a number of faults in the area that could contribute to seismic ground shaking at the project site. Due to the close proximity of the project site to the Raymond Hill fault, as well as other local and regional faults, there is a high probability of ground shaking at the project site due to an earthquake. The construction of the proposed project would incorporate earthquake-resistant structural design, including structural design parameters based on the 2010 Uniform Building Code (or the 2013 Uniform Building Code, if it is established prior to the design completion of the project) and in accordance with American Water Works Association Standard D110, which is applicable to reinforced concrete reservoirs. Design of the proposed project in compliance with these standards would reduce impacts associated with ground shaking to a less than significant level.

c) According to the City’s General Plan, the City of South Pasadena is at low risk for liquefaction. Additionally, the 2005 Geotechnical Study prepared for the project site determined that the potential for liquefaction of the onsite alluvial materials is low, based on the dense to very dense nature of the onsite granular soils. Impacts associated with liquefaction would be less than significant.

d) Tsunamis are large ocean waves generated by fault displacement or major ground movement. The project site is located over 20 miles from the Pacific Ocean, and thus, is not subject to inundation from a tsunami. A seiche is a large wave generated in an enclosed body of water, often caused by ground-shaking associated with seismic activity. The project site is not located in close proximity to any significant open bodies of water, and therefore, is not likely to be impacted by a seiche. Ground shaking may cause sloshing of water in the proposed reservoirs; however, since the reservoirs would be covered, no overspill of water that could affect neighboring or downstream properties would occur.

Pasadena

South Pasadena

San Marino

Alhambra

Los Angeles

Raymond Fault

San Rafael Fault

Eagle Rock Fault

Project Site

Raymond Fault Special Study Zone

I:\ArcGIS\K\KJC-12 Garfield\Map\ENV\IS\Fig5_Fault.mxd -EV


Earthquake FaultsJob No: KJC-12 Date: 02/21/12

µ2,000 0 2,0001,000

Feet

August 2013 Pg. 11

There are no potentially active volcanoes in the project vicinity; thus, no volcanic hazards would be associated with the proposed project. No impact associated with a tsunami, seiche, or volcanic hazard would occur.

e) There are no high slopes on or adjacent to the project site. The site is not within a mapped Earthquake Induced Landslide Hazard area, according to the Seismic Hazards Zones Map published by the United States Geological Survey. The potential for earthquake-induced landslides at the project site is low. The project site contains an existing slope to the east of the reservoir, between the reservoir and the adjacent athletic field. This slope is about 15 feet high and descends to the flat athletic field. According to the 2005 Geotechnical Study, the slope consists of a combination of fill and native alluvium. The current toe of the slope is at an elevation of approximately 722 feet above mean sea level. The planned bottom of the reservoirs is approximately 720 feet above mean sea level. Due to the planned depth of the foundation of the reservoirs, the limited existing slope height, and the proposed structure type, slope stability is not anticipated to be an issue. Impacts associated with landslides and slope stability are less than significant. The project site is not located in an area prone to mudflows; thus, no impact associated with mudflows would occur.

f) The project site is relatively level and would remain relatively level following the completion of construction. That is, there would be no substantive change to the site’s topography. Project construction could have the potential to contribute to erosion, especially during a storm. Conformance with the Construction General Permit is required prior to development of applicable sites exceeding one acre (such as the project site), with this permit issued by the SWRCB under Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ (per agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Specific conformance requirements include implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), an associated Construction Site Monitoring Program (CSMP), employee training, and minimum Best Management Practices (BMPs), as well as a Rain Event Action Plan (REAP) for applicable projects (e.g., those in Risk Categories 2 or 3, as outlined below). Under the Construction General Permit, project sites are designated as Risk Level 1 through 3 based on site-specific criteria (e.g., sediment and receiving water risk), with Risk Level 3 sites requiring the most stringent controls. Based on the site-specific risk level designation, the SWPPP and related plans/efforts identify detailed measures to prevent and control the off-site discharge of pollutants in storm water runoff. Depending on the risk level, these may include mandatory technology-based action levels, effluent limitations, and advanced treatment systems (ATS). Specific pollution control measures require the use of best available technology economically achievable (BAT) and/or best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT) levels of treatment, with these requirements implemented through applicable BMPs. While site-specific measures vary with conditions such as risk level, proposed grading, and slope/soil characteristics, detailed guidance for construction-related BMPs is provided in the permit and related local standards, as well as additional sources including the EPA National Menu of Best Management Practices for Storm Water Phase II (USEPA 2010b), and Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbooks (California Stormwater Quality Association [CASQA] 2009). Specific requirements for the proposed project under this permit would be

August 2013 Pg. 12

determined during SWPPP development, after completion of project plans and application submittal to the SWRCB. Examples of BMPs that may be implanted at the site, pending preparation of the SWPPP and associated documents, include using erosion-control/stabilizing measures such as geotextiles, mulching, mats, plastic sheets/tarps (discouraged if possible), fiber rolls, soil binders, compost blankets, soil roughening, and/or temporary hydroseeding (or other plantings) in appropriate locations, including graded areas. BMPs could also include using sediment controls in applicable construction areas prevent off-site sediment transport—specific measures may include temporary inlet filters, silt fences, fiber rolls, silt dikes, biofilter bags, gravel bags, compost bags/berms, temporary sediment basins, check dams, street sweeping/vacuuming, advanced treatment systems (if applicable based on risk assessment), energy dissipators, stabilized construction access points/sediment stockpiles, and properly fitted covers for sediment transport vehicles. Once construction is complete, there would be relatively little exposed soil on the generally flat project site, with a correspondingly small potential for erosion. As described above, fill would be brought to the site during construction. This fill would meet engineering specifications required to support the planned new reservoirs, and there would be no unstable soil conditions that would adversely affect the project. Less than significant impact would occur.

g) Standard construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) would be implemented during and after construction activities to ensure that erosion of exposed soils would not occur. The existing Garfield Reservoir has experienced settlement and unstable soil conditions in the past (a reservoir failure occurred during the filling of the reservoir in 1924, resulting in flooding in the eastern part of the City). Documented leaks have also occurred in recent history, in particular around the southwestern portion of the reservoir. According to the 2005 Geotechnical Study of the Garfield Reservoir, these leaks are likely a result of settlement caused by collapse of buried porous topsoil or uncompacted fill beneath the southern portion of the reservoir. The proposed project includes the import of suitable fill material to the site, and the removal of unsuitable material that is present at the site. With project construction activities that would include the implementation of BMPs, the incorporation of the geotechnical study findings, and the use of imported soils when appropriate, impacts associated with erosion, changes in topography, and unstable soil conditions would be less than significant.

h) The Garfield Reservoir has experienced some subsidence along the perimeter of the reservoir. According to the 2005 Geotechnical Study, depressions are visible outside of the reservoir along the southern side, and are most likely a result of past subsidence. As discussed in relation to unstable soil conditions in response 3(f) above, the proposed project would include the import of suitable fill to the site, and the removal of unsuitable material. The 2005 Geotechnical Study and 2010 update to the Geotechnical Study provide grading and site development recommendations to ensure soils at the site are prepared in a suitable nature. The incorporation of these recommendations into project design and planning ensure impacts associated with subsidence would be less than significant.

August 2013 Pg. 13

i) According to the 2005 Geotechnical Study, low to moderately expansive soils are expected to be present on site. Expansive soils change in volume (shrink or swell) due to changes in moisture content of the soil. In addition to the expansive potential of the soil, the amount of change in the volume depends on the availability of water, the restraining pressure, and time. The incorporation of recommendations from the 2005 Geotechnical Study and 2010 update to the Geotechnical Study into project design and planning ensure that soils at the project site would be prepared in a manner suitable for siting of the proposed uses. For this reason, impacts associated with subsidence would be less than significant.

j) The project site is already developed and contains the existing Garfield Reservoir. There are no unique physical or geologic features present at the project site. No impact would occur.


Issues


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates,

drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?

X

b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding?

4 X

c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality?

7 X

d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? X

e) Changes in the course or direction of water movement? X

f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability?

5 X

g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? 5 X

h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X i) Substantial reduction in the

amount of local groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies?

X

August 2013 Pg. 14

j) A significantly environmentally harmful increase in the flow rate or volume of stormwater runoff?

X

k) A significantly environmentally harmful increase in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas?

X

l) Storm water discharges that would significantly impair the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g. riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.)?

X

m) Harm to biological integrity of drainage systems and water bodies?

X

a) The proposed project would result in changes to the drainage pattern on the project site.

Because the project site is already graded and in use as a developed property, drainage changes would not be substantial. Drainage design would be incorporated into the development of the site, and would include on-site treatment of stormwater prior to discharge into the Los Angeles County storm drain located under the adjacent Blair High School athletic field. The project site would be developed and sloped in such a manner as to drain towards the center of the site. Swales would collect stormwater from the site and direct flows to the 12-foot area between the two proposed reservoirs. Drainage would be directed to the manhole near the western boundary of the site, and then along the replaced 18-inch storm drain (replacement of the existing storm drain is part of the proposed project) to the existing Los Angeles County storm drain. Minor increase in impervious area would occur at the project site; however, the southern portion of the site (excluding the area proposed for the southerly reservoir) would remain unpaved. Impacts associated with drainage changes would be less than significant.

b) The entire City is designated as Zone C on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Zone C designates areas of minimal flooding. There are no floodplains located within the City, and thus, the proposed project is not subject to flood hazards associated with floodplains. The proposed project includes the construction of two enclosed reservoirs with a capacity of 6.5 MG. The presence of the reservoirs presents a potential source of flood hazard associated with failure of the reservoirs. However, the proposed project would reduce the potential for failure of the reservoirs by constructing the two new reservoirs using current seismic standards. The existing structure was constructed almost 90 years ago and is more susceptible to failure than newly constructed reservoirs would be. Thus, the proposed project would reduce the potential for flood hazards associated with the reservoir. Impacts would be less than significant.

August 2013 Pg. 15

c) The Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) of the State Water Resources

Control Board are responsible for administering the Federal Clean Water Act on a regional level. Each of the RWQCBs has standards and waste discharge requirements for water quality that must be met during construction and during the life of a project. The City of South Pasadena is within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB, which has adopted water quality objectives in its Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SQMP). The SQMP is designed to ensure that stormwater is in compliance with receiving water limitations. Stormwater generated by a development that complies with the SQMP does not exceed the limitations of receiving waters, and thus does not exceed water quality standards. Section 402 of the Clean Water Act ensures compliance with the SQMP. According to Section 402, municipalities are required to obtain Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) permits for the water pollution generated by stormwater in their jurisdiction. Los Angeles County and 85 incorporated Cities therein (including the City of South Pasadena) obtained an MS4 permit from the Los Angeles RWQCB, most recently in 2001. With this MS4, each permitted municipality is required to implement the SQMP. In addition, as required by the MS4 permit, the City of South Pasadena has adopted a Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Control Ordinance (Ordinance 2107, Chapter 23 of the City’s Municipal Code) to ensure that new developments comply with SQMP. The proposed project would add typical, urban, non-point-source pollutants to stormwater runoff (e.g., oil and grease, sediment). As discussed, these pollutants are permitted by the County-wide MS4 permit, and would not exceed any receiving water limitations. Compliance with the MS4 permit would ensure that the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Thus, impacts associated with surface water quality would be less than significant.

d) The Project would connect to existing sewer facilities, and there would be no discharges into surface waters during the operation of the project. Construction of the proposed project would require grading and excavation activities, which may allow eroded soils and other pollutants to enter drainage systems. A construction project resulting in the disturbance of one acre or more requires a standard NPDES permit. The City or its contractor would be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to identify and implement BMPs to reduce impacts to surface water from contaminated storm water discharges. In accordance with the NPDES, the project would be required to comply with NPDES and SWPPP requirements regarding the implementation of BMPs during construction. Compliance with these requirements would ensure that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on surface waters or water quality.

e) No construction would occur within or directly adjacent to any water bodies; thus, the proposed project would not result in changes in the course or direction of water movement. No impact would occur.

August 2013 Pg. 16

f) Groundwater was encountered at the project site during soil borings associated with the 2005 Geotechnical Study for the site. Groundwater was encountered at varying depths, ranging from 20 to 50 feet below ground surface. The 2005 Geotechnical Study notes that groundwater elevations may be affected by leakage from the reservoir that has occurred. The potential for perched groundwater to be encountered above impermeable layers within the fill, alluvium, and bedrock of the site is present. Construction dewatering would likely be required for the proposed project. Construction dewatering would require a Construction Dewatering Permit from the RWQCB. All dewatering would be completed consistent with permit requirements. Substantial changes in groundwater quantity would not occur as a result of the proposed project and any associated dewatering; consequently, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant.

g) The depth of the proposed reservoir is 10 feet below grade. While there is potential for perched groundwater to be encountered above impermeable layers within the fill, alluvium, and bedrock of the site (refer to discussion 4(f) above), the placement of the reservoir is not expected to alter the direction or rate of flow of groundwater. Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 20 to 50 feet below grade surface. The placement of the proposed reservoir would not impact flow or direction of groundwater below the site. Impacts would be less than significant.

h) The implementation of BMPs during project construction would serve to protect groundwater quality. Any storage of hazardous materials during construction or operation of the project would be consistent with state and federal regulatory requirements to prevent leaks into storm drains or groundwater. The operation of the proposed project does not include any components that would result in impacts to groundwater quality. Impacts associated with groundwater quality would be less than significant.

i) While the proposed project slightly increases the capacity of the Garfield Reservoir (from the existing 6.25 MG to 6.5 MG), it would not result in increases of groundwater usage. Additionally, all water stored at the Garfield Reservoir is part of the public water supply for the City of South Pasadena. No impact would occur.

j) Drainage associated with the proposed project has been designed to ensure that a harmful increase in the flow rate or volume of runoff would not occur. Refer to response 4(a) above. Impacts would be less than significant.

k) Refer to response 4(d) above. The proposed project would be required to adhere to established water quality requirements, including the preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of BMPs. Adherence to these requirements would ensure that a significantly harmful increase in erosion would not occur. Impacts would be less than significant.

l) Storm water runoff and discharge are regulated by a number of regulatory requirements.

Implementation of a SWPPP and BMPs would ensure that storm water discharges would not significantly impair the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water

August 2013 Pg. 17

quality benefits. No wetlands or riparian habitat is present at the project site. Impacts would be less than significant.

m) Refer to response 4(l) above. Compliance with existing requirements would ensure that the proposed project would not harm the biological integrity of drainage systems and water bodies. Impacts would be less than significant.


Issues


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard

or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?

X

b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?

X

c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate?

X

d) Create objectionable odors? X

a) The project site is within the South Coast Air Basin. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the local agency responsible for the administration and enforcement of air quality regulations in this basin. Operational emissions generated from the proposed project would include emissions associated with the operation of the reservoirs (including the pump station) and emissions associated with activity of the City’s relocated Water Distribution support yard. Both the Garfield Reservoir and the Water Distribution support yard are existing uses in the City (and the South Coast Air Basin). While the proposed project may result in a slight increase in operational emission above those existing with the current Garfield Reservoir and Water Distribution support yard, any increase in daily operational emissions above existing levels associated with these uses would be small and negligible. Therefore, impacts associated with operational emissions would be less than significant. The SCAQMD has developed the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) that establishes suggested significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted. According to the Handbook, any project in the SCAQMD with daily construction emissions that exceed any of the following thresholds should be considered to have a significant air quality impact:

• 75 pounds per day of volatile organic compounds (VOC); • 100 pounds per day of oxides of nitrogen (NOX); • 550 pounds per day of carbon monoxide (CO); • 150 pounds per day of oxides of sulfur (SOX); • 150 pounds per day of particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in

August 2013 Pg. 18

diameter (PM10); and • 55 pounds per day of particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5).

During project construction, emissions associated with fugitive dust and exhaust from demolition activities, grading activities, and construction equipment would be generated. Construction emissions were calculated for the proposed project and are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 GARFIELD RESERVOIR CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

Emission Source CO VOC NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 Construction Equipment 39.83 11.31 89.65 0.09 4.94 4.55 Demolition Materials Handling - - - - 0.0512 0.0512

Demolition Fugitive Dust (worst-case) - - - - 24.32 24.32

Total 39.83 11.31 89.65 0.09 29.31 28.92 Threshold 550 75 100 150 150 55

Significant Impact? No No No No No No As shown in Table 1, project construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for any pollutants. Project construction would employ dust control measures as required by SCAQMD Rule 403 and would not result in emissions that would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, nor result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of PM10 and PM2.5. In addition, construction emissions would be temporary and localized within the immediate project vicinity. Therefore, project construction emissions would result in a less than significant impact to air quality. With regard to cumulative impacts, the proposed project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant air quality impact. As noted above, the proposed project’s construction emissions would be below the thresholds set by the SCAQMD, which is responsible for ensuring that the South Coast Air Basin achieves compliance with federal and state air quality standards. Also as noted above, once construction is complete, there would not be a net increase in operational emissions because worker trips would simply be relocated from one yard to another within the area. Based on these factors, the proposed project would not prevent the SCAQMD from achieving compliance with air quality standards or otherwise make a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional air quality.

b) Sensitive receptors are defined as populations that are more susceptible to the effects of pollution than the population at large. Sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, and athletic facilities. Sensitive receptors in the project area include nearby residences and the adjacent Blair High School. Any project which has the potential to directly impact a sensitive receptor located within one mile and results in a health risk

August 2013 Pg. 19

greater than ten in one million would be deemed to have a potentially significant impact. Construction activities would generate diesel emissions from construction equipment. Construction is expected to occur for approximately 18 months. Diesel exhaust particulate matter is known to the state of California as a carcinogenic compound. The risks associated with exposure to substances with carcinogenic effects are typically evaluated based on a lifetime of chronic exposure, which is defined in the California Air Pollution Control Officers’ Association Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program Risk Assessment Guidelines as 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year, for 70 years. While toxic air contaminants (TACs) can have long-term and/or short-term effects, diesel TAC has been shown by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to have little or no short-term impact. The CARB determined that the chronic impact of diesel particulate matter was of more concern than the acute impact in the Risk Management Guidance for the Permitting of New Stationary Diesel-Fueled Engines (CARB 2000). In that document, CARB noted that “Our analysis shows that the potential cancer risk from inhalation is the critical path when comparing cancer and non-cancer risk. In other words, a cancer risk of 10 cases per million from the inhalation of diesel particulate matter (PM) will result from diesel PM concentrations that are much less than the diesel PM or TAC concentrations that would result in chronic or acute non-cancer hazard index values of 1 or greater.” Consequently, any analysis of diesel TAC should focus on the long-term, chronic cancer risk posed by diesel emissions. Chronic cancer risk is normally measured by assessing what the risk to an exposed individual from a source of TACs would be if the exposure occurred over 70 years. Diesel exhaust particulate matter would be emitted from heavy construction equipment during the project’s 18-month construction period. Because diesel exhaust particulate matter is considered to be carcinogenic, long-term exposure to diesel exhaust emissions have the potential to result in adverse health impacts. Because of the short-term nature of project construction, exposure to diesel exhaust emissions during construction would be less than significant and no further analysis is required. As discussed in response 5(a), operational emissions associated with the proposed project would result in only a minimal increase above existing levels. Impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant.

c) The proposed project does not include any component which would alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate. No impact would occur.

d) The project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. The proposed project has the potential to generate objectionable odors in the form of volatile organic compounds during the application of architectural coatings (painting) and during asphalt application, as well as diesel exhaust during construction of the project. However, any odors generated during construction activities would be short-term, and would be limited to the immediate area of usage. Project construction would employ best available control measures as required by SCAQMD Rule 1113 for architectural coatings and SCAQMD Rule 1120 for asphalt pavements, and would not result in VOC emissions that would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, nor result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of VOC. Compliance with these rules would ensure odor impacts associated with construction activities would remain less than significant. Odors

August 2013 Pg. 20

during the long-term operation of the site would be associated with the operation of the proposed project, including the proposed on-site rechlorination. The proposed on-site rechlorination would generate some odors, but the materials associated with rechlorination would be stored in its own separate room within the pump station building. For this reason, odors would not be noticeable beyond the property boundaries. Impacts associated with odors would be less than significant.


Issues


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:

a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?

X

b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?

X

c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?

X

d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?

X

e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?

X

f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

X

g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?

X

a) The proposed project would result in vehicle trips to and from the project site during the

construction period and the long-term operation of the site. Truck trips associated with construction would include trucks associated with earthwork (import and export of soil to/from the site) and trucks removing demolition debris from the site. Earthwork would require an estimated 550 truck trips to remove unsuitable soil from the site, and an estimated 1,350 truck trips to import suitable fill to the site. The removal of debris from the construction site would require approximately 327 truck trips. The truck trips associated with debris removal and earthwork would not occur at the same time. It is estimated that the hauling of debris material from the site would occur over the 21 working days of one calendar month, resulting in approximately 16 truck trips per day, or an average of two truck trips per hour (based on an eight-hour work day). It is estimated that the truck trips associated with earthwork activities would occur over the 63 working days of three calendar months, resulting in 30 trips per day, or an average of

August 2013 Pg. 21

3 to 4 trips per hour (based on an eight-hour work day). The addition of these temporary truck trips to area roadways would not result in significant traffic congestion or contribute to a substantial increase in traffic. Operational traffic associated with the proposed project would consist primarily of workers whose trips are redirected to the project site from the existing Public Works Yard on Mission Street. Assuming that each of the eight anticipated workers reporting to the new Water Distribution Yard at Garfield Reservoir generates approximately six trips per day, the total number of daily trips generated by the facility would be roughly 50. Peak levels of traffic would occur at the start and end of each day, when the workers would typically arrive at Garfield Reservoir in their cars and then depart in City-owned utility trucks in the morning, and reverse this process in the late afternoon/evening. This would add approximately 16 trips to the local area in the morning and evening commutes. The local road network could easily accommodate this level of traffic, and it should also be noted that there would be a corresponding reduction in trips to/from the Public Works Yard at Mission Street. Based on the relatively minor volume of trips involved, the proposed new Water Distribution Yard at Garfield Reservoir would not result in significant traffic congestion or contribute to a substantial increase in traffic. It should be noted that the number of future employees (and thus, future daily trips) could increase, based upon the future use of the extra space in the two-story building, proposed to contain the garage, storage space, and office space. If and when the City selects a future use for that additional second story space, the City would evaluate the potential traffic pursuant to CEQA, as applicable.

b) The proposed project would not result in hazards to safety from design features. The

project would occur on an existing developed site in a residential neighborhood. The project includes the installation of a new driveway for site access, located near the northwestern corner of the property. The driveway access would be designed to allow for appropriate visibility of vehicles on Garfield Avenue, and would not include any design hazards. The project would not change the road alignment of any roadways, and would not involve sharp curves, dangerous intersections, or incompatible uses. No impact would occur.

c) The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access not would it restrict emergency access to nearby uses. Garfield Avenue is a cul-de-sac in a residential area. The proposed construction at the project site would maintain access for the residences north of the project site. While there may be partial lane closures or blockages (due to construction equipment or materials staging), through access would be maintained for residents to access other City roads via Garfield Avenue. Any partial lane closures or blockages would be accompanied by appropriate signage. The proposed project would not cause any interference or closures on major area thoroughfares, and would not restrict movement of emergency vehicles through the City. Thus, no impact associated with emergency access would occur.

d) The proposed project includes a garage with eight bays and five additional outside parking stalls (including a handicap space). In addition to the on-site parking, there is

August 2013 Pg. 22

nearly 400 feet of street-side parking along the edge of the reservoir on Garfield Avenue. The eight garage bays would accommodate the City trucks stored at the yard, and the on-site parking stalls and street-side parking would be adequate to accommodate the City employees and visitors to the facility. Accordingly, parking impacts would be less than significant.

e) The proposed project would be contained entirely within the project site (with the exception of the proposed storm drain to be located under the adjacent athletic field at Blair High School). Similar to the current configuration of the site, the project site would be surrounded by a concrete block wall. No access to the site would be provided to the public. The storm drain would be constructed, in coordination with the Pasadena Unified School District, when school is not in session, and thus, would not affect pedestrians or bicyclists. The project would not present hazards or barriers to bicyclists or pedestrians. No impact would occur.

f) As noted above, the proposed project would provide a base of operations for approximately 8 employees and generate roughly 50 trips per day on local roads; no increase in regional traffic levels is anticipated because vehicle trips associated with the new Water Distribution Yard at Garfield Reservoir would be offset by a reduction in trips to/from the existing Public Works Yard on Mission Street. The project site is accessed from Garfield Avenue near this road’s northern terminus (i.e., Garfield Avenue is a “dead end” road in this location), and this section of Garfield Avenue does not contain a bus stop or provide through access for any public transportation. The proposed project would not increase the number of workers or residents within the City, and there are no policies that would require bus turnouts, bicycle racks, or alternative transportation at this facility. No impact would occur.

g) The proposed project would not result in any impacts to rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts. There are no railroad lines in the immediate project vicinity. The project is not located along any waterways, and does not propose any construction of sufficient height to affect air traffic. No impact would occur.


Issues


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

7. BIOLOGICAL. Would the proposal result in impacts to:

a) Federally endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)?

X

b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? 7 X

August 2013 Pg. 23

c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?

X

d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?

X

e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?

X

a) The project site is already developed and is located within an urbanized area. No habitat

for federally endangered, threatened, or rare species is located at the site. However, mature oak trees are present at the project site (refer to more detailed discussion in response 7(b) below) which could contain nesting birds. Nesting birds including raptors are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). This law protects migratory birds including prohibitions on the destruction of active nests during the bird nesting season, generally from February through August. Impacts to active nests would be a potentially significant impact, requiring mitigation. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

BIO-1. Commencement of construction activities (including any vegetation removal) at the project site shall be conducted outside of the bird nesting season (the nesting season lasts February through August). Alternatively, a preconstruction survey shall be conducted to identify and locate all active bird nests at the project site. To ensure that construction does not result in the destruction or abandonment of an active nest, construction activities shall avoid active nests and a surrounding buffer zone. The size and shape of the buffer zone shall be determined by a qualified biologist and shall be dependent on factors that may affect the involved bird species. These restrictions shall apply until the end of the nesting season or until it can be shown that the birds have completed nesting activities at the project site.

b) The project site contains existing oak trees that are protected under the City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 34, Trees and Shrubs). Chapter 34 of the City’s Municipal Code requires protection of significant and heritage trees. Significant trees are those that have a diameter, measured at four feet above natural grade, of one foot or more. Heritage trees are trees of historical value because of its associated with a place, building, natural feature of the land, or en event of local, regional, or national historic significance. An arborist conducted a tree survey at the project site and identified trees that would be retained and protected at the site, consistent with City code. All trees identified for protection on the project site are significant trees; there are no heritage trees located on the project site. The trees requiring preservation on the project site are located along the eastern and southern boundaries of the site. Along the eastern boundary, a 36-inch oak tree and an 18-inch oak tree require preservation. These trees are currently located beyond a chain-link fence on the site, along the slope separating the remainder of the project site, including the Garfield Reservoir, and the adjacent high school athletic field. The existing chain link fence would remain in place (in the areas near the oak trees)

August 2013 Pg. 24

during project construction, protecting the trees along the eastern boundary area. Three 10-inch oak trees and one 14-inch oak tree are located along the southern boundary of the site and require preservation. There are no trees in the western or northern portions of the site that require preservation. The trees requiring protection per the City’s Municipal Ordinance have been identified by a certified arborist prior to project planning, and all trees required to be protected have been avoided in the site planning process. If construction activities encroach into the areas required for protection, the proposed project would result in a significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-2 would ensure impacts remain less than significant.

BIO-2. Prior to the commencement of construction activities, a qualified arborist shall delineate, using orange construction fencing or some other visible marker, areas requiring disturbance avoidance to protect significant trees. The fencing or other marker used to delineate these areas shall remain in place during the construction period to ensure these areas are avoided. No disturbance shall occur within the areas delineated by the certified arborist.

c) The project site does not contain any locally designated natural communities. No impact would occur.

d) The project site is developed and does not contain any wetland habitat. No impact would occur.

e) The project site is developed and located in an urbanized area. Surrounding uses include residences and a high school. No wildlife dispersal or migration corridors occur on the project site. Thus, no impact would occur as a result of the proposed project.


Issues


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:

a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 4 X

b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?

X

c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State?

X

August 2013 Pg. 25

a) The proposed project consists of components that already exist in the City (the Garfield

Reservoir and the City’s Water Distribution support yard). The proposed project would not significantly alter or worsen the energy efficiency of these existing uses (and is likely to improve it by replacing older equipment, such as the pumps, with more efficient units). The City does not currently have an adopted energy conservation plan, but the General Plan includes an energy conservation policy (Policy 8: Encourage the conservation of energy). The proposed project would not interfere or conflict with the City’s energy conservation policy. No impact would occur.

b) Construction of the proposed project would result in expenditures of natural resources (e.g., construction materials) and oil-based energy products (e.g., fuel); however, their use would not cause a significant reduction in available supplies in the local or regional economy. Operation of the proposed project would likewise result in the use of natural resources; however, the project is a replacement of existing uses (Garfield Reservoir and the relocation of the City’s Water Distribution support yard from another location in the City). While there are some minor differences between the existing uses and the new uses, these differences would not be substantially different than the existing uses and would not result in substantially greater use of non-renewable resources. Non-renewable resources would not be used in a wasteful or inefficient manner during construction or operation of the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant.

c) The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The project site is already in use for the existing Garfield Reservoir. No mineral resources are present at the site. No impact would occur.


Issues


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental

explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)?

X

b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

X

c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard?

X

August 2013 Pg. 26

d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards?

8 X

e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees?

4 X

a) Hazardous materials such as fuel, lubricants, solvents, and cleaning products would be

used on the project site during construction activities, and a potential exists for an accidental release of hazardous substances. The quantities of hazardous materials present during project construction would be typical of construction activities. Additionally, during the long-term operation of the project, similar hazardous materials (fuel, lubricants, solvents, and cleaning products) would be present as part of activities associated with the Water Distribution support yard. These materials would be present in amounts similar to those utilized at the existing Water Distribution support yard, and would be stored and handled pursuant to applicable laws and regulations regulating the safe use, storage, and disposal of these materials. Due to the minimal amount of hazardous materials that would be needed for the construction and operation of the project, and because the use of these materials would be conducted in accordance with all applicable state and federal laws, the potential for an accidental release would be small. For this reason, impacts associated with a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances would be less than significant.

b) The proposed project would not interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan. Garfield Avenue is a cul-de-sac in a residential area and is not designated as an evacuation route. Because it is a cul-de-sac, residents would not attempt to use Garfield Avenue (adjacent to the project site) as an escape route during an emergency evacuation. The proposed construction at the project site would maintain access for the residences north of the project site. While there may be partial lane closures or blockages (due to construction equipment or materials), through access would be maintained for residents to access other City roads via Garfield Avenue. Any partial lane closures or blockages would be accompanied by appropriate signage. The proposed project would not cause any interference or closures on major area thoroughfares, and would not restrict movement of emergency vehicles through the City. Thus, no impact associated with emergency response or evacuation plans would occur.

c) The proposed reservoirs would replace the almost 90-year-old Garfield Reservoir. The proposed project would serve to improve the impacts associated with health hazards by ensuring the Garfield Reservoir would be rebuilt to current seismic standards. The project would improve the integrity of the reservoir and reduce the potential for leakage or failure. A potential failure could impact the City’s water supply; thus, the proposed project reduces the potential for health hazards associated by improving the integrity of the Garfield Reservoir. Impacts would be less than significant.

d) Potential health hazards are often associated with contamination. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) was developed to protect the water, air, and land resources from the risk created by past

August 2013 Pg. 27

chemical disposal practices. The Environmental Protection Agency maintains the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), which is an inventory of all contaminated sites in the nation that have or are currently undergoing contamination clean-up actions. CERCLIS contains information on current hazardous waste sites, potential hazardous waste sites, and remedial activities. EnviroStar provides information on investigation, cleanup, permitting, and/or corrective actions that are planned, being conducted or have been completed with oversight of the Department of Toxic Substances Control. There are no CERCLIS-listed sites within or directly adjacent to the project site. In addition, no other hazardous materials sites are located within or adjacent to the project site as identified by the State of California EnviroStar mapping system. As there are no properties within or adjacent to the project site identified as hazardous materials sites, no impact associated with contaminated sites would occur. Given the age of the Garfield Reservoir, there is potential for asbestos-containing material and lead-based paint to be present at the site. Demolition of materials containing these contaminants could release them into the environment, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

HAZ-1. Prior to the issuance of demolition permits, the City or its contractor shall retain a State-certified asbestos professional to survey the project site and determine whether sampling for asbestos-containing material is warranted. Any abatement or removal of asbestos-containing material shall be performed in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. HAZ-2. Prior to the issuance of demolition permits, the City or its contractor shall retain a State-certified lead professional to survey the site structures and determine whether sampling for lead-based paint is warranted. Any abatement or removal of lead-based paint must be performed in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

e) The threat of wildfire in the City is low. The project site is already developed and is regularly maintained to keep brush and flammable materials cleared from the site. The proposed project would not increase fire hazards at the site. No impact would occur.


Issues


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise

levels? 7, 9 X

b) Exposure to severe noise levels? 7, 9 X

August 2013 Pg. 28

a) An Acoustical Site Assessment Report (HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc., February

2012) was prepared to determine the project’s noise impacts. Noise-sensitive land uses are located adjacent to the project site in all directions. Residential uses are located to the north, west (beyond Garfield Avenue), and south of the project, and the athletic field for Blair High School is located to the east of the project. Sources of noise in the project area include State Route 110 to west of the project site, beyond Garfield Avenue and single-family residential dwelling units. State Route 110 is a heavily traveled freeway and is the dominant source of noise in the project area. The other adjacent uses do not generate substantial noise. Noise measurements were conducted on the project site, and between Garfield Avenue and State Route 110, to determine the existing noise levels in the project area. The measured noise level between Garfield Avenue and State Route 110 over a 15-minute period was 58.2 dBA LEQ. A 24-hour noise measurement was also taken at the site, near the eastern boundary, at the top of the slope separating the project site from the adjacent athletic field. Measured noise levels on the project site range from between 43.3 decibels (dBA) and 60.4 dBA, with the loudest noise levels recorded during morning rush hour, and a smaller peak recorded around noon; noise levels were lowest in the early morning hours. The City of South Pasadena notes that certain noise impacts should be determined based on project-related changes from “ambient noise levels.” However, the City of South Pasadena does not specifically define “ambient noise levels”; therefore, a reasonable basis for calculating ambient noise was used for the noise analysis. To determine ambient noise levels, the noise level measurements from 12:00 a.m. (midnight) through 4:00 a.m. were averaged, resulting in a 46.3 dBA LEQ (time-averaged noise levels; in this case, averaged over a 4-hour period) noise level. This 46.3 dBA noise level is used as the ambient noise level at the Project site for this analysis. It assumes a worst-case scenario by setting the ambient noise level as the quietest measured period. Site construction would include the demolition of existing site facilities including the below ground concrete portions of the reservoir, as well as the construction of new reservoir structures and a pump station. Site construction would entail the use of heavy equipment throughout the site for the full term of construction. All phases of project construction would create noise. However, the demolition of the existing reservoir using a breaker (and the associated loader piling and loading of debris into a dump truck for removal from the site) would be the single loudest construction activity for an extended time period. The calculated hourly noise level associated with this activity at a representative residential receiver location (the residence adjacent to the north) is 85.6 dBA LEQ. The noise level at the edge of the school track at Blair High School to the east would be approximately 60 dBA LEQ. The City of South Pasadena does not limit construction noise levels at residential location during the daytime hours, as specified in the City’s Municipal Code, Chapter 19 (Section 19A.13 Construction of buildings and projects). Construction activities would be temporary in nature, would occur in compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance, and would occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday,

August 2013 Pg. 29

and between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Sunday, as required by the City’s Municipal Code. For these reasons, impacts associated with construction noise levels would be less than significant. The proposed project would generate haul truck traffic on nearby roadways during the removal of demolition debris, and the import/export of soil. Large haul trucks would be used, with capacities of approximately 13 cy each. Approximately 2,000 cy of concrete and approximately 2,300 cy of roofing and framing materials would be removed from the project site during the demolition phase of the project, resulting in approximately 327 truck trips. Approximately 7,000 cy of earthwork would be hauled away in 550 truck trips, and 18,000 cy of fill would be imported to the site in 1,350 truck trips. Haul truck traffic noise impacts were calculated, and assumed that all of project haul truck traffic would travel on each of the roadway segments listed in Table 2. The highest traffic noise levels at residences adjacent to nearby streets would occur on either Garfield Avenue south of Clark Place, or Grevalia Street/Clark Place west of Garfield Avenue, both of which would experience hourly noise levels of 56.1 dBA LEQ during the daytime construction hours. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour average A-weighted hourly sound level for a given day. The CNEL corresponding to an 8-hour 56.1 dBA LEQ during daytime hours is 51.3 CNEL. Compared to the most-restrictive “normally acceptable” 60 CNEL limit for single-family residential land uses in the City of South Pasadena (as identified in Chapter 19A of the City’s Municipal Code), traffic noise impacts from the proposed project’s haul truck trip traffic would be an inaudible difference that is less than significant.

Table 2

HAUL TRUCK TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS

Roadway Segment Speed Limit Roadway Centerline-to-Residence Distance

Hourly Noise Level

Garfield Avenue North of Clark Place 25 mph 40 feet 55.3 dBA LEQ

Garfield Avenue South of Clark Place 30 mph 35 feet 56.1 dBA LEQ

Grevalia Street/Clark Place West of Garfield Avenue 30 mph 35 feet 56.1 dBA LEQ

Increases in the existing noise level could also be associated with the proposed operation of the site. Normal truck traffic entering and exiting the site during daily operations, associated parking lot noise, and Water Distribution support yard proposed at the site would not result in a detectable noise increase to surrounding areas. The greatest potential source of noise associated with the operation of the site would occur as a result of the on-site pump station. There is an existing pump station at the project site; however, it is below grade. The proposed pump station would be located above grade on the northerly portion of the site, between the northernmost reservoir and the distribution building. Noise levels associated with the pump station were modeled at the property

August 2013 Pg. 30

line to the north, west, and east of the pump station. Noise levels were measures at these three locations ranging from 40.0 dBA LEQ to 47.1 dBA LEQ. When combined with the ambient noise level in the project area (46.3 dBA), the resultant noise level would be 49.9 dBA (under the decibel scale, a doubling of sound energy corresponds to a 3-dB increase; refer to the Acoustical Site Assessment Report for a more detailed explanation regarding the addition of decibels). This is below the level of significance identified in the City of South Pasadena’s Municipal Code. For these reasons, impacts associated with operational noise would be less than significant.

b) As discussed in response 10(a) above, the single loudest construction activity associated with the project would occur during the use of the breaker, loading piler, and loading of concrete debris into trucks for removal. This would result in the exposure of nearby residences to noise levels up to 85.6 dBA LEQ. However, these noise levels would be temporary in nature and would only occur for a short period of time near the beginning of project construction (during demolition of the existing reservoir). Further, construction activities would only occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Sunday, as specified in the City’s Municipal Code. Noise associated with construction truck traffic and operation of the proposed project would not result in noise levels in excess of established City standards. For these reasons, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant.


Issues


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas:

a) Fire protection? 4 X b) Police protection? 4 X c) Schools? X d) Maintenance of public

facilities, including roads?

X

e) Other governmental services?

X

a) The South Pasadena Fire Department provides fire protection services within the City.

Fire protection needs at the Garfield Reservoir would be similar to services already required at the existing reservoir. While additional structures would be present on site, fire protection requirements would be similar to those at the existing Water Distribution support yard. The project site is located in an urbanized area that is currently served by the South Pasadena Fire Department. The proposed project would not result in a need for new or altered fire protection services. No impact would occur.

August 2013 Pg. 31

b) Police services in the City are provided by South Pasadena Police Department. Similar to fire protection services (discussed in response 11(a) above), the proposed project would not result in the need for new or altered police services. Uses proposed at the project site would be similar to those already existing at the project site and those existing at the City’s Water Distribution support yard. There are no uses proposed that would increase the need for police protection. No impact would occur.

c) The proposed project does not include any permanent job-generating uses or residential structures, so it would not result in any increase in school-aged children in the City or at area schools. The project site is located adjacent to the Blair High School athletic field. The proposed project includes the construction of a storm drain located within an existing easement through the athletic field. This construction would be conducted in coordination with Pasadena Unified School District and would occur during summer when school is not in attendance. Because construction would occur when school is not in attendance, impacts would be less than significant.

d) The proposed project would not result in any changes to the population in the area, nor would it involve any additional wear and tear on public facilities. No impact to other public facilities would occur.

e) The proposed project would not result in any changes to the population in the area, nor would it involve any increase in demand for other governmental services. No impact would occur.


Issues


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities:

a) Power or natural gas? X b) Communication

systems? X

c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities?

X

d) Sewer or septic tanks? X e) Storm water drainage? X f) Solid waste disposal? 10 X g) Local or regional water

supplies? X

a) The proposed project would require the use of power and natural gas during the

construction and operational phases of the project. However, both the Garfield Reservoir and the City’s Water Distribution support yard are existing uses in the City that use power and natural gas. Since the proposed project would replace existing uses, it is not

August 2013 Pg. 32

expected to substantially alter or increase the usage of natural gas or power. The project site is in a developed area that is already served by existing utilities. There is a power pole present on the site that would be relocated as part of the project and an additional power pole that would remain in place. The temporary power loss that would occur during the relocation of the pole would be limited to the project site and would not affect nearby residences. Impacts associated with power and natural gas usage would be less than significant.

b) The proposed project is located in a developed area that is currently served by communication systems. The project does not propose any uses that would result in a population increase or require the provision of communication systems to a previously unserved area. No impact would occur.

c) The proposed project would result in improvements to the City’s water distribution system by bringing the Garfield Reservoir up to current seismic standards. The new reservoirs would increase the capacity of Garfield Reservoir by 0.25 MG; however, this increase in capacity would not involve change to the overall capacity of the City’s water system. The project would not result in the need for additional construction of water treatment or distribution facilities. It would connect to the City’s existing system and continue to operate in the same manner as the current Garfield Reservoir by receiving water from the Central Zone and providing water to the Raymond Zone and its Raymond Hill Tank. Impacts would be less than significant.

d) The proposed project is located within an urbanized area that is currently served by the City’s sewer system. No sewer-generating uses are currently located at the site, and the proposed project would add office uses to the site which would require sewer services. The project would connect to the existing sewer services and would not substantially increase flows to the City’s sewer. Impacts would be less than significant.

e) The proposed project includes construction of a stormwater drainage system which would collect storm flows on site and treat those flows prior to discharging them to an existing 18-inch Los Angeles County storm drain channel. The proposed project also includes the replacement of the 18-inch storm drain within an existing easement through the adjacent Blair High School athletic field that connects the project site with the Los Angeles County storm drain channel. Because the proposed project includes the construction of an adequately sized stormwater drainage system at the site, which would connect to the Los Angeles County storm drain channel, impacts would be less than significant.

f) The proposed project would generate waste during demolition of the existing reservoir and during the ongoing operation of the site. Waste generated during the operational phase would be similar to that occurring at the existing City Water Distribution support yard and would not result in any significant impacts to area landfills or the City’s solid waste disposal system. Construction waste associated with the demolition of the existing reservoir is expected to include approximately 2,000 cy of concrete, and approximately 2,300 cy of roofing and framing materials. These materials would be taken to a Material Recovery Facility where all recoverable or recyclable materials would be extracted from

August 2013 Pg. 33

the waste stream, prior to disposal in area landfills. Impacts would be less than significant.

g) The existing connection of Garfield Reservoir to the City’s water system (the 24-inch water line in Garfield Avenue) would be capped prior to the commencement of construction activities to isolate the reservoir from the City’s water system. The connection would be restored following the completion of project construction. The storage of capacity of Garfield Reservoir would be unavailable during the proposed demolition of the existing reservoir and construction of the new reservoirs; however, the City’s water distribution system would be able to adequately provide water supply to the City without the use of the Garfield Reservoir. Impacts would be less than significant.


Issues


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or

scenic highway? 4, 11 X

b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 3 X

c) Create light or glare? X a) According to the General Plan, the hillsides and ridgelines of South Pasadena provide a

scenic backdrop for the entire community. The proposed project is located within a relatively flat portion of the City, and would not be constructed on or near the hillsides or ridgelines in the City. The City’s General Plan does not identify scenic roadways within the City. The proposed project is located on a cul-de-sac in a residential neighborhood. It does not provide views into large open space areas. The nearby State Route 110 is not a State designated scenic highway. No impact associated with this issue would occur.

b) The project site is currently surrounded by an approximately five-foot-tall concrete block wall. Due to the fact that much of the Garfield Reservoir is subterranean, most of the above-grade height of the existing Garfield Reservoir is not visible beyond the block wall. Views of the reservoir from Garfield Avenue are mostly limited to the roof of the reservoir. Views into the project site from the adjacent Blair High School athletic field are limited by the elevational difference between the Garfield Reservoir and the athletic field (approximately 15 feet difference in height). Views of the reservoir are limited for the multi-family residences directly adjacent to the south, due to the intervening driveway and garages associated with the residences, as well as a small elevational difference in height between the two properties (with the project site being about 2-3 feet higher). Views of the project site for two-story multi-family residences directly adjacent to the north are blocked by existing trees. The portion of Garfield Avenue adjacent to the site is a cul-de-sac in a residential area. The street is typical of residential areas, characterized by single-family and multi-family residential units, trees and landscaping, utility poles, and vehicles associated with on-street parking.

August 2013 Pg. 34

The proposed project would result in visual changes to the project site. The new reservoirs would be approximately 11 to 13 feet above grade. The northern portion of the site would be paved and would include additional uses that are not currently present at the site, including a two-story (approximately 30± feet tall) building associated with the Water Distribution support yard, parking, pipe storage, and aggregate storage. The pump station building (which would be approximately 17 feet above grade) would also be located on the northern portion of the site (the existing pump station is located near the western boundary of the site, below grade). The concrete block wall surrounding the project site would be removed during construction and replaced with a similar size and scale concrete block wall. A portion of construction would occur without the existing or new wall in place; however, temporary screened fencing would be installed until the new wall is completed. The proposed project would result in the construction of the reservoirs at a taller height than the reservoir currently located on site. In addition, the two-story Water Distribution support yard building and approximately 17-foot-high pump station building would be a visual change at the site. These changes, however, would mostly only be visible to the residents occupying the second floor of multi-family units directly adjacent to the north of the site. Portions of the buildings may also be noticeable to residents on the western side of Garfield Avenue. However, given the location and elevation of the project site, and the limited number of adjacent uses that would notice visual changes at the site, impacts would be less than significant.

c) Project construction would occur during daylight hours; therefore, no significant nighttime lighting would be required during construction. There would be some minor nighttime lighting at the site for security purposes during the construction period. Similarly, nighttime lighting would be in place during the long-term operation of the site for security purposes. This lighting would be directed inward toward the project site and positioned/shielded such that it would not shine directly into the windows of nearby residences. In the event of an emergency situation in the City that requires work on the water system (such as a leak or break in the system), some activity would occur at the project site for City employees gathering repair equipment. Additional nighttime lighting may occur as a result of these situations; however, it is not expected to be a regular occurrence or occur for long periods of time. The proposed project would not result in a new substantial source of light; lighting would be minimal. Additionally, the proposed reservoir and buildings would not be constructed of materials that would create sources of glare. Although the Water Distribution support yard building would contain some windows, they would not create substantial amounts of glare. Impacts associated with light and glare would be less than significant.

August 2013 Pg. 35


Issues


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological

resources? X

b) Disturb archaeological resources?

X

c) Affect historical resources? 12 X

d) Have the potential to cause a physical change, which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?

X

e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area?

X

a) The project site has previously been disturbed for the original construction of the Garfield

Reservoir in 1924. The replacement reservoirs are proposed to be 10 feet below grade, which is similar to the existing depth of the reservoir. Because construction of the replacement reservoir would occur in already disturbed soils, the potential for disturbing intact paleontological resources is very low. Impacts would be less than significant.

b) As discussed in response 14(a) above, the proposed project includes placement of the new reservoir at 10 feet below grade. This is similar to the depth of the existing reservoir. It is anticipated that any archaeological resources that were at the project site were discovered or destroyed during previous site preparation and construction of the existing reservoir. Impacts associated with archaeological resources would be less than significant.

c) A Historic Resources Evaluation Report was prepared for the proposed project (ASM Affiliates, Inc., February 2012). The report evaluated Garfield Reservoir for its eligibility for designation on the local, state, and national level as an individual resource and potential contributor to a historic district. An intensive-level survey of the reservoir was conducted in January 2012. Additionally, archival research and review of secondary sources was conducted, and discussions with the City’s Water Production Operations staff were completed to obtain a complete history of the Garfield Reservoir. Based on the Historic Resources Evaluation Report, Garfield Reservoir is recommended ineligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Registry of Historic Resources (CRHR) because the reservoir is not a good reflection of broader events within the historic context of development of the municipal government of South Pasadena. The Garfield Reservoir is one of five reservoirs within the City’s water system, none of which were included as being historically significant among the City’s

August 2013 Pg. 36

1994 Citywide Survey of municipal properties. The reservoir is not associated with any significant individuals, is similar in fashion to other reservoirs from the time period it was built, is typical of construction during the time period it was built, and does not have the potential to provide information about history or prehistory that is not available through historic research. Garfield Reservoir was also determined to be ineligible as a Landmark under the City’s Landmark criteria. Although the Garfield Reservoir, constructed in 1924, is almost 90 years in age, the Historic Resources Evaluation Report determined that it was not eligible for designation on the local, state, or national level. There are no components of the project site, including the Garfield Reservoir or the surrounding concrete block wall, that are considered historically significant. Thus, the removal and replacement of the existing reservoir would not result in any significant impacts to a historic resource. Impacts would be less than significant.

d) The proposed project would result in the replacement of an existing reservoir, entirely contained within the existing reservoir site. The project area is fully developed, with residential and school uses present, along with local roadways and State Route 110. Because the project site has already been developed, and adjacent land is fully developed, the project would not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values. No impact would occur.

e) As described in response 14(e) above, the proposed project site and adjacent land is developed. The project site is not utilized for existing religious or sacred uses. There are no known human remains present on site, and any remains that may have been associated with religious or sacred uses (such as Native American remains) were likely discovered or destroyed during the original development of the site in 1924. However, in the unlikely event that human remains are discovered at the site, the proposed project would be required to comply with existing regulations related to the discovery of human remains. The California Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5) states that if human remains are discovered, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant.


Issues


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for

neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities?

X

b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?

X

August 2013 Pg. 37

a) The proposed project would not result in any population increases, and thus, would not

result in an increased usage of parks or other recreational facilities. No impact would occur.

b) The proposed project does not include recreational facilities and would not result in any impacts to existing parks or require the expansion of any existing recreational facilities. Temporary construction would occur on the adjacent Blair High School athletic field (for the installation of a storm drain); however, impacts would be temporary and would be scheduled to occur when school is not in session. Impacts would be less than significant.


Issues


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

16. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the proposal: a) Generate greenhouse gas

emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

13 X

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

4 X

a) Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth as a

whole, including temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Global temperatures are moderated by naturally occurring atmospheric gases, including water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone, and certain hydro-fluorocarbons. These gases, known as greenhouse gases (GHGs), allow solar radiation (sunlight) into the Earth’s atmosphere, but prevent radiative heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth’s atmosphere. GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the Earth’s temperature. Emissions of GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are thought to be responsible for the enhancement of the greenhouse effect and contributing to what is termed “global warming,” the trend of warming of the Earth’s climate from anthropogenic activities. SCAQMD established a working group to develop an interim significance threshold for GHG emissions under CEQA. SCAQMD’s recommended interim GHG significance threshold proposal (SCAQMD 2008) uses a tiered approach to determining significance. In the tiered approach, Tier 3 is expected to be the primary tier by which SCAQMD

August 2013 Pg. 38

determines significance for projects. The Tier 3 screening level for stationary sources is based on an emission capture rate of 90 percent for all new or modified projects. A 90 percent emission capture rate means that 90 percent of total emissions from all new or modified stationary source projects would be subject to a CEQA analysis. The 90-percent capture rate GHG significance screening level in Tier 3 for stationary sources was derived using SCAQMD’s Annual Emission Reporting Program, and identified a screening level of 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions1

per year. Accordingly, this level is established as the significance threshold for the project’s GHG emissions. For construction emissions, the interim guidance recommends that the emissions be amortized over 30 years and added to operational emissions, as appropriate.

GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would include emissions associated with construction activities and emissions associated with the operation of the proposed reservoirs and relocated Water Distribution support yard GHG emissions would be associated with the construction phase of the project through use of heavy equipment and vehicle trips. Construction GHG emissions are estimated to total approximately 1,050 metric tons of CO2 over the period of construction. Emissions of GHGs would be short term and temporary. Global climate change impacts are by nature cumulative; direct impacts cannot be evaluated because the impacts themselves are global rather than localized impacts. The analysis therefore addresses cumulative impacts. Construction emissions amortized over a 30-year period would be approximately 35 metric tons per year. Emissions would be well below the 10,000-metric ton significance threshold recommended by SCAQMD, and impacts associated with construction GHG emissions would be less than significant. GHG emissions resulting from operational activities would be very similar to existing emissions associated with the Garfield Reservoir and Water Distribution support yard (currently part of the City’s Public Works Yard at 825 Mission Street). Because emissions would be similar to those already existing, impacts would be less than significant.

b) As discussed in response 16(a), above, the proposed project would result in negligible amounts of GHG emissions. The proposed project would not result in emissions that would adversely affect state-wide attainment of GHG emission reduction goals as described in Assembly Bill 32 and Executive Order S-21-09. The City does not currently have a GHG plan in place. Project emissions would, therefore, have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change impacts. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.

1 The effect each GHG has on climate change is measured as a combination of the volume of its emissions, and its global

warming potential. The global warming potential is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere, and is expressed as a function of how much warming would be caused by the same mass of CO2. For instance, CH4 has a global warming potential of 21, meaning that 1 gram of CH4 traps the same amount of heat as 21 grams of CO2.

August 2013 Pg. 39


Issues


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNFICANCE. a) Does the project have the

potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

X

b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?

X

August 2013 Pg. 40

c) 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, and the effects of probable future projects.)

X

d) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

X

a) Implementation of the proposed project would potentially impact nesting birds, which

can be considered a sensitive species. No historic resources are present on the site, and the site is developed. Thus, no significant impacts to cultural resources would occur. Any degradation of the quality of the environment would be reduced to below a level of significance through implementation of mitigation measures identified in Section 7, Biological Resources.

b) The proposed Project would not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental

goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. With implementation of the proposed project, the Garfield Reservoir would be replaced with two new reservoirs built to current seismic standards. The existing reservoir was constructed almost 90 years ago and has experienced leaks and failure in the past. By building new reservoirs that are constructed with current building and seismic standards, the proposed project would achieve both short-term and long-term environmental goals; there would be no disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. No impact would occur.

c) Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual effects that, when considered

together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of a proposed development when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable or probable future developments. The significance of a cumulative impact may be greater than the effects resulting from the individual actions if the effects of more than one action are additive. The General Plan

August 2013 Pg. 41

identifies South Pasadena as a “built out” city. The proposed project is located within a developed area. Land near the project site in the City of Pasadena is similarly built-out. Given the developed nature of the project area, no new construction is likely to occur in the project vicinity. For most of the topics analyzed in this Initial Study (for example, aesthetics or noise), the potential for cumulative impacts is more localized and directly driven by anticipated development. The developed nature of the project area makes it unlikely that localized cumulative impacts would occur. Some cumulative impacts, such as air quality and greenhouse gases, are not localized to the immediate project area and can contribute to cumulative impacts over a larger area. The proposed project could contribute to cumulative effects associated with criteria air pollutants and GHG emissions. Due to the low daily emissions associated with construction and their temporary nature, the proposed project’s incremental contribution to impacts associated with air quality and global climate change would not be cumulatively considerable. Likewise, operational emissions would be similar to those already existing for the Garfield Reservoir and City Water Distribution support yard operation. Any increase in these existing emissions would be negligible. The project would not result in the generation of any substantial long-term traffic (daily traffic associated with the City Water Distribution support yard operation would simply be rerouted to the project site) and thus, would not contribute to a cumulative increase in traffic in the project area. The project would not include the construction of any uses that would induce population growth and thereby, directly or indirectly, contribute to cumulative impacts to public services, utilities, or recreation. For these reasons, impacts associated with cumulative effects would be less than significant.

d) The proposed project would not have environmental effects which would cause

substantial adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Air quality and noise impacts would be below significant levels and would not require any mitigation. Construction impacts activities related to air quality and noise are less than significant and would be temporary in nature.

August 2013 Pg. 42

18. EARLIER ANALYSES

Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the teiring, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items:

a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.

None.

b) Impact 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 their earlier analysis.

Not applicable, see 17(a) above.

c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project.

Not applicable, see 17(a) above.

August 2013 Pg. 43

19. SOURCE REFERENCES

1 City of South Pasadena Land Use Policy Map, November 2001, available online at http://www.ci.south-pasadena.ca.us/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=211.

2 City of South Pasadena Zoning Map, November 2001, available online at http://www.ci.south-pasadena.ca.us/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=192.

3 Site visit conducted by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) on January 18, 2012.

4 City of South Pasadena General Plan, November 2001.

5 Geotechnical Study Garfield Reservoir Replacement, Fugro West, Inc., April 2005.

6 2010 Update, Geotechnical Study Garfield Reservoir Replacement, Fugro West, Inc., August 17, 2010.

7 City of South Pasadena Municipal Code, available online at http://qcode.us/codes/southpasadena/

8 Department of Toxic Substances Control website, State of California, http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/, site accessed February 20, 2012.

9 Acoustical Site Assessment Report, HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc., February 2012.

10 City of South Pasadena website, Public Works Department, Trash and Waste, available at http://www.cityofsouthpasadena.us/publicworks/trash.html, accessed February 20, 2012.

11 California Department of Transportation, Scenic Highway Program, Officially Designated State Scenic Highways, available online at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/schwy.htm.

12 Draft Historic Resources Evaluation Report for Garfield Reservoir, City of South Pasadena, Los Angeles County, California, ASM Affiliates, Inc., February 2012.

13 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Interim Greenhouse Gas Significance Thresholds, 2008. Available online at: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/GHG/ GHG.html.

http://www.ci.south-pasadena.ca.us/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=211�

http://www.ci.south-pasadena.ca.us/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=192�

http://qcode.us/codes/southpasadena/�

http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/�

http://www.cityofsouthpasadena.us/publicworks/trash.html�

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/schwy.htm�

http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/GHG/�

August 2013 Pg. 44

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Appendix A

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM

APPENDIX A TO FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / INITIAL STUDY Page 1

Impact Mitigation Measure

Party Responsible

for Implementation/

Timing

Party Responsible for Verification/

Frequency Signature

Date Mitigation Completed

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts to active nests during the bird nesting season.

BIO-1 Commencement of construction activities (including any vegetation removal) at the project site shall be conducted outside of the bird nesting season (the nesting season lasts February through August). Alternatively, a preconstruction survey shall be conducted to identify and locate all active bird nests at the project site. To ensure that construction does not result in the destruction or abandonment of an active nest, construction activities shall avoid active nests and a surrounding buffer zone. The size and shape of the buffer zone shall be determined by a qualified biologist and shall be dependent on factors that may affect the involved bird species. These restrictions shall apply until the end of the nesting season or until it can be shown that the birds have completed nesting activities at the project site.

City of South Pasadena Public Works Department or its Construction Contractor / pre-construction

City of South Pasadena Planning Department / verify pre-construction survey (if applicable)

The proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts to trees requiring protection per the City’s Municipal Ordinance.

BIO-2 Prior to the commencement of construction activities, a qualified arborist shall delineate, using orange construction fencing or some other visible marker, areas requiring disturbance avoidance to protect significant trees. The fencing or other marker used to delineate these areas shall remain in place during the construction period to ensure these areas are avoided. No disturbance shall occur within the areas delineated by the certified arborist.


City of South Pasadena Planning Department / verify completion prior to construction

MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM

APPENDIX A TO FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION / INITIAL STUDY Page 2

Impact Mitigation Measure

Party Responsible

for Implementation/

Timing

Party Responsible for Verification/

Frequency Signature

Date Mitigation Completed

HAZARDS There is potential for asbestos-containing material and lead-based paint to be present at the site. Demolition of materials containing these contaminants could release them into the environment, resulting in a potentially significant impact.

HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of demolition permits, the City or its contractor shall retain a State-certified asbestos professional to survey the project site and determine whether sampling for asbestos-containing material is warranted. Any abatement or removal of asbestos-containing material shall be performed in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. HAZ-2 Prior to the issuance of demolition permits, the City or its contractor shall retain a State-certified lead professional to survey the site structures and determine whether sampling for lead-based paint is warranted. Any abatement or removal of lead-based paint must be performed in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.


City of South Pasadena Planning Department/verify completion prior to issuance of demolition permits

Appendix B

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

COMMENTS RESPONSES

RTC-1

A1A1

A2

A3

A2

A3

This comment identifies the close of the review period and forwards the comments received by the State Clearinghouse during the public review period. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study (MND/IS) and no response is necessary.

The requirement of California Public Resources Code Section 21104(c) is noted. This comment does not address the adequacy of the MND/IS and no response is necessary.

This comment acknowledges compliance with the State Clearinghouse review requirements pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. This comment does not address the adequacy of the MND/IS and no response is necessary.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

RTC-2

COMMENTS RESPONSES

RTC-3

COMMENTS RESPONSES

RTC-4

B1

B1

B2

B2

The Native American Heritage Commission’s trustee responsibilities in regard to historical and archaeological resources are noted. The role of American Indian tribes and interested Native American individuals as “consulting parties” is noted. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study (MND/IS) and no response is necessary.

As described in the MND/IS, no potential resources were identified at the project site due to the long-developed nature of the project site and surrounding area. The project site has been developed with the existing Garfield Reservoir since 1924. No effects to significant cultural resources are expected to result from implementation of the proposed project. If significant cultural resources are unexpectedly encountered, avoidance will be considered pursuant to the cited California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

RTC-5

B6

B3

B2cont.

B4

B5

B7

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

The proposed project is not subject to environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Therefore, this comment is not applicable, and no response is necessary.

The confidentiality of the historic properties of religious and cultural significance is noted. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft MND/IS and no response is necessary.

The MND/IS includes provisions for the unexpected event that human remains are discovered. No revisions to the Draft MND/IS have been made as a result of this comment.

The need for an ongoing relationship between Native American tribes and lead agencies, project proponents and their contractors is noted. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft MND/IS and no response is necessary.

As described in the MND/IS, no effects to significant cultural resources are expected to result from implementation of the proposed project. If significant cultural resources are unexpectedly encountered, avoidance

COMMENTS RESPONSES

RTC-6

will be considered pursuant to the cited CEQA Guidelines. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft MND/IS and no revisions to the document are necessary.

B7cont.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

RTC-7

C4

C1C1

C2

C2

C3

Thank you for the information regarding the capacity and most recently measured peak flow at the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Districts) 16-inch diameter Arroyo Seco Trunk Sewer. As discussed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study (MND/IS), the project site does not currently contain sewer generating services, but will be adding office uses to the site, which would require sewer services. As noted in your Comment C3, the project is expected to generate an average wastewater flow of 96 gallons per day, which would not significantly impact the local sewer line or the Arroyo Seco Trunk Sewer.

Thank you for the information regarding the existing average flow and capacity of both the Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) and the Los Coyotes WRP. As identified in this comment, the Whittier Narrows WRP has an excess capacity of approximately 6.7 million gallons per day (mgd) while the Los Coyotes WRP has an excess capacity of approximately 14.7 mgd. The proposed project is expected to generate an average wastewater flow of 96 gallons per day, which would not significantly impact the Whittier Narrows or Los Coyotes WRPs.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

RTC-8

C4 cont.

C5

Your comment regarding expected average wastewater flow of the proposed project is noted and is consistent with the information provided in the MND/IS.

Your comment regarding the payment of fees to connect to the Districts’ Sewerage System is noted.

Your comment regarding the Districts’ intent to provide services up to the levels that are legally permitted is noted. As discussed in the responses to Comments C1 and C2, wastewater generated by the project is anticipated to be well within the capacity of existing facilities.

C3

C4

C5

COMMENTS RESPONSES

RTC-9

D1

This comment notifies the City of South Pasadena that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the project area. This comment does not address the adequacy of the MND/IS and no response is necessary.

D1

Documents

Garfield Reservoir Replacement Project