CITY OF PASADENA WATER AND POWER DEPARTMENT 150 SOUTH LOS ROBLES AVENUE, SUITE 200 PASADENA, CA 91101
INITIAL STUDY
In accordance with the Environmental Policy Guidelines of the City of Pasadena, this analysis, the associated “Master Application Form,” and/or Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) and supporting data constitute the Initial Study for the subject project. This Initial Study provides the assessment for a determination whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION I – PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Project Title: Eastside Well Collector and Centralized Disinfection Facility Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Pasadena, Water and Power Department (PWP), 150 South Los Robles Avenue, Suite 200, Pasadena, CA 91101
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Elisa Ventura, P.E., Engineer, (626) 744-4465
4. Project Location: The proposed project consists of installing a disinfection facility at the City’s existing Jones Reservoir/Hamilton Park Site, which is located on the north side of Sierra Madre Boulevard between Riviera Drive and Hastings Ranch Road. The proposed Centralized Disinfection Facility would be located along the Sierra Madre Boulevard frontage east of and adjacent to existing PWP facilities (electric substation).
The proposed Eastside Well Collector project consists of installing pipelines to connect seven well sites to the proposed Centralized Disinfection Facility. The proposed pipelines would be installed within the segments of the City’s existing street right of way identified in Table 1. Improvements would also be made at each of the involved seven well sites, which are identified in Table 2.
Figure 1 depicts the regional orientation of the City of Pasadena. Figures 2-4 depict the locations of the proposed pipelines, the well sites, and the proposed disinfection facility.
Eastside Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 1 Table 1 Pipeline Segments
Roadway Segment Segment Description Segment Facilities Speed Side- Parking Drive- Bike Proposed Pipeline Potentially Affected Street From To Lanes Median Bus Stop Limit walks Spaces ways Facility Location Facilities Parkwood Av Greenwood Av 2/2 DY 30 Y 8 1 - - 19 ft from S curb 1 EB lane, Parking Greenwood Av Berkeley Av 1/1 DY 35 S only 5 0 - - 18 ft from N curb Parking Walnut St Berkeley Av San Marino Av 1/1 SDY 35 S only 11 0 - - 18 ft from N curb Parking San Marino Av Oak Av 1/1 SDY 35 S only 18 2 - - 18 ft from N curb Parking Oak Av Craig Av 1/1 SDY 35 S only 12 1 - - 18 ft from N curb Parking Walnut St Foothill Bl 1/1 SDY 25 Y 0 2 - Class III 9 ft from W curb Access only Foothill Bl 100 ft S of Foothill Bl 1/1 SDY 25 Y 16 3 - Class III 13.5 ft from W curb Parking 100 ft S of Foothill Bl White St 1/1 SDY 25 Y 16 3 - Class III 4.5 ft from E curb Parking White St 180 ft S of Corson St 1/1 SDY 25 Y 8 4 - Class III 13.5 ft from W curb Parking 180 ft S of Corson St Corson St 2/2 DY 25 Y 6 3 - Class III 14 from W curb Parking Corson St Maple St 2/2 RM 25 Y 0 0 - Class III 14 from W curb 1 SB lane Craig Av Maple St 100 ft N of Dolores St 2/2 DY/RM 25 Y 4 2 - Class III 13 ft from W curb 1 SB lane, Parking 100 ft N of Dolores St Villa St 1/1 DY 25 Y 6 2 - Class III 13 ft from W curb Parking Villa St Monte Vista St 1/1 UD 25 Y 5 2 - Class III 12 ft from E curb Parking Monte Vista St Las Lunas St 1/1 UD 25 Y 10 2 - Class III 12 ft from E curb Parking Las Lunas St Lambert Dr 1/1 UD 25 Y 11 2 - Class III 12 ft from E curb Parking Lambert Dr Orange Grove Bl 1/1 UD 25 Y 10 2 - Class III 12 ft from E curb Parking Orange Grove Bl Paloma St 1/1 UD 25 Y 12 2 - Class III 12 ft from E curb Parking Paloma St 600 ft E of Palo Verde Craig Av 1/1 UD 30 Y 25 11 - - 7ft from N curb N sidewalk, parking Craig Av Oak Av 1/1 UD 25 Y 16 5 - - 8 ft from N curb Parking Monte Vista St Oak Av Palo Verde Av 1/1 UD 25 Y 24 4 - - 4 ft from S curb Parking Palo Verde Av Monte Vista St Dunham Aly 1/1 UD 25 Y 5 1 - - 11 ft from W curb Parking Craig Av Lola Av 1/1 UD 25 Y 25 3 - - 13 ft from S curb Parking
Lola Av Martelo Av 1/1 UD 25 Y 12 6 - - 13 ft from S curb Parking White St Martelo Av Vista Av 1/1 UD 25 Y 14 7 - - 13 ft from S curb Parking Vista Av White St (E) White St (W) 1/1 UD 25 Y 14 2 - - 22 ft from W curb Parking Vista Av Carmelo Av 1/1 UD 25 Y 20 1 - - 5 ft from S curb S sidewalk, parking White St Carmelo Av Altadena Dr 1/1 UD 25 Y 16 7 - - 5 ft from S curb S sidewalk, parking Altadena Dr White St Sierra Madre Bl 3/3 RM 35 Y - - - - crossing All lanes Altadena Dr Del Rey 3/3 RM 35 Y 3 4 - Class III 13 ft S of median 1 EB lane, parking
Del Rey Bella Vista 3/3 RM 35 Y 7 3 - Class III 13 ft S of median 1 EB lane, parking Sierra Madre Bl Bella Vista La Tierra 3/3 RM 35 Y 5 2 - Class III 13 ft S of median 1 EB lane, parking La Tierra Sierra Madre Bl San Gabriel Bl 4/0 none 35 Y 0 1 - - 20 ft from N curb 1 EBT, 1 EBL San Gabriel Bl La Tierra Mataro St 3/3 RM 35 Y 7 1 - - 2 ft from W curb Parking, SB add lane San Gabriel Bl Daisy Av 1/1 UD 25 Y 16 5 - - 9 ft from N curb Parking Mataro St Daisy Av east terminus 1/1 UD 25 Y 34 14 - - 9 ft from N curb Parking
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 2 Table 1 Pipeline Segments
Roadway Segment Segment Description Segment Facilities Speed Side- Parking Drive- Bike Proposed Pipeline Potentially Affected Street From To Lanes Median Bus Stop Limit walks Spaces ways Facility Location Facilities La Tierra Mataro St Sunnyslope Av 2/0 none 35 Y 4 3 - - 10 ft from N curb Parking Sunnyslope Av La Tierra St Foothill Bl 2/3 RM 30 Y 0 0 - - 5 ft from E curb 1 NB lane Sunnyslope Av Titley Av 2/2 RM 35 Y 0 1 1 S side - 1-21 ft N of median 1 WB lane, turn lane Titley Av Santa Paula Av 2/2 DY 35 Y 12 2 1 N side - 25 ft from N curb 1 WB lane, turn lanes Foothill Bl Santa Paula Av Sierra Madre Bl 2/2 2LT 35 Y 15 6 1 N, 1 S - 25 ft from N curb 1 WB lane, turn lanes Sierra Madre Bl Halstead St 2/2 DY 35 Y 0 6 1 S side - 23.5 ft from N curb 1 WB lane, turn lanes Halstead St Foothill Bl 175 ft S of Foothill 2/1 DY 25 Y 0 5 - - 19 ft from N curb 1 NB lane 1 EB lane, bike lane, Foothill Bl Mataro St 2/2 DY 35 Y 0 4 1 E side Class III E 5 ft N of centerline parking Bike lane, parking (1 Mataro St La Tierra 2/2 DY 35 Y 10 4 - Class III E 5 ft N of centerline SBL) Bike lane, parking (1 La Tierra St Estado 2/2 DY 35 Y 11 3 - Class III E 5 ft N of centerline SBL) Bike lane, parking (1 Estado St Alameda St 2/2 DY 35 Y 13 3 - Class III E 5 ft N of centerline SBL) Bike lane, parking (1 Sierra Madre Villa Ave Alameda St Del Vina St 2/2 DY 35 Y 31 6 1 W side Class III E 5 ft N of centerline SBL) Bike lane, parking (1 Del Vina St Las Lunas St 2/2 DY 35 Y 15 5 - Class III E 5 ft N of centerline SBL) Las Lunas St Hermanos St 2/2 DY 35 Y 13 2 - Class III E 13 ft from W curb 1 SB lane, parking Hermanos St Rosemead Bl 2/2 DY 35 Y 8 0 - Class III E 1-5 ft from centerline Turnlanes, parking Rosemead Bl Rida St 2/2 DY 35 Y 0 0 1 W side Class III E 1-5 ft from centerline Turnlanes, parking Rida St Paloma St 2/2 DY 35 Y 13 3 - Class III E 1-5 ft from centerline Turnlanes, parking Paloma St Primavera St 2/2 DY 35 Y 17 4 1 E, 1 W Class III E 7 ft from E curb parking, bike lane Primavera St Sierra Madre Bl 2/2 DY 35 Y 8 6 - Class III E 7 ft from E curb parking, bike lane 3.5 ft from N curb in Sierra Madre Villa Av Riviera Dr 3/3 RM 40 Y 0 1 1 N side Class II 1 EB lane eastbound side Sierra Madre Bl 3.5 ft from N curb in Riviera Dr 200 ft E of Riviera 3/3 RM 40 Y 0 7 1 N, 1 S Class II 1 EB lane eastbound side
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 3
Table 2 –Eastside Well Sites Injection Extraction Extraction 3 Initial Year of Well Capacity Capacity Capacity Pump HP 3 1 2 2 Construction (AFY) (GPM) (AFY) Craig NA 800 1290 20 1924 Chapman NA 1300 2,099 350 1967, 1983 Jourdan 3,805 1600 2,895 40 1926, 1992 Monte Vista NA 1200 3,055 40 1925 Woodbury NA 2200 3,438 40 1907, 1992 Twombly 1,701 2500 3,402 45 1999 (#58) 0 Wadsworth 1,376 1500 2,751 40 1999 (#59) 0 Total 6,882 111000 18,930 1. Source: Jourdan well – historical injection data; Twombly and Wadsworth – estimated to be 50% of production capacity. 2. Source: Pasadena Water and Power Production Records. 3. Source: (MWH 2002)
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of Pasadena, Water and Power Department, 150 South Los Robles Avenue, Suite 200, Pasadena, CA 91101
6. General Plan Designation: OS (Open Space) – Hamilton Park/Jones Reservoir
7. Zoning: OS (Open Space) – Hamilton Park/Jones Reservoir
8. Description of the Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. A location map and a site plan should be included. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
The Eastside Well Collector and Centralized Disinfection Facility project involves installing the infrastructure necessary to transport groundwater from seven wells in the eastern portion of Pasadena to PWP’s Jones Reservoir and to provide for centralized disinfection of the groundwater from these wells. To accomplish these objectives, PWP proposes to install 23,587 linear feet of pipeline to collect and transport groundwater from the seven involved wells to the Jones Reservoir site, where a chloramination system would be installed to disinfect the water prior to its storage in the reservoir. The proposed project also includes improvements at each of the well sites and a minor improvement to the Jones Reservoir overflow vault. The details of each project component are provided in the subsections below, as is a summary of the anticipated construction activities.
Eastside Well Collector Pipelines
The Eastside Well Collector component of the project consists of installing 23,587 linear feet of ductile iron (DI) pipeline to collect and transport groundwater from the seven involved wells to the Jones Reservoir site. The proposed pipelines would be installed
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 4 within the City’s existing right-of-way (primarily street right-of-way) and would include 12- inch, 16-inch, 20-inch, and 24-inch diameter DI pipes. Figure 2 depicts the alignments of the proposed pipelines and Table 1, above, identifies and describes the involved street segments.
Centralized Disinfection Facility
The Centralized Disinfection Facility component of the project consists of installing a chloramination system (chlorine and ammonia) to disinfect the water transported by the Eastside Well Collector pipelines prior to discharge into the Jones Reservoir where the water would be stored and mixed with imported Metropolitan Water District (MWD) water. During the chloramination process, sodium hypochlorite (i.e., liquid chlorine) and ammonium hydroxide (i.e., aqueous ammonia) would be injected into the pipeline with collected groundwater.
The proposed Centralized Disinfection Facility would be located in the southern portion of the Jones Reservoir Site along the north side of Sierra Madre Boulevard (see Figure 4). As shown in Figure 5a, the facility is expected to include one (1), above-ground, 6,650-gallon sodium hypochlorite tank and one (1), above-ground, 1,800 gallon ammonium hydroxide tank. The sodium hypochlorite tank is anticipated to be a high density, cross-linked, polyethylene, double-walled tank that is up to 10.25 feet in diameter and 14.25 feet in height. The ammonium hydroxide tank is anticipated to be a carbon steel, double-walled tank that would be up to 6 feet in diameter and 10 feet in height. The tanks would be installed outdoors in an area surrounded by a concrete containment curb and covered by a roof structure to provide protection from direct sunlight. In addition, there would be three vaults installed along with a 24-inch pipeline receiving water from the Eastside Wells. These include a sodium hypochlorite injection vault, a sampling and ammonia injection vault, and a sampling and flow meter vault.
Activities to operate the facility would be coordinated with operation of the overall Jones Reservoir site. The City’s water system operators currently visit the Jones Reservoir site on a daily basis to check on the existing water facilities. As part of this normal maintenance routine, the City’s water system operators would visit the proposed Centralized Disinfection Facility daily to ensure the facility is operating properly. In addition, a private chemical vendor would be hired to refill the tanks as needed, with a trained Pasadena operator onsite to oversee and assist with the delivery/refill process. During normal anticipated operations the sodium hypochlorite tank would require refilling about every 23 days and the ammonium hydroxide tank would require refilling about every 42 days. In the peak flow rate scenario, the sodium hypochlorite tank would require refilling about every 13 days and the ammonium hydroxide tank would require refilling about every 25 days. Due to the size restrictions of the site where the treatment facility would be located, the vendor(s) would be asked to deliver the materials in vehicles that would be able to access the site.
Well Site Improvements
The proposed project would collect water from seven PWP wells and transport/disinfect the water for storage in Jones Reservoir. In order to protect the system from high localized pressures that could be caused from a loss of power, surge tanks are proposed at each well site to dissipate velocity and pressure. These tanks would eliminate negative pressures in the system following well pump power failure and also protect the
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 5 system from waterhammer and pressure surges during normal operation. The anticipated surge tank sizes are as follows:
• Craig Well: 340-cubic-foot (ft3) surge tank; • Monte Vista Well: 140-ft3 surge tank; and • Jourdan Well, Chapman Well, Twombly Well (#58), Woodbury Well, and Wadsworth Well (#59): 500-gallon surge tanks.
Each tank would be connected to the well with a short length of 8-inch diameter pipeline.
In addition, the Jourdan well pump and electric motor would be replaced as part of the project.
Jones Reservoir Overflow Vault Improvement
Jones Reservoir is considered an earth dam and any proposed alterations require approval from the California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). Coordination with DSOD identified the need to increase the capacity of the Reservoir’s spillway to accommodate the increased inflow that would result from the Eastside Well Collector and Centralized Disinfection Facility Project. Overflow is currently diverted through a series of pipes and an overflow/drain vault to a flood control channel in Sierra Madre Boulevard. To account for the potential increased outflow, the City proposes to modify this system by replacing the top of the existing overflow vault with grating, which would allow excess flow not handled by the existing overflow piping to be discharged to the street. The overflow vault proposed for modification is located in the reservoir’s service road near the existing vent structure. No aboveground facilities or improvements are proposed.
Construction
Construction activities to complete the Eastside Well Collector and Centralized Disinfection Facility Project would occur within Pasadena right-of-way and City-owned property.
Construction would occur in two phases. The first phase of the project would occur nearest the reservoir site with pipeline segments replaced between the reservoir and Well 59. Work crews would install pipe and make well improvements in succession (not simultaneously). First phase pipeline installation and well improvements are anticipated to be completed by 2013. The second phase of the project would install pipes and improve the three remaining wells.
Pipeline installation would use standard open-cut trenching techniques. Figure 7 presents photographs of similar pipeline construction sites. Standard installation of the pipeline is anticipated to proceed at the rate of approximately 100 feet per day in more difficult conditions, and 200 to 300 feet per day in easier conditions, with an average production rate of approximately 200 feet per day. The work zone (maximum construction area at any given time) would be approximately 300 to 400 feet long. For work within roadways, the trench width would be approximately 4 to 6 feet, with active work areas of about 8 feet on one side of the trench and 10 to 12 feet on the other side for access by trucks and loaders, resulting in a construction zone approximately 20 to 30 feet wide. The depth of cover over the pipeline would be approximately 3 to 4 feet unless
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 6 deeper installation is required to avoid conflict with an existing pipeline. Suitable excavated trench materials would be used as backfill for the pipeline. Unsuitable materials would be hauled off site and disposed of at an acceptable location.
Site construction of the disinfection facility at Jones Reservoir would include site clearing; grading; pipeline installation; construction of concrete slabs and walls; construction of buried vaults; small diameter buried pipeline installation; and tank, pump and miscellaneous equipment installation. Disturbed areas would be repaired in accordance with the City of Pasadena’s Standards. Pavement would be repaired and landscaping, fencing, walls and other existing improvements disturbed during construction would be replaced to pre-construction condition or better.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The City of Pasadena lies in the San Gabriel Valley portion of the Los Angeles Basin. The San Gabriel Valley is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and a series of hills to the west, east, and south, including the San Rafael Hills on the west, the Montebello and Puente Hills on the south, and the San Jose Hills on the east. The City of Pasadena is located in the western portion of the San Gabriel Valley with the San Rafael Hills traversing the western portion of the City.
Pasadena is a largely developed, urban/suburban City in Los Angeles County with a historic urban core, suburban residential neighborhoods, hillside communities, and the natural areas of the Arroyo Seco and San Rafael Hills. Other notable land uses in the City include the Rose Bowl, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena City College, and the California Institute of Technology (Caltech).
The proposed Centralized Disinfection Facility would be installed on the south side of the existing Jones Reservoir (Hamilton Park). The reservoir site is City-owned and is currently used for municipal water and power and recreation services. The Jones Reservoir is a 49.9 million gallon reinforced concrete storage facility that was built in 1949. The reservoir is completely buried. It has a high water elevation of 945 feet and serves PWP’s Sunset Pressure Zone.
Hamilton Park is situated atop of the buried Jones Reservoir. This park is improved with active recreational facilities including baseball diamonds, tennis and basketball courts, and other recreational amenities. Current facilities that serve the reservoir are located on the south-facing slope of the reservoir facility. A paved area and access roads (with gates) directly abut the reservoir on the south, east, and west sides. Photographs of the Jones Reservoir site and surrounding area are shown in Figure 6.
The Jones Reservoir site is bounded by East Sierra Madre Boulevard on the south, single-family residences on the west (which front onto Crestview Drive), single-family residences to the east (which front onto Peppermill Road), and a public parking area and single-family residences to the north. Two institutional uses (Eugene Field Elementary School and First Church of the Nazarene) are located to the south across East Sierra Madre Boulevard from the project site.
The Eastside Well Collector pipelines would be constructed within existing City right-of- way (primarily street right-of-way). South of the I-210 Foothill Freeway the involved
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 7 streets lie primarily within commercial portions of the City; and north of the I-210 Foothill Freeway the involved streets are primarily within residential neighborhoods.
From a groundwater standpoint, Pasadena lies within the Raymond Basin. This basin is divided into three subareas – Pasadena, Monk Hill, and Santa Anita. The project site lies within the Pasadena Subarea of the Raymond Basin.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
The proposed project is anticipated to require the following discretionary approvals:
• City of Pasadena: Selection of a contractor for the pipeline installation; • City of Pasadena: Selection of a contractor for the disinfection facility construction; • City of Pasadena Public Works Department: Encroachment permit for work within City street right-of-way; • City of Pasadena Fire Department: California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Risk Management Plan review and approval • California Department of Public Health (DPH): Amendment to PWP’s public water system permit; • California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD): Approval of alterations to Jones Reservoir; and • Caltrans: Encroachment permit for crossing of I-210 Foothill Freeway right-of-way.
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 8 FIGURE 1: REGIONAL ORIENTATION
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 9 FIGURE 2: PROJECT LOCATION – EASTSIDE WELL COLLECTOR PIPELINES AND WELL SITES
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 10 FIGURE 3: PROJECT LOCATION – CENTRALIZED DISINFECTION FACILITY LOCATION
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 11 FIGURE 4: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE CENTRALIZED DISINFECTION FACILITY SITE
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 12 FIGURE 5a: CENTRALIZED DISINFECTION FACILITY SITE PLAN (SHEET 1 OF 2 – NOT TO SCALE)
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 13 FIGURE 5b: CENTRALIZED DISINFECTION FACILITY SITE PLAN (SHEET 2 OF 2 – NOT TO SCALE)
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 14 FIGURE 6: PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE JONES RESERVOIR SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA
North-Facing View of North-Facing View of North-Facing View of PWP Equipment at Jones Reservoir Adjacent to PWP Equipment at Jones Reservoir Adjacent to PWP Equipment at Jones Reservoir Adjacent to Centralized Disinfection Facility Site Centralized Disinfection Facility Site Centralized Disinfection Facility Site
West-Facing View of West-Facing View of North-Facing View of Centralized Disinfection Facility Site Centralized Disinfection Facility Site Access Road at Jones Reservoir; Buried 24” Pipeline Proposed at this Location
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 15
FIGURE 7: EXAMPLE PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION SITES
Example of 24-Inch Pipeline Trenching Example of 12-Inch Pipeline Installation
Example of 24-Inch Pipeline Trenching Example of 24-Inch Pipeline Installation
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 16
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “ Potentially Significant Impact’ is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 21, “Earlier Analysis,” may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis 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. See CEQA Guidelines Section 15063( c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 21 at the end of the checklist.
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier documents and the extent to which address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 18
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
SECTION II - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. BACKGROUND. Date checklist submitted: Department requiring checklist: Case Manager:
2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. (explanations of all answers are required):
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
3. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (6, 18)
The eastside collector pipeline would be located within and/or adjacent to existing City streets. These installations are largely below-ground and not visible to the public. The proposed centralized disinfection facility, however, would be above ground and would be located on the existing Jones Reservoir site, along the north side of East Sierra Madre Boulevard in the eastern portion of Pasadena. The primary view in the area of the existing reservoir is the north facing view of the San Gabriel Mountains, which are visible along north-south trending streets, through other breaks in the built environment, and above the built environment where the line-of-sight permits.
The north-facing views of the San Gabriel Mountains south of the reservoir project site include views from along the east-west trending East Sierra Madre Boulevard, views from Hamilton Park (which sits atop the Jones Reservoir), and views from the residential neighborhood south of East Sierra Madre Boulevard. These views are all currently interrupted by the existing Jones Reservoir. The proposed facility would be installed on the south side of the existing reservoir and would generally match the height of the existing structures that serve the reservoir (see Figure 6). Like these existing structures, the proposed disinfection facility structures would be placed on a pad that would be cut into the earthen slope that covers the southern boundary of the reservoir. The top of the proposed facilities would be lower than the top of this slope, and lower in elevation than the Hamilton Park recreational facilities that sit at the top of this slope. As such, the proposed project would not impact any uninterrupted views of the San Gabriel Mountains. In addition, in some portions of the neighborhoods south of Sierra Madre Boulevard, the area’s topography does not allow a line-of-sight to the San Gabriel Mountains or views of the mountains are blocked by large structures (e.g., First Church of the Nazarene). Therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on any scenic vistas or scenic views.
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 19
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (6, 10, 18)
The only designated state scenic highway in the City of Pasadena is the Angeles Crest Highway (State Highway 2), which is located north of Arroyo Seco Canyon in the extreme northwest portion of the City. While not an officially designated state scenic highway, the I-210 Foothill Freeway north of S.R. 134 is identified as an “Eligible State Scenic Highway” in Caltrans’ State Scenic Highway Program. The project site is not within the viewshed of the Angeles Crest Highway or the scenic corridor portion of the Foothill Freeway. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impacts on state scenic highways or scenic roadway corridors.
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (26)
The proposed project consists of integrating a new centralized disinfection facility into an existing reservoir facility compound, the installation of new below-ground pipelines, and the repair/refurbishment of existing water wells. The new centralized disinfection facility at the Jones Reservoir would be constructed on a site that currently contains assorted pumping and chlorination facilities, storage buildings, access road, and parking that serves the existing reservoir. The proposed project would be consistent with the developed character of the City of Pasadena and the existing use of the Jones Reservoir site for water related facilities. The site is currently developed with a 49.9 million gallon reservoir (Jones Reservoir), a pump house, an electrical room, a chlorine enclosure, an electrical substation, and associated improvements (e.g., fencing, access road, pipes, etc.).
The proposed centralized disinfection facility would be integrated within the confines of the existing Jones Reservoir complex. The existing facility is screened from most adjacent uses by a tall screen wall, landscaping, site orientation, or the topographic configuration relative to the adjacent uses. To the south of the project site (across Sierra Madre Boulevard) are institutional uses, including an elementary school and a church. To the north, east and west of the project site are residential neighborhoods, which would be screened from the proposed disinfection facility by the existing Jones reservoir and Hamilton Park, such that the proposed disinfection facilities would not be visible from these residences or the surrounding residential street network. Similarly, the proposed disinfection facility would be largely screened from the residential neighborhood south of the project site by existing structures in the area (e.g., Eugene Field Elementary School and First Church of the Nazarene).
The only surrounding land use that would have a clear view of the proposed treatment facility is the First Church of the Nazarene, which lies south of the project site, across Sierra Madre Boulevard. As it currently exists, the north-facing view from the church is impacted by the existing views of the parkway median in Sierra Madre Boulevard, trees, landscaping, and the reservoir and related structures (pump house, an electrical room, a chlorine enclosure, an electrical substation, etc.). The existing buildings are set back from Sierra Madre Boulevard and are separated from the street by an access road, retaining wall, and trees and landscaping in the parkway. The proposed facilities would be constructed just east and in line with these existing facilities. Currently, there is sparse landscaping and a fence located on the reservoir property that partially screens the adjacent view. The installation of the proposed disinfection facility on the Jones Reservoir site would not diminish the usefulness or attractiveness of Hamilton Park as a neighborhood play site or as a ball field, which are not dependent upon attractive adjacent views. Furthermore, the proposed project would not affect the aesthetic character of Hamilton Park because the proposed water treatment facility is entirely consistent with the utilitarian aesthetic character of the Jones Reservoir facility and since East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 20
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated the proposed aboveground facilities would lie at a depressed position in the landscape that is out of sight from park patrons.
Since the proposed disinfection facility would be screened from view from the surrounding residential neighborhoods and institutional uses located across Sierra Madre Boulevard, and since the project would not change the aesthetic character of the site, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the visual quality or character of the site or surroundings.
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (26)
The project would not have a significant impact on light and glare because it would be required to comply with the standards in the zoning code that regulate glare and outdoor lighting. Height and direction of any outdoor lighting and the screening of mechanical equipment would be required to conform to Zoning Code requirements. The project does not propose any lighting for nighttime events or sporting activities. The only outdoor lighting included in the project is for safety and security of the site. These lights are not substantial sources of glare and are an aide to public safety. The project is in an older, developed urban area with streetlights in place. The proposed lighting would be consistent with these ambient light sources; and, in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code, the proposed exterior lighting fixtures would be installed and located in a manner that would not allow light beams to spill onto any surrounding properties
4. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (6, 9)
The City of Pasadena is a developed urban area surrounded by hillsides to the north and northwest. The western portion of the City contains the Arroyo Seco, which runs from north to south through the City. It has commercial recreation, park, natural and open space. The City contains no prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance, as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency.
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (6, 26)
The City of Pasadena has no land zoned for agricultural use other than commercial growing areas. Commercial Growing Area/Grounds is permitted in the CG (General Commercial), CL (Limited Commercial), and IG (General Industrial) zones and conditionally in the RS (Residential Single-Family), and RM (Residential Multi-Family) districts. The use is also permitted within certain specific plan areas. No portion of the project site lies within a zone that allows agriculture.
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 21
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220 (g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104 (g))? (6, 26)
There is no timberland or Timberland Production zone in the City of Pasadena; therefore the proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land, timberland or Timberland Production areas.
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use? (6)
There is no forest land in the City of Pasadena; therefore the proposed project would not result in the conversion or loss of forest land.
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (6. 26)
There is no farmland in the City of Pasadena; therefore the proposed project would not result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use.
5. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (2, 16)
The City of Pasadena is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, and the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. The air quality in the SCAB is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
The SCAB has a history of recorded air quality violations and is an area where both state and federal ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Because of the violations of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the California Clean Air Act requires triennial preparation of an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP considers air quality on a regional level and identifies region-wide attenuation methods to achieve the air quality standards. The most recent plan is the 2007 AQMP, which was adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in September 2007. This plan is the South Coast Air Basin’s portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The 2003 AQMP remains the applicable air plan for federal ozone standards, since the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not taken action to approve the 2007 AQMP. In addition to the region-wide AQMPs, the City of Pasadena participates in a sub-regional air quality plan – the West San Gabriel Valley Air Quality Plan. This plan, prepared in
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 22
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
1992, is intended to be a guide for the 16 participating cities, and identifies methods of improving air quality while accommodating expected growth.
Implementation of the AQMP is based on a series of control measures and strategies that vary by source type (i.e., stationary or mobile) as well as by the pollutant that is being targeted. The control measures in the 2007 AQMP are based on facility modernization, energy efficiency and conservation, good management practices, market incentives/compliance flexibility, area source programs, emission growth management and mobile source programs. In addition, CARB has developed a plan of control strategies for sources controlled by CARB (i.e. on-road and off-road motor vehicles and consumer products). Further, Transportation Control Measures (TCM) defined in SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) are needed to attain the ambient air quality standards. The TCMs defined in the RTP and RTIP fall into three categories, High Occupancy Vehicle Measures, Transit and System Management Measures and Information-based Transportation Strategies.
The SCAQMD’s CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency with the AQMP:
(1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP (except as provided for CO in Section 9.4 for relocating CO hot spots).
(2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2010 or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.
In regards to criterion 1, the consistency criterion pertains to long-term local air quality impacts, rather than regional emissions, as defined by the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD has identified carbon monoxide (CO) as the best indicator pollutant for determining whether air quality violations would occur, as CO hot-spot is most directly related to increase in traffic. Nevertheless, the air basin is now in attainment for the CO standards and exceedances of the CO standards are not expected. Consequently, local air quality impact modeling is no longer performed. Local air pollutant concentrations would not be expected to exceed the ambient air quality concentration standards due to local traffic, with or without the project. Because the project is not projected to impact the local air quality, the project is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the first criterion.
In regards to criterion #2, the assumptions used to develop the AQMP are based upon projections from local general plans. Consequently, conformity with the AQMP of infrastructure and land development projects is measured by the project’s consistency with adopted land use plans, growth forecasts, and programs relative to population, housing, employment, and land use. The proposed project is an improvement of the City’s water system and does not involve a direct change in population, housing, employment, or land use. Furthermore, the project does not involve expansion of available water supplies or other improvements that would promote growth. Rather, the proposed project is intended to improve the City’s water reliability and disinfection process to serve the City’s existing and projected water demand. As a result, the project is consistent with the growth expectations for the region. The proposed project is therefore consistent with the AQMP, and would have no associated impacts.
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 23
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (2)
AND
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (2)
The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is an airshed that regularly exceeds ambient air quality standards (AAQS) – i.e., a non-attainment area. The SCAB is designated a non-attainment area for respirable particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and ozone (O3). The SCAB is currently a designated attainment area for the remaining criteria pollutants, which include carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has established Regional Significance Thresholds for these pollutants to compare to a project’s daily emissions for operation and construction activities. In addition, the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 for stationary sources of air pollutants and for on-site construction induced air pollutants. Mestre Greve Associates (MGA) prepared an Air Quality Assessment for the proposed project (dated March 13, 2012) to compare the project’s emissions with the SCAQMD’s regional and localized thresholds. The project’s Air Quality Assessment is included as Appendix A of this Initial Study and the discussion below is based on this technical report.
Operation Emissions
The project is not expected to result in a considerable long-term increase in air pollutant emissions. The amount of water pumped from the wells is limited by groundwater pumping rights. Therefore, there would be no increase in water production due to the project. The project would require periodic delivery of disinfectant agents to the disinfection facility. The sodium hypochlorite tank is expected to require refilling about every 23 days in normal operation and every 13 days during peak operation. The ammonium hydroxide tank is expected to require refilling about every 42 days during normal operation and every 25 days during peak operation. These materials would be delivered by trucks that generate air pollutant emissions. However, these emissions would be well below the SCAQMD significance thresholds and may be partially offset by the reduction or elimination of the current delivery of disinfection agents (chlorine gas cylinders) to the individual well sites.
Operation of the project would require daily inspections of the Centralized Disinfection Facility to ensure that the facility is operating correctly. However, PWP currently visits the Jones Reservoir site on a daily basis to check the existing facilities and the inspection of the Disinfection Facility would be included in this existing activity. Any potential increase in long-term operational air emissions would be considerably less than the SCAQMD Regional and Localized Significance Thresholds. Therefore, operation of the project would not cause or substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation, would not generate pollutants in excess of SCAQMD standards, and would not result in a cumulative considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. The project’s long-term air quality impacts are thus less than significant.
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 24
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
Construction Emissions
The proposed project includes construction of three separate project components: the Centralized Disinfection Facility, pipeline installation, and improvement of well sites. Construction of the Centralized Disinfection Facility would involve site preparation, excavation of approximately 100 cubic yards (yds3) of material from the hillside to create a space for the disinfection equipment, construction of a pad, and installation of the proposed equipment. Pipeline installation would involve installing (trenching and covering) an average of 200 linear feet of pipeline per day. Improvements at each well site would involve construction of pad and installation of a surge tank and minor installation of other equipment.
MGA quantified the project’s construction emissions using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod version 2011.1.1). Table 5-1 identifies the resulting estimated construction emissions (before mitigation) and compares the project’s emissions to the SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds. As shown in this table, construction of the proposed project would not generate air pollutants in excess of the SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds.
Table 5-1 Estimated Construction Emissions (without Mitigation) (lbs/day on the worst day) CO NOx VOC PM10 PM2.5 SO2 Centralized Disinfection Facility 14.4 23.6 2.9 3.5 2.2 0 Eastside Well Collector Pipeline 20.6 28.3 4.8 3.6 2.3 0 Well Site Improvements 8.2 12.6 1.8 1.1 0.9 0 Total Concurrent Construction Emissions* 43.2 64.6 9.5 8.1 5.3 0.1 SCAQMD Regional Thresholds 75 550 100 150 55 150 Significant? No No No No No No * The worst day of concurrent construction activities was assumed to include the combined maximum daily emissions of pipeline installation, well site construction, and the excavation phase of the disinfectant facility construction. This worst day scenario represents a conservative analysis, since it is not likely that pipeline installation and construction of the disinfectant facility would occur concurrently. Differences between total concurrent construction emissions and the sum of the three project components presented in this table is a result of rounding. Note: Calculations assumed watering of the site twice a day during grading and demolition activities as required by SCAQMD Rule 403.
In addition to comparing project emissions with the Regional Significance Thresholds, Table 5-2, measures the project’s emissions against the Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). Since the proposed project would not install a stationary pollution source (e.g., on-site generator, power plant, refinery, factory, etc.), only the construction LSTs apply to this project. The appropriate LSTs vary on a project-by-project basis depending on the project’s location, the acreage of the construction site, and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The proposed project is located in the West San Gabriel Valley (Source Receptor Area 8) and the project’s construction sites would be less than one acre. Sensitive receptors (residences) are located immediately adjacent to portions of the proposed construction sites. These measurables were used to calculate the appropriate screening-level LSTs for the project, based on the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look Up Tables1. In this case, the most stringent screening-level LSTs in the West San Gabriel Valley apply to the project (i.e., the LSTs for a project site up to 1 acre with sensitive receptors within 25 meters).
MGA quantified the emissions from on-site project construction activities using the CalEEMod. (Offsite construction emissions are not relevant to the LST analysis since they do not affect the localized air quality conditions.) Table 5.2 compares the peak-day onsite construction emissions (before mitigation) to the
1 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Appendix C Mass Rate Look Up Tables. Revised 2008 with Appendix C Revised 2009. East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 25
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated relevant LSTs. As shown in this table, construction of the proposed project would not generate air pollutants in excess of the SCAQMD’s LSTs.
Table 5-2 Localized Significance Threshold Analysis (without Mitigation) (lbs/day on the worst day for onsite construction activities only) CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 Centralized Disinfection Facility 13.2 23.1 3.2 2.2 Eastside Well Collector Pipeline 18.4 27.2 2.3 2.2 Well Site Improvements 7.0 12.1 0.8 0.8 Worst Case Construction Site Emissions* 18.4 27.2 3.2 2.2 SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds 535.0 69.0 4.0 3.0 Significant? No No No No * The worst case construction site would consist of excavation and paving at the same time for pipeline installation. Since each of the three construction components would occur at different locations, each construction site is measured individually against the LSTs. Note: Calculations assumed watering of the site twice a day during grading and demolition activities as required by SCAQMD Rule 403.
Since the proposed project would not generate air pollutants in excess of the SCAQMDs regional or localized significance thresholds, the proposed project would not cause or substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation, would not generate pollutants in excess of SCAQMD standards, and would not result in a cumulative considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (2)
Certain residents, such as the very young, the elderly and those suffering from certain illnesses or disabilities, are particularly sensitive to air pollution and are considered sensitive receptors. In addition, active park users, such as participants in sporting events, are sensitive air pollutant receptors due to increased respiratory rates. Land uses where sensitive air pollutant receptors congregate include schools, day care centers, parks, recreational areas, medical facilities, rest homes, and convalescent care facilities. Residences of homes and long-term care facilities may be subject to both long-term/chronic and acute exposures to poor air quality, whereas park users are primarily at risk from acute exposure to air quality.
Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity include the residential areas along the proposed pipeline alignments, residential areas adjacent to the Jones Reservoir/Hamilton Park site, and park uses at Hamilton Park. In many cases, sensitive receptors exist immediately adjacent to the project sites.
To assess a project’s impact on nearby sensitive receptors from acute (short-term or hotspot) air pollutant concentrations, the project’s construction emissions were compared to the SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). As discussed in Section 5(b and c) and shown in Table 5-2, none of the proposed construction sites would generate air pollution in excess of the screening-level LSTs. Projects that do not generate air pollution in excess of the screening-level LSTs are assumed to not cause concentrations of air pollution that would be harmful to sensitive receptors.
In addition to acute air pollutant exposure, sensitive receptors could be affected by long-term or chronic exposure to poor air quality. In 1998, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) identified particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines (Diesel Particulate Matter or DPM) as a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC). Impacts from toxic substances are related to cumulative exposure and are assessed over a 70-year period.
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 26
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
It is assumed that the majority of the heavy construction equipment utilized during construction would be diesel fueled and would emit DPM. Demolition and grading for the project, when the peak diesel exhaust emissions would occur, is expected to take approximately three months, cumulatively, with all construction expected to take approximately eight months and occur in several distinct locations. Because of the relatively short duration of construction compared to a 70-year lifespan, diesel emissions resulting from the construction of the project are not expected to result in a significant impact.
Since the proposed project would not generate air pollutants in excess of the screening-level LSTs and because of the short duration of project construction, the proposed project would not significantly impact sensitive air pollutant receptors.
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (2, 26)
During construction, equipment exhaust and certain construction materials (e.g., asphalt) may be mildly odorous. However, such odors would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the construction site, would dissipate rapidly, and would cease at the end of construction. Operation of the proposed Centralized Disinfection Facility includes injecting sodium hypochlorite (chlorine) and ammonium hydroxide (ammonia) into the water stream. If not contained, these materials can produce odors. However, these materials would be stored within enclosed tanks and would be injected directly into the water pipeline in an underground vault. Thus, no emission of odors from storage or use of sodium hypochlorite or ammonium hydroxide is anticipated. Therefore, the proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, and would have no associated significant impacts.
6. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (6)
The only vegetation that would be affected by the proposed project would be landscaping. The proposed location for the new Centralized Disinfection Facility at the Jones Reservoir is within the confines of an existing reservoir facility in a developed suburban neighborhood. To install this facility a pad would be cut into the existing earthen slope that covers the south perimeter of the buried reservoir tank. This slope is landscaped sparsely with ornamental trees and shrubs, nearly all of which would not be affected by construction. Two non-native schrubs – a bougainvillea (Bougainvillea sp.) and a bottle brush (Callistemon citrinus) – may need to be removed to clear a pad for the proposed facility.
Given the limited amount and type (non-native) of vegetation on the site and in the vicinity, there are no unique, rare or endangered plant or animal species or habitats that would be impacted by the project. Table 6-1 identifies the threatened and endangered species that have the potential to occur in the general vicinity of Pasadena (i.e., the area encompassing the Pasadena Quadrangle and the surrounding eight quadrangles), as identified in the California Natural Diversity Database. As demonstrated in this table, no threatened or endangered species occur or are expected to occur onsite.
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 27
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
Table 6-1 Federal Candidate, Threatened, and Endangered Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Vicinity Species/Status Habitat and Distribution Probability of Occurrence Plants San Fernando Valley Spineflower Occurs in coastal sage scrub Absent. No suitable habitat onsite (Chorizanthe parryi var. Fernandina) habitats. The species historical and no impervious surface within the Federal Status: Candidate range extended from Lake project’s footprint. CA Status: Endangered Elizabeth in Los Angeles County to near Del Mar in San Diego County. Marsh sandwort Occurs in freshwater wetlands and Absent. No suitable habitat onsite (Arenaria paludicola) wetland-riparian habitat. Native to and no impervious surface within the Federal Status: Endangered the western coast of North America; project’s footprint. CA Status: Endangered now limited to several specific locals. Braunton’s milk-vetch Occurs in chaparral, valley grassland, Absent. No suitable habitat onsite (Astragalus brauntonii) coastal sage scrub, closed-cone pine and no impervious surface within the Federal Status: Endangered forest habitats. project’s footprint. CA Status: None Coast dunes milk-vetch Occurs in coastal strand, northern Absent. No suitable habitat onsite (Astragalus tener var. titi) coastal scrub, coastal sage scrub, and no impervious surface within the Federal Status: Endangered wetland-riparian habitats. project’s footprint. CA Status: Endangered Historically, populations occurred in San Diego, Los Angeles, and Monterey counties. The current known populations are limited to specific locals in Monterey County. Nevin’s barberry Occurs in chaparral, foothill Absent. No suitable habitat onsite (Berberis nevinii) woodland, and coastal sage scrub and no impervious surface within the Federal Status: Endangered habitats. The range of known project’s footprint. CA Status: Endangered populations extends from northern San Diego County to the Santa Clarita Valley (Los Angeles County). Slender-horned spineflower Occurs in chaparral and coastal sage Absent. No suitable habitat onsite (Dodecahema leptoceras) scrub habitats. Only known to occur and no impervious surface within the Federal Status: Endangered in the foothills of the San Gabriel project’s footprint. CA Status: Endangered Mountains (Los Angeles County), the San Bernardino Mountains (San Bernardino County), and the San Jacinto Mountains (western Riverside County). Gambel’s water cress Aquatic species that occurs along the Absent. No suitable habitat onsite (Nasturtium gambelii) edges of permanent, slow-moving and no impervious surface within the Federal Status: Endangered streams and at the edges of project’s footprint. CA Status: Threatened freshwater marshes or lakes. Historical range extended from San Bernardino County on the south to San Luis Obispo County on the north, and in central Mexico. Now only known to occur in southern San Luis Obispo County and western Santa Barbara County. Brand’s star phacelia Occurs in coastal strand and coastal Absent. No suitable habitat onsite (Phacelia stellaris) sage scrub habitats in coastal areas and no impervious surface within the Federal Status: Candidate and on dunes. project’s footprint. CA Status: None
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 28
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
Table 6-1 Federal Candidate, Threatened, and Endangered Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Vicinity Species/Status Habitat and Distribution Probability of Occurrence Amphibians Arroyo toad Occurs in washes, arroyos, sandy Absent. No suitable habitat onsite; no (Anaxyrus californicus) riverbanks, and riparian areas with arroyos or streams onsite or in the Federal Status: Endangered willows, sycamores, oaks, vicinity. CA Status: None cottonwoods. The species range extends from northwest Baja California to San Luis Obispo County. Sierra Madre yellow-legged frog Occurs in lakes, ponds, meadow Absent. No suitable habitat onsite; no (Rana muscosa) streams, rocky streams, isolated streams or other surface water onsite Federal Status: Endangered pools, and sunny riverbanks. Range or in the vicinity. CA Status: None includes mountains extending from Palomar Mountain in the south to the Sierra Nevadas in the north. Fish Santa Ana sucker Native range includes Los Angeles, Absent. No ephemeral or perennial (Catostomus santaanae) San Gabriel, and Santa Ana River streams or surface water onsite. Federal Status: Threatened drainages in southern California. CA Status: None Birds Western yellow-billed cuckoo A riparian obligate species that Absent. No riparian habitat onsite (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) breeds in cottonwood-willow riparian and no willow or cottonwood trees Federal Status: Candidate habitat and forages in the riparian onsite. CA Status: Endangered canopy. Historic range from southern British Columbia to the Rio Grande in northern Mexico. Currently limited to several isolated locations in California, Arizona, and western New Mexico. Southwestern willow flycatcher Nests in dense riparian habitats near Not expected. No nesting or (Empidonax traillii extimus) saturated soils, standing water, or breeding habitat onsite or in the Federal Status: Endangered nearby streams. Breeding range vicinity. CA Status: Endangered includes southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, extreme southern portions of Nevada and Utah, extreme southwest Colorado, and western Texas. Least Bell’s vireo Occurs in riparian habitat, preferably Not expected. No riparian habitat (Vireo bellii pusillus) dense willow-riparian habitat. The onsite or in the vicinity and no Federal Status: Endangered species’ foraging habitat can extend foraging habitat onsite or in the CA Status: Endangered from the riparian habitat into adjacent vicinity. chaparral, coastal sage scrub, or desert scrub habitats Coastal California gnatcatcher Occurs in coastal sage scrub below Not expected. No coastal sage scrub (Polioptila californica californica) 2,500 feet in elevation in southern habitat onsite or in the vicinity. Federal Status: Threatened California. CA Status: None Sources: California Natural Diversity Database Calflora Database CaliforniaHerps.com Center for Plant Conservation National Collection Plant Profile Database Flora of North America (eFloras.org) Database USDA PLANTS Database USFWS Species Profile Database East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 29
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (6)
There are no designated natural communities in the City. The Final EIR for the 1994 Land Use and Mobility Elements contains the best available City-wide documented biological resources. This EIR identifies the natural habitat areas within the City’s boundaries to be the upper and lower portions of the Arroyo Seco, the City’s western hillside area, and Eaton Canyon.
The proposed Centralized Disinfection Facility would be located within the confines of the existing developed Jones Reservoir site, which is located within a developed urban environment. A small portion of a manmade slope would be disturbed to create an approximately 500-square-foot (ft2) pad for the proposed water disinfection facility. However, this area does not contain any native vegetation. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact any natural communities, sensitive or otherwise.
c. Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (6)
Natural drainage courses with definable bed and bank and their adjacent wetlands are “waters of the United States” and fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Jurisdictional wetlands, as defined by the USACE are lands that, during normal conditions, possess hydric soils, are dominated by wetland vegetation, and are inundated with water for a portion of the growing season.
The proposed location for the Centralized Disinfection Facility is on a developed parcel of land in an existing municipal reservoir facility and park compound that does not include any discernable drainage courses, inundated areas, wetland vegetation, or hydric soils, and thus does not include USACE jurisdictional drainages or wetlands. Therefore, the proposed construction would have no impact to federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
The segment of proposed pipeline along Foothill Boulevard crosses Eaton Wash. However, at this location, under the I-210 Foothill Freeway, Eaton Wash is an underground storm drain and not an open channel. The installation of the proposed pipeline would occur in the soils and base material above the Eaton Wash facility and would not affect Eaton Wash in any way. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on this otherwise jurisdictional waterway.
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 30
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (6)
The Centralized Disinfection Facility would be located on the site of an existing municipal facility that is fully developed with utility facilities. All other proposed improvements would occur within the existing City right- of-way (primarily City streets). The adjacent environment is considered urban and developed where the presence of wildlife is rare and limited. As such, the installation of these facilities would not result in a barrier to wildlife migration or movement. Therefore, the project will have no impact to wildlife movement.
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (24)
The only local ordinance protecting biological resources in the City of Pasadena is Ordinance No. 6896 “City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance”. The proposed project would not impact any trees, protected or otherwise. Therefore, the project will have no impact to protected biological resources or preserved trees.
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (6, 9)
Currently, there are no adopted Habitat Conservation or Natural Community Conservation Plans within the City of Pasadena. There are also no approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plans. Therefore, implementation of this project will not conflict with the provisions of any conservation plans.
7. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? (6)
The Jones Reservoir is an existing facility constructed in 1949. This reservoir is completely buried. The ancillary buildings on the site are a collection of non-descript utilitarian structures, which were constructed over time for the purpose of housing PWP equipment and facilities, including a pump house, an electrical room, a chlorine enclosure, and an electrical substation. None of the structures or facilities on-site are unique in regard to architectural design, nor are they examples of technological innovations that would require preservation. Additionally, since the site is fully developed with various types of apparatus utilized to conduct the daily operations of a reservoir, it is unlikely that the excavation that may be required to install the new equipment would unearth any items of historical value. The entire site has been previously graded to construct the facilities that are currently present. Furthermore, the proposed project would not materially change the use or appearance of the Jones Reservoir site. Therefore, the proposed improvements at the
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 31
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
Jones Reservoir site (i.e., the Centralized Disinfection Facility and the overflow grate) would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and the project would have no related impacts.
Likewise, none of the other project components would cause an adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The Eastside Well Collector pipelines would be installed within existing City right-of- way, primarily beneath City streets. No buildings would be removed or impacted for this pipeline installation. Similarly, no buildings would be removed or impacted by the installation of surge tanks and other improvements at the involved well sites. Therefore, none of the project components would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and the project would have no related impacts.
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? (6)
AND
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (6)
There are no known archeological resources, paleontological resources, or unique geologic features at any of the project locations. The proposed disinfection facility would be constructed on a portion of the Jones Reservoir site that has previously been developed as a reservoir, and the minimal grading that may occur would be into soils that have previously been disturbed (i.e., a manmade slope). The Eastside Well Collector pipelines would be installed within existing City right-of-way, primarily beneath City streets; and the proposed improvements at the well sites would be primarily aboveground on disturbed lots. No areas with undisturbed natural earth materials exist within the project boundaries that may contain undiscovered archeological, paleontological or geologic materials. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on archaeological resources, paleontological resources, or unique geologic features.
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal ceremonies? (6)
There are no known human remains at any of the project locations. The project locations are not part of formal cemeteries and are not known to have been used for disposal of historic or prehistoric human remains. Thus, human remains are not expected to be encountered during construction of the proposed project. In the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during project construction, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires the project to halt until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Compliance with these regulations would ensure the proposed project would not result in impacts due to disturbing human remains.
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 32
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
8. ENERGY. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (4)
The project does not conflict with the 1983 adopted Energy Element of the General Plan or Pasadena’s Green City Action Plan. The project would result in a nominal (if any) increase in electrical consumption. No increase in water pumping or production is proposed, since groundwater withdrawal is limited by the Raymond Basin Watermaster and the City currently maximizes pumping rights. The only new equipment that would be electrified would be the proposed replacement motor for the Jourdan well, chemical metering pumps (duplex pumps at 0.75 hp each), and security lighting. The replacement motor is expected to be more energy efficient than the existing motor due to advances in technology. Energy use for new security lighting would be minimal.
b. Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (4)
The long-term impact from increased energy use by this project is not significant in relationship to the number of customers currently served by the electrical and gas utility companies. The project does not involve the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner.
9. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (17)
According to the 2002 adopted Safety Element of the City of Pasadena’s General Plan, the San Andreas Fault is a “master” active fault and controls seismic hazard in Southern California. This fault is located approximately 21 miles north of Pasadena.
The County of Los Angeles and the City of Pasadena are both affected by Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Pasadena is in four USGS Quadrants, the Los Angeles, and the Mt. Wilson quadrants were mapped for earthquake fault zones under the Alquist-Priolo Act in 1977. The Pasadena and Condor Peak USGS Quadrangles have not yet been mapped per the Alquist-Priolo Act.
These Alquist-Priolo maps show only one Fault Zone in or adjacent to the City of Pasadena, the Raymond (Hill) Fault Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. This fault is located primarily south of City limits, however, the southernmost portions of the City lie within the fault’s mapped Fault Zone. The 2002 Safety Element of the City’s General Plan identifies the following three additional zones of potential fault rupture in the City:
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 33
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
• The Eagle Rock Fault Hazard Management Zone, which traverses the southwestern portion of the City;
• The Sierra Madre Fault Hazard Management Zone, which includes the Tujunga Fault, the North Sawpit Fault, and the South Branch of the San Gabriel Fault. This Fault Zone is primarily north of the City, and only the very northeast portion of the City and portions of the Upper Arroyo lie within the mapped fault zone.
• A Possible Active Strand of the Sierra Madre Fault, which appears to join a continuation of the Sycamore Canyon Fault. This fault area traverses the northern portion of the City as is identified as a Fault Hazard Management Zone for Critical Facilities Only.
No portions of the proposed project are within any of these potential fault rupture zones. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects caused by the rupture of a known fault and no related impacts would result from the proposed project.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? (17)
The risk of earthquake damage is minimized because new structures are required to be built according to the Uniform Building Code and other applicable codes, and are subject to inspection during construction. Structures for human habitation must be designed to meet or exceed California Uniform Building Code standards for Seismic Zone 4. Conforming to these required standards will ensure the proposed project would not result in significant impacts due to strong seismic ground shaking.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction as delineated on the most recent Seismic Hazards Zones Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of known areas of liquefaction? (19,17)
The project site is not within a Liquefaction Hazard Zone or Landslide Hazard Zone as shown on Plate P-1 of the 2002 Safety Element of the General Plan. This Plate was developed considering the Liquefaction and Earthquake-Induced Landslide areas as shown on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone maps for the City. Therefore, the project will have no impacts from seismic related ground failure.
iv. Landslides as delineated on the most recent Seismic Hazards Zones Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of known areas of landslides? (19,17)
The project site is not within a Landslide Hazard Zone as shown on Plate P-1 of the 2002 Safety Element of the General Plan. This Plate was developed considering the Earthquake-Induced Landslide areas as shown on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone maps for the City. Therefore, the project will have no impacts from seismic induced landslides.
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 34
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
The Jones Reservoir site is an existing municipal facility that has existed in that location since 1949. The top of the buried reservoir facility is fully improved as a public park with recreational uses such as baseball diamonds, tennis and basketball courts. Buildings and structures located at the northeast corner of the park site and along the southern boundary of the site include paved areas and buildings and structures that house the facilities that accommodate reservoir operations.
There is a significant amount of top soil on top of the buried reservoir in areas that are improved for active recreational uses, primarily for play fields and baseball diamonds. However, this top soil would not be disturbed because of construction or operational activities of the reservoir. Top soil that would be disturbed, however, includes the area of the proposed location of the new disinfection facility where excavation and grading of a hillside embankment will be required. The estimated volume of cut would be 100 cubic yards.
Construction activities may result in the potential for soil erosion. However, adherence to sediment control measures, including slope stabilization and erosion/sedimentation control devices, would be incorporated into the project design during construction, as required by the Clean Water Act and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (Rule 403). Operation of the proposed project would not result in the potential for substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause any significant impacts related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (17)
None of the project components are located on known unstable soils or geologic units. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Modern engineering practices and compliance with established building standards, including the California Building Code, will ensure the project will not cause any impacts from unstable geologic units or soils.
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (17)
According to the 2002 adopted Safety Element of the City’s General Plan the project site is underlain by relatively level older alluvial fan derived from the San Gabriel Mountains. This soil consists primarily of sand and gravel and is in the low to moderate range for expansion potential.
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 35
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
There is an existing sewer and wastewater disposal system in the City of Pasadena. Therefore, soil suitability for septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems is not applicable in this case, and the proposed project would have no associated impacts.
10. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
AND
b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
“Greenhouse gases” (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as “global warming.” These greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth by allowing incoming short wavelength visible sunlight to penetrate the atmosphere, while restricting outgoing terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation from exiting the atmosphere. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Collectively GHGs are measured as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).
Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one-fourth of total emissions. According to climate scientists, California and the rest of the developed world will have to cut emissions by 80 percent from today’s levels to stabilize the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and prevent the most severe effects of global climate change.
California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. GHG statues and executive orders (EO) include Assembly Bill (AB) 32, Senate Bill (SB) 1368, Executive Order (EO) S-03-05, EO S-20-06 and EO S-01-07. AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, is one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation that California has adopted. Most notably AB 32 mandates that by 2020, California’s GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels. California Executive Order S-3-05 provides a more long-range goal and requires an 80 percent reduction of GHG from 1990 levels by 2050.
To meet AB 32 mandates and reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels means cutting approximately 30 percent from business-as-usual emissions levels projected for 2020, or about 15 percent from today’s levels. On a per-capita basis, that means reducing our annual emissions of 14 tons of CO2 equivalent for every man, woman and child in California down to about 10 tons per person by 2020. East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 36
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
Mestre Greve Associates (MGA) prepared a Greenhouse Gas Assessment for the proposed project (dated March 13, 2012) to quantify and evaluate the project’s GHG emissions. The project’s Greenhouse Gas Assessment is included as Appendix B of this Initial Study and the discussion below is based on this technical report.
The proposed project is not expected to result in a considerable long-term increase in GHG emissions. The only GHG emissions that would be generated by operation of the Eastside Well Collector and Centralized Disinfection Facility system would be from electricity consumption from pumping of water at the well sites and emissions from operation, maintenance, and material delivery vehicles. The amount of water pumped from the wells is limited by groundwater pumping rights. Therefore, there would be no increase in water production due to the project and, as a result, no increase in GHG emissions from electricity consumption.
Likewise operation and maintenance of the water system are existing activities and PWP would coordinate operation and maintenance of the proposed facilities with ongoing daily visits to the Jones Reservoir and Eastside Well sites. Thus, there would be no measurable increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the operation and maintenance of the proposed equipment. The only increase in VMT that would result from the project would be from periodic delivery of disinfectant agents to the disinfection facility. The sodium hypochlorite tank is expected to require refilling about every 23 days in normal operation and every 13 days during peak operation. The ammonium hydroxide tank is expected to require refilling about every 42 days during normal operation and every 25 days during peak operation. These materials would be delivered by trucks that generate GHG emissions. However, these emissions are extremely limited due to the infrequency of deliveries and may be partially offset by the reduction or possible elimination of delivery of disinfection agents (chlorine gas cylinders) to the individual well sites. Therefore, any potential increase in long-term GHG emissions would be considerably less than de minimis.
Construction of the project, however, would generate a measurable amount of GHG emissions from the use of construction equipment and from worker commute trips. MGA estimated the GHG emissions from construction using the CalEEMod (California Emissions Estimator Model) program (version 2011.1.1) published by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). There are three primary construction activities associated with the project: (1) the installation of the pipelines connecting the existing wells to Jones Reservoir, (2) the installation of the disinfection facility adjacent to Jones Reservoir, and (3) the installation of surge tanks and other equipment at the well sites. The installation of the grating to improve the Jones Reservoir overflow device will not generate considerable GHG emissions.
The project’s construction GHG emissions are presented in Table 10-1. For each construction activity the projected annual CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions are presented for each construction activity. The total emissions from all construction activities are presented along with the average emissions amortized over a 30-year span, as recommended by the SCAQMD to account for the lifespan of the project.
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 37
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
Table 10-1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons [MT]) 1 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Centralized Disinfection Facility 56.9 0.0 0.0 57.1 Eastside Well Collector Pipeline 228.9 0.04 0.0 229.5 Well Site Improvements 35.5 0.0 0.0 35.6 Total Construction Emissions2 321.3 0.04 0.0 322.1 3 Project Life Annual Emissions (MT/year) 10.7 0 0 10.7 1 A factor is applied to CH4 and N2O emissions to equate the global warming potential of these pollutants to CO2. CO2e is the sum of all GHG pollutants emitted by the activity after the global warming potential factor has been applied to CH4 and N2O. 2 Differences between total construction emissions and the sum of the three project components presented in this table are a result of rounding. 3 Average emissions are amortized over a 30-year span, as recommended by the SCAQMD to account for the lifespan of the project.
The City of Pasadena has not adopted any significance thresholds for GHG emissions and there are no adopted GHG significance thresholds that apply to the project. Both CARB and SCAQMD have been working to establish significance thresholds for GHG impacts and have published draft thresholds for review and comment, but no significance thresholds applicable to general projects have been adopted by these agencies. Nonetheless, CARB’s and SCAQMD’s proposed thresholds are discussed below and are used as guidance in a qualitative assessment of the project’s GHG impact potential.
CARB released a Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal (Staff Proposal) on October 24, 2008 with the objective of developing interim significant thresholds for commercial and residential projects. CARB has proposed a threshold of 7,000 annual metric tons (MT/year) for industrial operational sources but this threshold has not been adopted. At this time, CARB has not proposed thresholds applicable for residential and commercial sources. Therefore, criteria for determining threshold levels for residential and commercial sources have yet to be defined. Under CARB’s Staff Proposal, recommended approaches for setting interim significant thresholds for GHG under CEQA are underway. CARB staff proposes to define certain performance standards (e.g., for energy efficiency) by referencing or compiling lists from existing local, state or national standards. For some sub-sources of GHG emissions (e.g., construction, transportation, waste), CARB staff has not identified reference standards.
On December 5, 2008, SCAQMD adopted a GHG significance threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans where the SCAQMD is lead agency2. The SCAQMD’s draft GHG Significance Threshold establishes a 5-tier threshold flowchart, with Tier 3 being annual emission screening thresholds. For industrial stationary source projects the SCAQMD adopted a screening threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e/year. This threshold was selected to capture 90% of the GHG emissions from these types of projects where the combustion of natural gas is the primary source of GHG emissions. SCAQMD concluded that projects with emissions less than the screening threshold would not result in a significant cumulative impact. While not adopted by SCAQMD Board, the Draft Guidance Document suggests a screening threshold for residential and commercial projects of 3,000 MT CO2e/year. However, this screening threshold was not adopted.
At the most recent SCAQMD GHG working group meeting (November, 2009), SCAQMD staff presented two recommended options for screening thresholds for residential and commercial projects. The first option would have different thresholds for specific land uses. The proposed threshold for residential projects is 3,500 MT CO2e/year, the commercial threshold is 1,400 MT CO2e/year, and the mixed-use threshold is 3,000 MT CO2e/year. The second option would apply the 3,000 MT CO2EQ/year screening threshold for all
2 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. December 5, 2008. East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 38
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated commercial/residential projects. Lead agencies would be able to select either option. These thresholds are based on capturing 90% of the emissions from projects and requiring them to comply with the higher tiers of the threshold (i.e., performance requirements or GHG reductions outside of the project). Again, none of the SCAQMD’s screening thresholds, other than the industrial stationary source threshold, have been adopted.
Tier 4 in SCAQMD’s Draft Guidance Document suggests three options for projects that exceed the screening thresholds, although the specifics of Tier 4 have not been adopted. Under the first option, the project would be excluded if design features and/or mitigation measures resulted in a certain percent lower emissions lower emissions than business as usual. The Draft Guidance Document suggests a 30% reduction, however subsequent SCAQMD staff report suggests a 23.9% reduction to correspond to the land use component of CARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan. Under the second option the project would be excluded if it had early compliance with AB 32 through early implementation of CARB’s Scoping Plan measures. Under the third option, the project would be excluded if it met sector based performance standards, which are yet to be adopted. Tier 5 would exclude projects that implement offsite mitigation (GHG reduction projects) or purchase offsets to reduce GHG emission impacts to less than the proposed screening level, which again is yet to be adopted.
Given the small amount of GHG emissions that the proposed project would generate – 10.7 MT/year – which is well below any of the screening thresholds suggested by either CARB or SCAQMD, the proposed project would not cause a significant adverse climate change impact and the proposed project’s contribution to global climate change is not considerable.
11. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? (14)
AND
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (14)
The proposed disinfection system involves the use, storage, and/or transport of following materials:
• Ammonium hydroxide • Sodium hypochlorite
Ammonium hydroxide (19%) and sodium hypochlorite (12.5%) would be separately injected into the systems to disinfect the water prior to discharging into the Jones Reservoir. The proposed project is designed to include one (1), above-ground, 1,800 gallon ammonium hydroxide tank and one (1), above- ground, 6,650-gallon sodium hypochlorite tank. The ammonium hydroxide tank is anticipated to be a carbon steel, double-walled tank that would be 6 feet in diameter and 10 feet in height. The sodium hypochlorite tank is anticipated to be a high density, cross-linked, polyethylene, double-walled tank that is 10.25 feet in diameter and 14.25 feet in height. The tanks would be installed outdoors in an area surrounded by a concrete containment curb and covered by a roof structure to provide protection from direct sunlight. During normal anticipated operations the sodium hypochlorite tank would require refilling about
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 39
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated every 23 days and the ammonium hydroxide tank would require refilling about every 42 days. In the peak flow rate scenario, the sodium hypochlorite tank would require refilling about every 13 days and the ammonium hydroxide tank would require refilling about every 25 days. A private chemical vendor would be hired to conduct the deliveries with a trained Pasadena operator onsite to oversee and assist with the delivery process.
Neither chemical requires disposal as both will be used in the water treatment process.
Ammonium hydroxide and sodium hypochlorite are regulated under the California Fire Code (Chapters 27, 31, and 40) and ammonium hydroxide is regulated under CCR Title 19, Division 2, Chapter 4.5, California Accidental Release Program.
PWP would be required to operate the proposed facility in accordance with the following programs that govern the use of hazardous materials:
• Hazardous Materials Business Plan. The plan details inventories of chemicals and their relative locations, emergency response procedures, equipment, and employee training policies. The City of Pasadena requires an annual submission to the Fire Department certifying the plan.
• Injury and Illness Prevention Plan (IIPP). The California General Industry Safety Order requires that all employers in California prepare and implement an IIPP, which contains a code of safe practice for each job category, methods for informing workers of hazards, and procedures for correcting identified hazards.
• Emergency Action Plan. The California General Industry Safety Order requires that all employers in California prepare and implement an Emergency Action Plan. This plan designates employee responsibilities, evacuation procedures and routes, alarm systems, and training procedures.
• Hazard Communication Plan. Facilities involved in the use, storage, and handling of hazardous materials are required to prepare a Hazard Communication Plan. The purpose of this plan is to provide safe handling practices for hazardous materials, ensure proper labeling of hazardous materials containers, and ensure employee access to Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS).
• California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) program. Facilities that use acutely hazardous materials above certain threshold quantities must prepare a CalARP plan to identify and mitigate the risks of handling the chemicals. Included in the CalARP plan are requirements for employee training, preventive maintenance policies, written operating procedures, investigating incidents, and emergency response planning. Recommendations are made as part of the CalARP plan to ensure that safety issues are addressed and resolved in a timely fashion. A key component of the CalARP plan is the Hazards Review Study. The Hazards Review Study analyzes the specific design of the facility, identifies the most likely scenarios for an accidental release at the facility, identifies measures (engineering controls and administrative controls) to prevent such scenarios, and identifies the emergency procedures for handling such scenarios. The California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA) is responsible for overseeing the CalARP program and delegates day-to-day administration of the program to various local agencies throughout California. In Pasadena, such authority is delegated to the City of Pasadena Fire Department.
As currently proposed, the project would only require a CalARP plan for ammonium hydroxide (19%). The CalARP Risk Management Plan is required to be submitted to the City of Pasadena Fire Department for review and compliance, and hazardous materials may not be stored or utilized onsite until the Department approves the CalARP Risk Management Plan.
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 40
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
The subsections below describe the potential hazards of the project’s use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials.
Ammonium Hydroxide
During the chloramination process, ammonium hydroxide (along with sodium hypochlorite) would be injected into the collected water (in the proposed pipeline) prior to entering the Jones Reservoir. As proposed, ammonium hydroxide would be stored onsite in a non-pressurized tank designed with a capacity of approximately 1,800 gallons. The ammonium hydroxide tank would be double walled and would hold at least 110% of the maximum tank volume, thus containing any accidental spillage. A concrete curb wall would also be constructed around the tank to contain any accidental spillage. A roof structure would cover the tank to eliminate exposure to direct sunlight since warmer temperatures may degrade the chemical, reducing its storage longevity.
The potential hazards of ammonium hydroxide are shown in Table 10-1, and further detailed in the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for ammonium hydroxide contained in Appendix C of this Initial Study. Ammonium hydroxide is a mixture of mostly water and ammonia. Ammonium hydroxide can affect human health through ingestion, skin contact, eye contact, and inhalation. Ingestion and direct contact is primarily a concern for those professionals handling the substance, which in this case includes delivery personnel, PWP personnel, and, in the case of spillage, first responders. Proper storage of ammonium hydroxide can virtually eliminate the potential ingestion and contact hazards for the general public. The greatest potential risk for the general public of storing ammonium hydroxide onsite is the potential for the substance to be accidentally spilled and vaporize into a gas that could be inhaled.
Ammonium hydroxide (19% solution) is a regulated chemical that requires compliance with the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) program. Pasadena Water & Power has implemented the CalARP program since 2002 with regards to the use of ammonium hydroxide at the City’s Power Plant. This program requires PWP to develop and document policies and procedures aimed directly at minimizing the risks of handling ammonium hydroxide. These policies and procedures include training, maintenance, auditing, documenting written operating procedures, emergency action planning, etc. As a required part of the CalARP, engineering studies will be performed to: 1) specify potentially hazardous scenarios and/or design elements of the process; 2) estimate potential accidental releases of ammonium hydroxide; and 3) identify design improvements and specific safety precautions to reduce or eliminate potential risks.
Based on preliminary studies and results of similar facilities using ammonium hydroxide, PWP does not anticipate significant off-site impacts. Since any liquid spill would be double contained, no direct exposure to any individuals off-site is expected. Ammonia hydroxide, if spilled in the liquid form, could evaporate and disperse downwind. Typically though, vapors from an aqueous solution travel only a short distance from the location of the leak and may not even leave the site.
As proposed, all the chemical feed lines would be double contained and leak detection systems provided for the feed systems. In addition, monitoring devices would be placed on the treated water header to monitor and adjust the injection rates of the chemicals. The ammonium hydroxide tank would also include vapor return piping to carry ammonia vapors displaced during the off-loading operation back to the delivery tank truck.
The City of Pasadena considers the potential risks of the proposed use, storage, and delivery of ammonium hydroxide for the proposed disinfection facility to be acceptably low and less than the existing risks of other similar PWP facilities in the City.
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 41
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
Sodium Hypochlorite
During the chloramination process, sodium hypochlorite (along with ammonium hydroxide) would be injected into the collected water (in the proposed pipeline) prior to entering the Jones Reservoir. As proposed, sodium hypochlorite would be stored onsite in a non-pressurized tank designed with a capacity of approximately 6,650 gallons. The sodium hypochlorite tank will be double walled and would hold at least 110% of the maximum tank volume, thus containing any accidental spillage. A concrete curb wall would also be constructed around the tank to contain any accidental spillage. A roof structure would cover the tank to eliminate exposure to direct sunlight since warmer temperatures may degrade the chemical, reducing its storage longevity.
The potential hazards of sodium hypochlorite are shown in Table 11-1, and further detailed in the corresponding Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) contained in Appendix C of this Initial Study. Sodium hypochlorite (i.e., bleach) can affect human health through ingestion, skin contact, eye contact, and inhalation. Ingestion and direct contact is primarily a concern for those professionals handling the substance, which in this case includes delivery personnel, PWP personnel, and, in the case of spillage, first responders. Proper storage of sodium hypochlorite can virtually eliminate the potential ingestion and contact hazards for the general public. The greatest potential risk for the general public of storing sodium hypochlorite onsite is the potential for the substance to be accidentally spilled and vaporize into a gas that could be inhaled.
Based on preliminary studies and results of similar facilities using sodium hypochlorite, PWP does not anticipate significant off-site impacts. Since any liquid spill would be double contained, no direct exposure to any individuals off-site is expected. Sodium hypochlorite, if spilled in the liquid form, could evaporate and disperse downwind. However, in such a scenario, the proposed curb wall would limit the surface area of the spill and minimize the vaporization potential of the spill. Typically, vapors from an aqueous solution travel only a short distance from the location of the leak and may not even leave the site.
As proposed, all the chemical feed lines would be double contained and leak detection systems provided for the feed systems. In addition, monitoring devices would be placed on the treated water header to monitor and adjust the injection rates of the chemicals. The sodium hypochlorite tank would also include vapor return piping to carry chlorine vapors displaced during the off-loading operation back to the delivery tank truck.
The City of Pasadena considers the potential risks of the proposed use, storage, and delivery of sodium hypochlorite for the proposed disinfection facility to be acceptably low and less than the existing risks of other similar PWP facilities in the City.
Table 11-1 Potential Hazards and Health Effects of Materials to be Utilized in the Proposed Disinfection Facility Exposure Hazards Incompatible Accidental Release Potential Health Effects Handling and Storage Controls/Personal Identification Material Measures Protection Ammonium Hydroxide Contact with the eyes can Ingestion: Toxic. May cause Copper, copper Keep in tightly closed Ventilate area. Wear Airborne Exposure Limits for cause serious long-term corrosion to the esophagus and alloys, galvanized container, in a cool, dry appropriate personal ammonia: damage. The solution is stomach. iron, zinc, ventilated area. Isolate from protection. Collect liquid in OSHA PEL – 50 ppm (NH3), corrosive and skin contact Inhalation: Cause irritation to the aluminum, incompatible substances. an appropriate container or ACGIH TLV – 25 ppm may cause burns. respiratory tract. bronze, dimethyl Containers of this material may absorb with inert material. (NH3)(TWA), 35 ppm (STEL) Concentrated solutions Skin/Eye Contact: May cause sulphate, be hazardous when empty Do not flush to sewer. can release dangerous irritation and damage. mercury, alkali because they retain product Skin and eye protection amounts of ammonia metals, acids, residues. required. vapor into the air. hypochlorites and
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 42
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
Table 11-1 Potential Hazards and Health Effects of Materials to be Utilized in the Proposed Disinfection Facility Exposure Hazards Incompatible Accidental Release Potential Health Effects Handling and Storage Controls/Personal Identification Material Measures Protection other chlorine containing compounds. Sodium Hypochlorite The solution is corrosive Ingestion: May cause irritation of Excessive heat, Store in vented, closed, clean Do not allow spilled Skin and eye protection and can cause severe the membranes of the mouth and reducing agents, non-corrosive containers in a material to enter sewers or required; respiratory protection burns to eyes, skin, and throat, stomach pain, and possible strong mineral cool, dry location away from streams. Flush area with required if vapors or mists are respiratory tract. Harmful ulceration. acids, ammonia direct sunlight and heat to water to dilute spill as much present. or fatal if swallowed. Inhalation: May cause burns, containing avoid deterioration. Do not as possible and pump into Harmful if cough, pulmonary edema, up to 48 compounds. store adjacent to chemicals polyethylene containers for inhaled. hours after exposure. which may react with the disposal. Avoid heat and Skin: May cause moderate skin bleach if spillage occurs. If contamination with acid irritation and reddening of the skin. closed containers become materials. Do not use Prolonged exposure may cause heated, the containers should combustible materials such burns, blistering. be vented to release as sawdust to absorb Eyes: May cause severe irritation decomposition products Sodium Hypochlorite such as burns, and eye damage. (mainly oxygen under normal solutions. decomposition). Do not mix or contaminate with ammonia, hydrocarbons, acids, alcohols or ethers. Acronyms
OSHA – Occupational Health and Safety Administration ACGIH – American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists PEL – Permissible Exposure Limit TLV – Threshold Limit Value NIOSH – National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health MSHA – Mine Safety and Health Administration
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (14)
The Jones Reservoir site is within one-quarter mile of the Eugene Field Elementary School (located across East Sierra Madre Boulevard), and the project involves hazardous material use. However, as described above, potential student exposure to either ammonium hydroxide or sodium hypochlorite is highly unlikely because of the transportation, containment, and use constrictions of these chemicals at the Jones Reservoir site. Furthermore, the handling and storage requirements and accidental release measures included in the CalARP plan and various other safety plans described above in part 11(a and b), effectively mitigate the presence of these materials in proximity to the elementary school.
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 43
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The project locations include the City of Pasadena’s Jones Reservoir site, City of Pasadena street right-of- way, and the seven involved well sites. None of these locations are listed on the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor database or in the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Envirofacts database. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impacts related to listed hazardous material sites.
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (6, 9)
AND
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (6, 9)
The project site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport (public or private). The closest airport (more than 10 miles away) is the Bob Hope Airport in Burbank, which is operated by a Joint Powers Authority with representatives from the Cities of Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the vicinity of an airport and would have no associated impacts.
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (17)
The City of Pasadena maintains a citywide emergency response plan, which goes into effect at the onset of a major disaster (e.g., a major earthquake). The Pasadena Fire Department maintains the disaster plan. In case of a disaster, the Fire Department is responsible for implementing the plan, and the Pasadena Police Department devises evacuation routes based on the specific circumstance of the emergency. The City has pre-planned evacuation routes for dam inundation areas associated with Devil's Gate Dam, Eaton Wash, and the Jones Reservoir.
The operation of the proposed Eastside Well Collector and Centralized Disinfection Facility Project would not place any permanent physical barriers on any existing public streets. However, there would be temporary lane closures on the streets where new pipelines are proposed during construction of the system. These closures would be temporary and are not anticipated to affect streets beyond those where pipeline replacement activities will occur. The streets that are likely to be subject to lane closure are included in Table 1. None of the temporary lane closures would make the streets fully impassable. In addition, as
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 44
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated required by Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, a construction traffic management plan would be in place to ensure that access to properties that adjoin streets where pipeline replacement would occur remains open. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, the proposed project would have no significant impact on emergency evacuation plans.
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (17)
The project locations are not areas of moderate or very high fire hazard shown on Plate P-2 of the 2002 Safety Element. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, and the project would have no associated impacts.
12. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (14, 22)
Installation of the Centralized Disinfection Facility at the existing Jones Reservoir and the proposed collector pipeline that would supply water to the reservoir would improve the quality of water in the system by blending any potential water contaminants in source waters to acceptable levels, and protecting the drinking water with proper disinfection. The collector pipeline would convey groundwater directly from the seven wells to the reservoir where it may blend with imported water prior to distribution to customers. The Centralized Disinfection Facility at the reservoir site would provide the same disinfection method for the well water as the method used by MWD for the imported water. The two sources of water become compatible with no loss in the disinfectant residual that is required for distribution. The new facilities would improve system operational flexibility and ensure that no violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would occur.
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (6)
PWP provides water service to the City of Pasadena and a limited number of customers in adjacent unincorporated areas. The City’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan3 describes PWP’s water demand as follows:
Currently, water demands are approximately 30,000 [acre feet per year] AFY, which is about 22% lower than in 2007. This significant reduction in demand is due to mandatory restrictions in water use that PWP implemented in response to a multi‐year drought that began in 2008 and ended in 2010, as well as a severe economic recession during this same time. It is estimated that if these two events did not occur, current water demands would be approximately 38,000 AFY.
3 Pasadena, City of. Urban Water Management Plan. 2010. East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 45
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
PWP’s water sources include:
Groundwater: PWP obtains approximately 40% of its annual water supply from groundwater in the Raymond Basin. PWP has an adjudicated right to withdraw 12,807 AFY from the Raymond Basin, with additional withdrawal rights provided on a year-to-year basis based on spreading surface water diversions in the Arroyo Seco and Eaton Canyon. In the 2005-2010 period, the combination of groundwater rights and pumping credits from surface runoff spreading has averaged approximately 14,000 AFY4. On July 1, 2009, the Raymond Basin Watermaster reduced allowable extractions to all agencies with decreed rights in the Pasadena Subarea of the Raymond Basin (including PWP). Each fiscal year (July 1 to June 30) the Watermaster reduces allowable extractions in increments of 6% so by the 5th fiscal year total reduction of 30% will be achieved.
Local Surface Water: PWP diverts surface water from the Arroyo Seco and Eaton Canyon to spreading basins that recharge the Raymond Basin. Hence, the additional pumping rights from the Basin noted above.
Imported Water: PWP meets the balance of its customer’s water demand (approximately 60% annually) with imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), managed by the state Department of Water Resources (DWR). The MWD’s water sources are the Colorado River Aqueduct and the State Water Project (SWP). Total annual MWD supplies range from a high of about 3.3 million acre feet (MAF) to a low of 1.9 MAF acre feet, depending on the year and the scenario (e.g., normal year vs. dry year).
This project is intended to collect and treat groundwater in the Pasadena Subarea of the Raymond Basin, which would be extracted by the City of Pasadena for drinking water use. The proposed project would not increase PWP’s ability to withdraw water from the aquifer, since no new wells are proposed.5 Regardless, with or without the proposed project, the amount of groundwater withdrawn from the Raymond Basin is dictated by Raymond Basin Watermaster and PWP would not be allowed to exceed the pumping allocations prescribed by the Watermaster. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated.
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? (22)
The proposed Eastside Well Collector and Centralized Disinfection Facility Project would improve the efficiency of operations of the Jones Reservoir and related facilities would not alter existing drainage patterns in any way. As such, these activities would result in no erosion or siltation impacts.
The proposed construction of the disinfection facility would occur on the Jones Reservoir site, which is currently improved with the reservoir itself and associated operations and maintenance structures. The top of the reservoir is fully improved as a public park with active recreational uses such as baseball diamonds, tennis, and basketball courts. There are no discernable drainages present on the park site or adjacent to the reservoir operations and maintenance facilities. The installation of the new disinfection facility just east of the existing reservoir facilities would not result in focusing or concentrating any stormwater flows and would not direct stormwater over exposed soils. In addition, none of the proposed improvements to the
4 Ibid. 5 The proposed project would redirect water from the seven involved wells to Jones Reservoir, rather than serving the water directly to customers. East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 46
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated eastside wells would affect stormwater flows at their respective locations. Regardless, the proposed project is required to comply with the Los Angeles County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (Permit # 01-182), as implemented by City ordinance. In accordance with this permit, construction of the proposed project must control potential pollutant sources at the construction site by, at a minimum, complying with the following standard requirements:
1. Sediments generated on the project site shall be retained using adequate Treatment Control or Structural BMPs; 2. Construction-related materials, wastes, spills or residues shall be retained at the project site to avoid discharge to streets, drainage facilities, receiving waters, or adjacent properties by wind or runoff; 3. Non-storm water runoff from equipment and vehicle washing and any other activity shall be contained at the project site; and 4. Erosion from slopes and channels shall be controlled by implementing an effective combination of BMPs (as approved in Regional Board Resolution No. 99-03), such as the limiting of grading scheduled during the wet season; inspecting graded areas during rain events; planting and maintenance of vegetation on slopes; and covering erosion susceptible slopes.
Compliance with these requirements ensures that the construction of the proposed East Well Collector and Disinfection Facility Project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation. After construction, the proposed disinfection facility, improved wells, and new pipelines would have no affect on drainage or stormwater flows. Given the limited potential for erosion and siltation during construction, the required compliance with the Countywide NPDES Permit, and the restoration to largely existing surface conditions after construction, the project would not cause significant erosion or sedimentation impacts.
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (22)
There will be a slight increase in runoff resulting from the installation of the Centralized Disinfection Facility because the proposed project would install additional impermeable surfaces at the Jones Reservoir site. However, adequate drainage exists currently on the site and the increase of stormwater runoff will be negligible due to the minimal size of the facility pad (approximately 500 ft2). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in flooding on- or off-site and would have no related significant impacts.
e. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
No measurable increase in runoff would result from installation of the disinfection facility, pipeline installation, or water well improvements. The existing stormwater drainage facilities in the areas where the improvements are proposed are sufficient to handle the proposed improvements. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts on the stormwater drainage system are anticipated.
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 47
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
The main goal of the project is to provide operational flexibility and to improve the quality of drinking water delivered to the customers. The proposed system would disinfect the extracted water to levels approved by the California Department of Public Health for drinking water. Therefore, no adverse impact is anticipated.
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or dam inundation area as shown in the City of Pasadena adopted Safety Element of the General Plan or other flood or inundation delineation map? (17)
Housing construction is not planned as part of this project. Therefore, no adverse impact would occur.
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? (17)
No portions of the City of Pasadena are within a 100-year floodplain identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). As shown on FEMA map Community Number 065050, most of the entire City is in Zone X. A few scattered areas are located in Zone D. Both Zone X and Zone D are located outside of the “Special Flood Hazard Areas Subject to Inundation by the 1% Annual Chance of Flood” (100 year floodplain) and no floodplain management regulations are required.
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (17)
As discussed above, no portions of the City of Pasadena are within a 100-year floodplain identified by FEMA. In addition, according to the City’s Dam Failure Inundation Map (Plate P-2, of the adopted 2002 Safety Element of the City's General Plan), the City’s dam inundation areas are limited to the Arroyo Seco flood control area, where no project equipment would be located, and the area immediately south of the Eaton Wash Dam. While certain proposed pipeline segments and well equipment would be located within the Eaton Wash Dam failure inundation area, the proposed project involves improving the City’s water system and, as such, does not pose a significant risk of loss, injury, or death. Furthermore, the risk of inundation due to failure of the Eaton Wash Dam is considerably low, due to the structural integrity of the dam and limited times of the year that water is contained behind the dam. Therefore, the project would have no impact from exposing people or structures to flooding risks, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 48
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (17)
The City of Pasadena is not located near enough to any inland bodies of water or the Pacific Ocean to be inundated by either a seiche or tsunami. Seiche, tsunami, or mudflow have not been known to impact the site. Therefore, no adverse impact is anticipated.
13. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an existing community? (6, 9)
The Jones Reservoir is an existing municipal facility that is located in predominately residential area in east Pasadena. There are single-family residential neighborhoods located to the immediate north, east, and west of the facility. These residential neighborhoods are self-contained micro-environments that function independently of the reservoir facility. There are institutional uses to the south of the site, across East Sierra Madre Boulevard, including a church and elementary school. Further development on the existing reservoir site would not adversely impact the functionality of either the residential areas that bound the project area or the institutional uses located across East Sierra Madre Boulevard. Division of these communities would not result from construction activities on the reservoir facility since the site exists independent of these neighborhoods. Similarly, the proposed Eastside Well Collector pipelines and proposed well site improvements would not create any permanent physical barriers to pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicle access. Therefore, the proposed project would not divide an existing community and would have no related impacts.
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (6, 9, 26)
The Jones Reservoir facility is located on a parcel that is zoned “Open Space” (OS) and has a General Plan Land Use designation of “Open Space”. Uses in this land use zone and designation accommodate uses such as municipal parks and recreation facilities. Hamilton Park sits atop the buried concrete reservoir. The reservoir facility is a public utility use while Hamilton Park is a public recreational facility. There are no specific plans or overlay zones that guide development in this particular area. Since the current facility is consistent with the zoning and general plan designation that governs development on the project site and installation of the disinfection facility further enhances the facility’s ability to accomplish its designated operations, implementation of the project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project.
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 49
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan (HCP) or natural community conservation plan (NCCP)? (6)
Currently, there are no adopted Habitat Conservation or Natural Community Conservation Plans within the City of Pasadena. There are also no approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plans.
14. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (21)
No active mining operations exist in the City of Pasadena. There are two areas in Pasadena that may contain mineral resources. These two areas are Eaton Wash, which, was formerly mined for sand and gravel, and Devils Gate Reservoir, which was formerly mined for cement concrete aggregate. None of the project components are located near either the Eaton Wash or the Devils Gate Reservoir. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource and would have no related impacts.
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (9, 21)
The City’s 2004 General Plan Land Use Element does not identify any mineral recovery sites within the City. No active mining operations exist in the City of Pasadena and mining is not currently allowed within any of the City’s designated land uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact a locally- important mineral resource recovery site.
15. NOISE. Will the project result in:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (11, 12)
Noise policy in the City of Pasadena is established in the City’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 9.36 of the City’s Municipal Code) and in the Noise Element of the General Plan. The Noise Ordinance applies to noise on one property impacting a neighboring property. Typically, it sets limits on noise levels that can be experienced at the neighboring property. The Noise Ordinance is part of the City’s Municipal Code and is enforceable throughout the City. The Noise Element of the General Plan presents limits on noise levels from transportation noise sources, vehicles on public roadways, railroads and aircraft. These limits are imposed on new developments. The new developments must incorporate measures to ensure that the limits are not exceeded. The City of Pasadena Noise Ordinance and Noise Element policies are detailed in the following paragraphs.
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 50
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
Section 9.36.050 of the City’s Noise Ordinance defines the limits applicable to General Noise Sources. Section 9.36.050 states that, “It is unlawful for any person to create, cause, make or continue to make or permit to be made or continued any noise our sound which exceeds the ambient noise level at the property line of any property by more than 5 decibels [dB].” Section 9.36.040(A) and 9.36.030(A) specify that ambient noise level is the measured 15 minute average (Leq) without the offending source. Section 9.36.040(B)(1) provides values that are to be added to the offending sound level depending on its characteristics (+5 dB for any steady audible tone or a repeated impulsive tone; and -5, -10, and -20 dB for noise occurring less than 15, 5, and 1 minute[s] in any daytime hour, respectively).
Section 9.36.060 defines interior noise standards applicable to multi-family residential property. The section states that it is unlawful to produce sound levels greater than 60 dBA during the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 50 dBA during the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) inside any dwelling unit on the same property or twenty feet from the outside of the dwelling unit.
Noise standards for construction projects and equipment are specified in Section 9.36.070 and 9.36.080, and these sources are not subject to the General Noise Source Regulations. Section 9.36.080 states that it is unlawful for any person to operate construction equipment that generates noise levels in excess of 85 dBA at a distance of 100 feet. Section 9.36.070 restricts noise generating construction activities to between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday in or within 500 feet of a residential area. Construction is prohibited on Sunday or holidays. Section 9.36.170(A) specifically exempts regulation of noise generated by construction, maintenance, and repair activities conducted by public agencies or their contractors.
The City of Pasadena General Plan Noise Element (2002) describes the major noise sources affecting the City and specifies objectives and policies to reduce noise from those sources. Figure 1 of the Noise Element presents noise levels that are considered by the City to be Clearly Acceptable, Normally Acceptable, and Conditionally acceptable for a variety of land uses.
The proposed project would generate noise from temporary construction activities and from operation of the facilities. Mestre Greve Associates (MGA) prepared a Noise Assessment (dated July 10, 2012) for the proposed project that analyzes these potential noise impacts. The project’s Noise Assessment is included in Appendix D of this Initial Study and the subsections below summarize the results of this technical study.
Construction Noise – Pipeline Installation
The proposed project involves installing 23,587 linear feet of water lines primarily within City street right-of- way at an average rate of 200 linear feet of pipeline per day. The loudest activities associated with this construction would be the use of concrete saws to cut existing pavement and the use of an excavator or backhoe to remove the pavement and dig a section of trench to the required depth (typically three to four feet plus the diameter of the pipe). Excavated material will be loaded into a dump truck and removed from the site. The excavator or backhoe would also be used to place fill material over the completed pipe section prior to paving which will generate similar noise levels to the excavation.
Concrete sawing could generate noise levels that approach the maximum allowable by the City’s Noise Ordinance of 85 dBA at a distance of 100 feet. This equates to a noise level of 91 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. However, this activity would only occur for a relatively small amount of time for one day adjacent to any use. The following day the saw would be located approximately 200 feet further down the road. Note that sound from equipment drops off at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. Therefore, if the sawing occurs 20 feet from a land use, the next day the sawing would be about 20 dB lower at the same receptor.
The backhoe or excavator used for excavation and backfill could generate noise levels near the allowable maximum for very short periods. While the excavator or backhoe is operating it would be expected to East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 51
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated generate an average (Leq) noise level in the 77 to 83 dBA range and typically around 80 dBA at a distance of 50 feet.
After excavation is completed pipe would be installed in the excavated trench and connected through welds. All pipes are loaded into the trench using an excavator or backhoe. However, the excavator or backhoe would be expected to generate noise levels much less than for excavation or backfill because less power would be required to handle the pipe than the excavated material or backfill. Average noise levels would be expected to be 5 to 10 dB lower during this activity than during excavation or backfill.
Repaving would be performed using hand tools to place the asphalt and a roller to compress the asphalt. The noise generated by the roller would be less than a typical vehicle pass.
Table 15-1 presents the worst-case average (Leq) noise levels at the uses along the roadways where the pipeline would be installed. These noise levels are based on the estimate of the loudest activities, concrete sawing, excavating, and filling, generating a Leq noise level of 80 dBA at a distance of 50 feet during the time that they are active. Further, the noise levels represent conditions when the work is occurring directly in front of the receptor. As discussed above, the pipeline installation is anticipated to occur at an average rate of 200 feet per day. Therefore, the noise levels shown in Table 15-1 would not be experienced for more than a few hours over no more than two days. Further, a considerable portion of the construction, installation, connection and testing of the pipes, would generate noise levels substantially lower than the noise levels presented in Table 15-1. Therefore, the noise levels presented in Table 15-1 would only be experienced for a portion of one to two days. As the activity moves away from one receptor, noise levels drop off rapidly.
For each road segment where pipeline construction would occur, Table 15-1 presents the land use directly adjacent to the road on both sides along with the expected worst-case average noise level during the peak activity periods both outdoors, at the nearest outdoor area, and indoors. Note that the indoor noise level assumes windows are closed and the building provides 20 dB of outdoor-to-indoor noise reduction.
Table 15-1 Worst-Case Average (Leq) Noise Levels During Pipeline Installation North or West of Segment South or East of Segment Roadway Segment Use Outdoor Indoor Use Outdoor Indoor Walnut St Parkwood Av to Greenwood Av Cmrcl 80 dBA 60 dBA Cmrcl 85 dBA 65 dBA
Greenwood Av to Berkeley Av Cmrcl 80 dBA 51 dBA Cmrcl 82 dBA 62 dBA
Berkeley Av to San Marino Av Cmrcl 77 dBA 57 dBA Cmrcl 82 dBA 62 dBA
San Marino Av to Oak Av Cmrcl 77 dBA 57 dBA Cmrcl 82 dBA 62 dBA
Oak Av to Craig Av Cmrcl 77 dBA 57 dBA Cmrcl 82 dBA 62 dBA
Craig Av
Walnut St to Foothill Bl Cmrcl 89 dBA 60 dBA Cmrcl 83 dBA 63 dBA
Foothill Bl to 100 ft N of Foothill Bl Cmrcl 85 dBA 65 dBA Cmrcl 84 dBA 64 dBA
100 ft N of Foothill Bl to White St Cmrcl 81 dBA 56 dBA Cmrcl 91 dBA 59 dBA
White St to 180 ft S of Corson St Res 86 dBA 59 dBA Res 85 dBA 65 dBA
180 ft S of Corson St to Corson St Res 85 dBA 63 dBA Res 78 dBA 58 dBA
Corson St to Maple St Fwy -- Fwy -- --
Maple St to 100 ft N of Dolores St Res 87 dBA 62 dBA Res 78 dBA 58 dBA
100 ft N of Dolores St to Villa St Res 86 dBA 61 dBA Res 84 dBA 64 dBA
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 52
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
Table 15-1 Worst-Case Average (Leq) Noise Levels During Pipeline Installation North or West of Segment South or East of Segment Roadway Segment Use Outdoor Indoor Use Outdoor Indoor Villa St to Monte Vista St Res 83 dBA 61 dBA Res 86 dBA 66 dBA
Monte Vista St to Las Lunas St Res 83 dBA 61 dBA Res 86 dBA 66 dBA
Las Lunas St to Lambert Dr Res 83 dBA 61 dBA Res 86 dBA 66 dBA
Lambert Dr to Orange Grove Bl Res 83 dBA 61 dBA Res 86 dBA 66 dBA
Orange Grove Bl to Paloma St Res 83 dBA 61 dBA Res 86 dBA 66 dBA
Paloma St
600 ft E of Palo Verde to Craig Av Res 88 dBA 61 dBA Res 78 dBA 58 dBA
Monte Vista St
Craig Av to Oak Av Res 88 dBA 59 dBA Res 82 dBA 62 dBA
Oak Av to Palo Verde Av Res 78 dBA 55 dBA Res 88 dBA 68 dBA
Palo Verde Av
Monte Vista St to Baldwin Aly Res 86 dBA 63 dBA Res 83 dBA 63 dBA
White St
Craig Av to Lola Av Res 81 dBA 59 dBA Res 87 dBA 67 dBA
Lola Av to Martelo Av Res 81 dBA 57 dBA Res 87 dBA 67 dBA
Martelo Av to Vista Av Res 81 dBA 57 dBA Res 87 dBA 67 dBA
Vista Av
White St (E) to White St (W) Res 84 dBA 59 dBA Cmrcl 79 dBA 59 dBA
White St
Vista Av to Carmelo Av Res 79 dBA 57 dBA Cmrcl 86 dBA 66 dBA
Carmelo Av to Altadena Dr Res 79 dBA 58 dBA Res 90 dBA 70 dBA
Sierra Madre Bl
Altadena Dr to Del Rey Res 76 dBA 55 dBA Res 79 dBA 59 dBA
Del Rey to Bella Vista Res 76 dBA 54 dBA Res 79 dBA 59 dBA
Bella Vista to La Tierra Res 76 dBA 54 dBA Res 79 dBA 59 dBA
La Tierra
Parking Sierra Madre Bl to San Gabriel Bl 84 dBA -- Cmrcl 81 dBA 61 dBA Lot San Gabriel Bl
La Tierra to Mataro St Cmrcl 91 dBA 65 dBA Res 73 dBA 53 dBA
Mataro St
San Gabriel Bl to Daisy Av Res 88 dBA 61 dBA Res 84 dBA 64 dBA
Daisy Av to east terminus Res 88 dBA 61 dBA Res 84 dBA 64 dBA
La Tierra
Mataro St to Sunnyslope Av Fwy -- -- Res 82 dBA 62 dBA
Sunnyslope Av
La Tierra St to Foothill Bl Res 75 dBA 53 dBA Fwy -- --
Foothill Bl
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 53
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
Table 15-1 Worst-Case Average (Leq) Noise Levels During Pipeline Installation North or West of Segment South or East of Segment Roadway Segment Use Outdoor Indoor Use Outdoor Indoor Park Sunnyslope Av to Titley Av -- -- Cmrcl 80 dBA 60 dBA Lot/Fwy. Titley Av to Santa Paula Av Cmrcl 84 dBA 60 dBA Cmrcl 81 dBA 61 dBA
Santa Paula Av to Sierra Madre Villa Cmrcl 81 dBA 61 dBA Cmrcl 79 dBA 59 dBA Bl Sierra Madre Villa Bl to Halstead St Cmrcl 83 dBA 62 dBA Res 68 dBA 48 dBA
Halstead St
Foothill Bl to 175 ft S of Foothill Cmrcl 84 dBA 61 dBA Cmrcl 84 dBA 64 dBA
Titley Ave.
Foothill Bl to south terminus Cmrcl 84 dBA 64 dBA Cmrcl 84 dBA 64 dBA
Sierra Madre Villa Ave
Foothill Bl to Mataro St Cmrcl 84 dBA 55 dBA Cmrcl 81 dBA 61 dBA
Mataro St to La Tierra Res 83 dBA 59 dBA Cmrcl 81 dBA 61 dBA
La Tierra St to Estado Res 83 dBA 59 dBA Cmrcl 81 dBA 61 dBA
Estado St to Alameda St Res 83 dBA 59 dBA Cmrcl 81 dBA 61 dBA
Alameda St to Del Vina St Res 83 dBA 59 dBA Cmrcl 81 dBA 61 dBA
Del Vina St to Las Lunas St Res 83 dBA 59 dBA Cmrcl 81 dBA 61 dBA
Las Lunas St to Hermanos St Res 86 dBA 64 dBA Cmrcl 79 dBA 59 dBA
Hermanos St to Rosemead Bl Res 82 dBA 60 dBA Cmrcl 81 dBA 61 dBA
Rosemead Bl to Rida St Library 81 dBA 53 dBA Park 79 dBA 59 dBA
Rida St to Paloma St Res 80 dBA 59 dBA Park 78 dBA 58 dBA
Paloma St to Primavera St Res 76 dBA 55 dBA Res 87 dBA 67 dBA
Primavera St to Sierra Madre Bl Res 76 dBA 55 dBA Res 87 dBA 67 dBA
Sierra Madre Bl
Golf Sierra Madre Villa Av to Riviera Dr 68 dBA -- Res 78 dBA 57 dBA Course East of Riviera Dr Res 71 dBA 51 dBA Res 78 dBA 57 dBA
East of Riviera Dr Res 71 dBA 51 dBA School 69 dBA 48 dBA
East of Riviera Dr Park 67 dBA -- Church 69 dBA 49 dBA
Jones Reservoir Service Road
North of Sierra Madre Bl Park 74 dBA -- Res 86 dBA 61 dBA
Table 15-1 shows that the peak activities would generate considerable outdoor noise levels at the nearest uses along most of the road segments where construction is proposed. The highest outdoor noise levels are projected to be 91 dBA. The average outdoor noise levels are projected to be 82 dBA. The highest indoor noise level is projected to be 66 dBA and the average indoor noise level is projected to be 59 dBA. Table 15-1 presents average (Leq) noise levels during peak activity periods and it should be noted that instantaneous peak noise levels (Lmax) from the construction could be as much as 11 dBA louder than the average noise levels.
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 54
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
Noise levels less than 60 dBA would not be expected to considerably interfere with communication. Between 60 and 66 dBA communication at a distance of more than approximately 10 feet would require a raised voice but much less than maximum vocal effort. For most areas, the construction would not substantially interfere with interior communication but in areas where construction is occurring within 30 feet of a building raised voices would be required during these high activity periods.
Construction would occur within 35 feet of 28 homes along seven road segments: (1) west side of Craig Avenue from 180 feet south of Corson Street to Corson Street (3 homes); (2) east side of Craig Avenue from Villa Street to Paloma Street (10 homes); (3) south side of White Street between Craig Avenue and Lola Avenue (4 homes); (4) south side of White Street between Martello Avenue and Vista Avenue (7 homes); (5) north side of White Street between Carmelo Avenue and Altadena Drive (2 homes); and (6) west side of Sierra Madre Villa Avenue between Las Lunas Street and Hermanos Street (2 homes). Construction would occur within 35 feet of eight businesses along four road segments: (1) east side of Walnut Street between Parkwood Avenue and Greenwood Avenue (1 business); (2) east side of Craig Avenue from Walnut Street to 100 feet north of Foothill Boulevard (3 businesses); (3) west side of San Gabriel Boulevard between La Tierra and Mataro Street (1 business); (4) south side of Hallstead Street between Foothill Boulevard and 175 feet south of Foothill Boulevard (1 business); and (5) east and west side of Titley Avenue from Foothill Boulevard to the southern terminus (2 businesses).
Centralized Disinfection Facility Construction
Construction of the proposed Centralized Disinfection Facility includes excavation of a pad/containment area that would be located approximately 140 feet from the nearest residence to the east. At this distance, the worst-case average (Leq) noise levels during the excavation would be expected to be 71 dBA outdoors and 51 dBA indoors (with windows closed). During most of construction of the facility, construction levels would be much less than this, as heavy equipment would not be needed. The exception is the installation of the storage tanks, which would require the use of a crane. The crane would be expected to generate a maximum noise level at the nearest home of approximately 74 dBA outdoors, and 54 dBA indoors. However, this noise level would not occur for more than a few hours over a few days.
Construction at Well Sites
Table 15-2 presents the worst-case construction noise levels that would occur at the nearest residence to each well site. This is the worst-case average noise level that would occur during the use of heavy equipment that may be required for pad construction and would be required for installation of the surge tanks. Therefore, these noise levels would only be experienced for, at most, a few hours each day over a couple of days. During the remainder of construction at the well sites, heavy equipment would not be required and construction noise levels would not be considerable. Noise levels are not listed for Jourdan Well as it is located in the middle of a commercial district and there are no nearby residences that would be impacted by construction noise at the well site.
Table 15-2 Worst-Case Average (Leq) Noise Levels at Residences During Well Construction Well Outdoor Indoor Twombly 68 dBA 46 dBA Chapman 73 dBA 58 dBA Jordan -- -- Wadsworth 73 dBA 52 dBA Woodbury 67 dBA 46 dBA Monte Vista 90 dBA 63 dBA East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 55
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
Table 15-2 Worst-Case Average (Leq) Noise Levels at Residences During Well Construction Well Outdoor Indoor Craig 84 dBA 58 dBA
Table 15-2 shows that the highest noise levels are projected to be experienced at residences adjacent to the Monte Vista and Craig well sites. This is because both of these sites are located in the middle of residential areas. Higher outdoor noise levels would temporarily be experienced at the adjacent residences during construction periods, however, indoor noise levels, while considerable, would not considerably interfere with speech communication. All other outdoor residential areas are located more than 100 feet from the well sites. Moderate outdoor noise levels will occur at these homes, but indoor noise levels at these homes are not considered substantial.
Conclusion – Construction Noise
The information presented above shows that outdoor noise levels during pipeline construction would be substantial in many areas where the construction occurs close to outdoor areas. This is also true of the construction at the Monte Vista and Craig Well sites. However, indoor noise levels would not considerably interfere with communication in the homes. Further, these high noise levels are temporary as they will only be expected to occur for a few hours each day for a few days at most. Construction of the Centralized Disinfectant Facility would result in moderately high outdoor noise levels during operation of heavy equipment, but indoor noise levels are not projected to interfere with communication.
As discussed above, Section 9.36.170(A) specifically exempts construction activities conducted by public agencies or their contractors from the City’s Noise Ordinance standards, as deemed necessary by the City to serve the best interests of the public and to protect the public health, safety and welfare. However, Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 require construction of the project to be limited to the hours allowed by Section 9.36.070 of the Municipal Code (7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and at no time on Sundays or Holidays); and require that all equipment used comply with Section 9.36.080 of the Municipal Code which limits the noise generated by the equipment to a level of 85 dBA at a distance of 100 feet. With these restrictions, as required by Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2, project construction would not result in a significant noise impact.
Mitigation Measure NOI-1: All noise generating construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays and holidays.
Mitigation Measure NOI-2: All equipment used by the project shall comply with City of Pasadena Municipal Code Section 9.36.080 and shall not generate a noise level in excess of 85 dBA at a distance of 100 feet.
Operational (Long-Term) Noise
The Eastside Well Collector component of the project would not result in significant operational long-term noise impacts. The project does not result in any new sources of noise at the wells. There would be no considerable increase in pumping operations from the wells as the amount of water pumped from the wells is limited by groundwater pumping rights.
There is no equipment included in the Centralized Disinfection Facility that would generate considerable levels of noise. Small pumps would be used to inject the disinfection agents into the water and for the water
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 56
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated sampling. However, these pumps do not generate appreciable noise levels. At the nearest residence the noise generated by these pumps would be less than noise generated by traffic on Sierra Madre Boulevard. Periodic delivery of disinfectant agents to the disinfection facility would generate infrequent short-term noise events. Delivery of disinfectant agents to the Centralized Disinfection Facility would occur a maximum of four times in a month during daytime hours. The truck would generate noise as it approached and departed the site. However, the noise generated by the delivery truck would be no louder at the nearest residence than a truck passing the residence on Sierra Madre Boulevard. A pump would operate to transfer the disinfection agents from the truck to the tanks. However, this pump is not expected to generate considerable levels of noise compared to the noise generated by traffic on Sierra Madre Boulevard.
None of the components associated with operation of the project are expected to generate noise levels greater than existing ambient levels. Therefore, the operation of the project would not generate noise levels more than 5 dBA above ambient levels in violation of the City of Pasadena Noise Ordinance limits on General Noise Sources. Therefore, the operation of the project would not result in a significant long-term noise impact.
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (11, 12)
There are no vibration standards established by the City of Pasadena. Regardless, the proposed project would neither generate, nor expose people to excessive groundborne vibrations or groundborne noise levels. Operation of the proposed water facilities would not generate perceptible vibrations. Construction of the project may temporarily generate a limited amount of vibration. However, the project does not include pile driving or large scale demolition or grading, which are the construction activities typically associated with vibration impacts. Given the type of construction and the proposed hours of construction (daytime only), vibration impacts are considered less than significant.
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (11, 12)
See the discussion of “Operational (Long-Term) Noise” above in Section 15(a). Operation of the project would cause minor and less than significant noise impacts from operations at the proposed Centralized Disinfection facility. None of the components associated with operation of the project are expected to generate noise levels greater than existing ambient levels.
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (12)
See Section 15(a) above. Construction of the proposed project would cause a temporary increase in ambient noise levels. Section 15(a) describes that outdoor noise levels during pipeline construction would be substantial in many areas where the construction occurs close to outdoor areas. This is also true of the construction at the Monte Vista and Craig Well sites. However, indoor noise levels would not considerably interfere with communication in the homes. Further, these high noise levels are temporary and are only expected to occur for a few hours each day for a few days at most. Construction of the Centralized East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 57
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
Disinfectant Facility would result in moderately high outdoor noise levels during operation of heavy equipment, but indoor noise levels are not projected to interfere with communication. Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 are included to reduce construction noise impacts to a less than significant level.
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
There are no airports or airport land-use plans in the City of Pasadena. The closest airport is the Bob Hope Airport (formerly the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport), which is located more than 10 miles from Pasadena in the City of Burbank. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people to excessive airport related noise and would have no associated impacts.
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
There are no private-use airports or airstrips within or near the City of Pasadena.
16. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (7)
The proposed Eastside Well Collector and Centralized Disinfection Facility Project would not induce growth in the area because the purpose of the project is to provide operational flexibility and to treat existing supplies of water. The installation of a new disinfection facility, new water pipelines, and improvements at the seven eastside wells would not induce growth as these improvements are meant to improve their operations within the pumping limitations previously established by existing groundwater pumping rights. With the installation of the proposed treatment system, pipeline installations and well improvements, there will be no expansion of water supply that could induce growth; rather, there will just be improvements to existing water supply and treatment operations.
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The Jones Reservoir is an existing facility in a developed area of the City. Installation of the water disinfection equipment will only slightly expand the footprint of the facility with there being no expansion of the holding capacity of the reservoir itself. No structures outside the confines of the project site are proposed for demolition. Therefore, undertaking of project activities would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing that would trigger the replacement of these units elsewhere in the City.
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 58
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The Jones Reservoir facility is currently located in a residential area of the City, but there are no residential structures that will be affected by the construction activities. There are no structures that are proposed for demolition. Since no structures will be demolished at the reservoir site and no residential structures are affected by the project activities, no people would be displaced thus this project would not require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
17. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a. Fire Protection?
The proposed Eastside Well Collector and Centralized Disinfection Facility Project would not alter or expand the operations and, therefore, would not require additional fire protection to service the site.
The proposed project would require the use of chemicals that require the review of the project by the Pasadena Fire Department. Specifically, the use of ammonium hydroxide and sodium hypochlorite are regulated under the California Fire Code (Chapters 27, 31, and 40) and ammonium hydroxide is regulated under CCR Title 19, Division 2, Chapter 4.5, California Accidental Release Program.
As outlined in response 11 (a and b) above, PWP would be required to operate the proposed facility in accordance with the following standard programs that govern the use of hazardous materials:
• Hazardous Materials Business Plan • Injury and Illness Prevention Plan (IIPP) • Emergency Action Plan • Hazard Communication Plan. • California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) program.
The CalARP Risk Management Plan is required to be submitted to the City of Pasadena Fire Department for review and compliance, and hazardous materials may not be stored or utilized onsite until the Department approves the CalARP Risk Management Plan.
Upon review of the project it has been determined that the project would not require an increase in staffing. There would be no alteration to acceptable service ratios or response times or other performance objectives than are currently experienced on the project site as it exists currently. Therefore there would be no adverse physical or service impacts associated with the implementation of this project in regards to fire protection.
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 59
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
b. Libraries?
Installation of the water disinfection treatment facilities on the existing site of the Jones Reservoir facility, along with the installation of new pipelines and eastside water well improvements, would not alter or expand the operations of the facilities and therefore would not require additional libraries to be provided on the project site or in the vicinity. Therefore there would be no impacts associated with the implementation of this project in regards to libraries.
c. Parks?
Installation of the proposed water disinfection facilities on the Jones Reservoir/Hamilton Park site would not impact park facilities. The Jones Reservoir is a buried facility that is located beneath Hamilton Park; however, the proposed disinfection facilities and associated pipeline would be located in a secure portion of the site that is not open to the public and is not used for park or recreation purposes. Thus, the installation of the proposed equipment would not affect or change any of the operations at the park either during construction or during their operations.
Similarly, the proposed project would not increase the demand for parks. The proposed project is an improvement of the City’s water system and does not involve development of residential uses that would increase the population of the City. Furthermore, the project does not involve expansion of available water supplies or other improvements that would promote growth. Rather, the proposed project is intended to improve the City’s water reliability and disinfection process to serve the City’s existing and projected water demand. Therefore, the proposed Eastside Well Collector and Centralized Disinfection Facility Project would have no adverse impact on parks.
d. Police Protection?
The Jones Reservoir is an existing facility, and as such is already being served by the local police department. The proposed project is the enhancement of the existing facility with new water disinfection equipment. Since the proposal does not include the expansion or major alteration of site activities the proposal would not trigger adverse impacts that would require the hiring of additional law enforcement officers. The expansion of water delivery and treatment activities would have no impact on law enforcement in the project vicinity.
e. Schools?
The installation of the water disinfection facilities at the Jones reservoir, installation of new pipelines, and improvements to existing wells, will have no impact on the area schools. The Jones Reservoir facility is an existing municipal facility. The installation of on-site water treatment equipment would not result in the need for additional school facilities.
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 60
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
f. Other public facilities?
The proposed water infrastructure project would have no other impact on public facilities or services.
18. RECREATION.
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
The installation of new water disinfection equipment at the Jones Reservoir site would not increase the use of the existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The proposed project is an improvement of the City’s water system and does not involve the development of residential uses that would increase the demand for recreation facilities by increasing the population of the City. Furthermore, the project does not involve expansion of available water supplies or other improvements that would promote growth. Rather, the proposed project is intended to improve the City’s water reliability and disinfection process to serve the City’s existing and projected water demand. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the use of existing parks or other recreational facilities and would cause no related physical deterioration of such facilities.
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
The Jones Reservoir is a buried facility that is situated beneath Hamilton Park. The proposed project does not include recreational facilities and would not require construction or expansion of Hamilton Park recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The proposed project is the installation of a water disinfection facility and appurtenant equipment as well as the replacement of existing pipelines and improvements to existing water wells. There will be no need for additional recreation facilities and the existing recreational facilities at Hamilton park will be unaffected by the project.
19. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? (10, 14)
The only vehicle trips that would be generated by operation of the proposed project would be for occasional maintenance of the proposed disinfection facility and improved well sites and deliveries to the proposed disinfection facility. Currently, PWP operations staff visits the sites to maintain and monitor existing water infrastructure. The only expected additional trips that would result from the project would be for delivery of
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 61
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated materials to refill the proposed ammonium hydroxide and sodium hypochlorite tanks at the Jones Reservoir site. In the peak flow rate scenario, the sodium hypochlorite tank would require refilling about every 13 days and the ammonium hydroxide tank would require refilling about every 25 days. This nominal amount of vehicle trips would have no impact on the traffic load and capacity of the street system. Furthermore, the majority of trips associated with the maintenance and operation of the proposed water facilities are expected to occur during off-peak traffic hours. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would have no impacts related to the performance of the circulation system.
Construction of the proposed project, however, has the potential to temporarily cause significant impacts on the performance of the circulation system. The Eastside Well Collector project involves installing 23,587 linear feet (4.47 miles) of pipeline, nearly all of which would be installed within existing City street right-of- way. As shown in Table 1, 17 City streets would be affected by this proposed construction.
Construction methods would use open-cut trenching techniques. Construction is expected to progress at the rate of 100 to 300 feet per day, depending on the conditions, with an average estimated rate of 200 feet per day. The work zone (maximum construction area at any given time) would be between 300 to 400 feet long, which includes the temporary storage of materials used at the active work zone. Work areas would extend approximately ten feet on either side of the pipeline alignment, for an average construction zone width of 25-30 feet. Localized construction-period impacts could include the temporary loss of on-street parking, lane and sidewalk closures, left-turn restrictions and driveway access restrictions. Upon completing each section, the backfill of the trenches would allow motorized and non-motorized traffic to operate in pre- construction condition.
Table 1 identifies the facilities in each involved roadway segment that would be affected by the proposed construction (e.g., travel lanes, sidewalks, bike lanes, etc). Construction is anticipated to result in temporary lane closures in certain segments of 10 streets – Walnut Street, Craig Avenue, Altadena Street, La Tierra, San Gabriel Boulevard, Sunnyslope Avenue, Foothill Boulevard, Halstead Street, Sierra Madre Villa Avenue, and Sierra Madre Boulevard. In addition, the proposed construction is anticipated to temporarily impact the sidewalk along certain segments of Paloma Street and White Street and the Class III bike route along certain segments of Sierra Madre Boulevard. To minimize the impacts of the proposed construction on the circulation system, Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 requires that a Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan be prepared. In addition, Mitigation Measures TRAF-2 through TRAF-7 require alternative routes for impacted pedestrians and cyclists; advanced noticing to surrounding homes and businesses; coordination with transit agencies and emergency providers; and restoration of affected streets to pre-construction conditions. With the incorporation of these measures, the temporary traffic impacts that would occur during construction are less than significant.
Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: A Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan shall be prepared for each construction site and submitted to the Pasadena Department of Public Works and Pasadena Department of Transportation for review and approval prior to the start of construction work. This plan shall include such elements as the location of lane closures, restrictions on hours or times of the year during which lane closures or other work would be allowed, the location of access to each off-street construction site, the designation of haul routes for construction-related trucks, requirements for protective devices and traffic controls (such as barricades, cones, flagmen, lights, warning beacons, warning signs, temporary turn restrictions), identification of local traffic detours (where necessary and where reasonable alternate routes exist), measures to address restrictions on access to abutting properties, provisions to maintain emergency access through construction work areas, and designation of staging and parking areas for workers and equipment.
Mitigation Measure TRAF-2: During project construction, alternative pedestrian and bicycle access routes shall be provided where existing sidewalks, crosswalks, or bike lanes would be affected. All changes shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Transportation. East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 62
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
Mitigation Measure TRAF-3: Prior to the commencement of construction activities, advance notice shall be provided to any affected residents, businesses, and property owners in the vicinity of each construction site, and shall identify alternative means of access where existing property access would be reduced.
Mitigation Measure TRAF-4: The Pasadena Water & Power Department shall coordinate with emergency service providers (police, fire, ambulance, and paramedic services) to provide advance notice of any planned lane closures, construction hours, or changes to local access and to identify alternative routes where appropriate.
Mitigation Measure TRAF-5: The Pasadena Water & Power Department shall coordinate with public transit providers (Metro, Pasadena ARTS, Foothill Transit, and Montebello Bus Service) to provide advance notice of lane closures, construction hours and, where necessary, identify sites for temporary bus stops within a reasonable walking distance of any displaced bus stops.
Mitigation Measure TRAF-6: Upon completion of construction and testing at the Eastside Wells and collector pipes, streets, sidewalks, driveways and public transit stops shall be completely restored to pre-construction conditions.
Mitigation Measure TRAF-7: The project shall comply with all Building, Fire and Safety Codes and plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works and the Transportation Departments, and the Building and Planning Divisions, and the Fire Department.
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (10)
The Eastside Well Collector and Centralized Disinfection Facility Project would not individually or cumulatively exceed level of service standards established by the County Congestion Management agency for designated roads or highways. As discussed in Section 19(a) the proposed disinfection facility would generate only a nominal amount of vehicle trips. The Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) does not require traffic impact analyses for projects that contribute less than 50 trips to CMP arterial monitoring intersections during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to the CMP.
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
There are no airports within the project vicinity and the proposed water treatment facility would have no impact on air traffic patterns.
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 63
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (10, 14)
The project has the potential to temporarily increase hazards due to a design feature during installation of the proposed Eastside Well Collector pipelines. As described in Section 19(a) above and detailed in Table 1, the proposed project involves installing pipelines beneath 17 City streets, which would includes placing construction vehicles/equipment and workers adjacent to travel lanes, temporary lane closures, temporary access drives/detours, temporary lane reconfiguration/shifts, and other street modifications during construction. To ensure the temporary modifications of the circulation system would not cause significant traffic hazards, Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 requires that a Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan be prepared that identifies the necessary traffic controls (such as barricades, cones, flagmen, lights, warning beacons, warning signs, and temporary turn restrictions). Once construction is completed, all involved roadways would be restored to pre-construction conditions as required by Mitigation Measure TRAF-6. With the incorporation of these measures, the proposed project would not cause significant impacts related to an increase in hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use.
e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
In the long term, the proposed project would not place any barriers or obstructions on any roadways and would not affect emergency access. During construction, however, installation of the proposed Eastside Well Collector pipeline would affect 17 City streets, which could impact emergency access. As described above in Sections 19(a) and 19(d) and detailed in Table 1, the proposed project involves installing pipelines beneath 17 City streets, which would include placing construction vehicles/equipment and workers adjacent to travel lanes, temporary lane closures, temporary access drives/detours, temporary lane reconfiguration/shifts, and other street modifications during construction. The work zone (maximum construction area at any given time) would be between 300 to 400 feet long, which includes the temporary storage of materials used at the active work zone. Localized construction-period impacts could include the temporary loss of on-street parking, lane and sidewalk closures, left-turn restrictions and driveway access restrictions. Upon completing each section, the backfill of the trenches would allow motorized and non- motorized traffic to operate in pre-construction condition.
Since construction of the pipeline would occur in stages, approximately 300 to 400 feet of the alignment would be affected at any one time. A potentially adverse safety impact to motorists and non-motorists associated with open trench construction along each street segment could occur, such as accidentally entering the trench itself or having to maneuver through temporarily-narrowed travel lanes. To ensure adequate emergency access is provided during construction, Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 requires the project’s Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan to maintain emergency access to the satisfaction of the City’s Department of Public Works and Department of Transportation. In addition, Mitigation Measure TRAF-4 requires PWP to coordinate with emergency service providers and Mitigation Measure TRAF-7 requires the project to comply with Building, Fire, and Safety Codes. With the incorporation of these measures, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to safety or inadequate emergency access.
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 64
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? (10, 14)
The Jones Reservoir currently has parking available for service personnel on the access road and in paved areas that border the reservoir on the south, east, and west. Parking is also available to the north in the parking lot for Hamilton Park that takes access from Cartwright Street. The portion of the site where the new water disinfection facilities would be constructed would not result in any loss of designated parking spaces or areas used for access. The area is not striped and is not improved as a dedicated parking area. Additionally, installation of the new water disinfection facilities would not increase the number of employees needed to operate the facility so there would not be a need for additional parking spaces. Therefore, the proposed Centralized Disinfection Facility would not result in inadequate parking capacity.
During construction of the Eastside Well Collector pipeline, street parking would temporarily be affected. As detailed in Table 1, the proposed pipeline installation would temporarily disrupt street parking on 13 streets: Walnut Street, Craig Avenue, Paloma Street, Monte Vista Street, Palo Verde Avenue, White Street, Vista Avenue, Altadena Drive, Sierra Madre Boulevard, San Gabriel Boulevard, Mataro Street, La Tierra, and Sierra Madre Villa Avenue. However, the length of street to be disrupted at one period of time would be limited. The maximum work zone would be between 300 to 400 feet long, which includes the temporary storage of materials used at the active work zone. If all 300-400 feet of roadway being disrupted was available for street parking, the project could result in the temporary loss of 15-20 parallel parking spaces or 30-40 spaces if parking on both sides of the street were affected. Since construction is expected to progress at 200 feet per day, a particular on-street parking space would only be affected for a period of several days. Given the limited number of parking spaces that would be disrupted at any one time, the short-term nature of the parking disruption, and the fact that all affected parking would be public street parking, the proposed project would not result in a significant parking impact.
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? (10, 14)
Installation of water disinfection facilities at the existing Jones Reservoir facility as well as the installation of pipelines and new well equipment would not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. The project is intended to improve water supply and would have no impact on transportation.
20. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
The proposed project would not generate any wastewater that would be discharged into the sewer system other than a minor waste stream from the analyzers for the chloramination system. By agreement PWP is required to coordinate with the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation District) to ensure the project’s waste stream could be accommodated by the District’s wastewater treatment facilities. However, no discharge permit from the Sanitation Districts is anticipated based on PWP’s recent coordination with them on a similar disinfection project where the waste stream generated by the analyzers was so minimal
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 65
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated that the connection to the sewer was exempt from a Sanitation District permit. Therefore, the proposed project would have no significant impacts related to wastewater treatment requirements.
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The project includes construction of equipment for a drinking water disinfection facility at an existing reservoir site as well as the installation of new water pipelines and improvements to seven water well locations. The project would not require additional water treatment or expansion of existing water treatment facilities.
c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The project would not require the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. The project is located in a developed urban area where storm drainage is provided by existing streets, storm drains, flood control channels, and catch basins. As discussed in Section 12, the project would involve only minor changes in the site’s drainage patterns and does not involve altering any drainage courses or flood control facilities.
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
The amount of water that would be withdrawn from the Raymond Basin is coordinated through the Raymond Basin Watermaster. No new water supplies or expansion of existing water supplies would be required to serve the project. The proposed project would maintain the pumping of the City’s annual groundwater allotment. No impact would occur. See also subsection 12(b).
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
The proposed project consists of a water disinfection facility, the installation of new water pipelines, and proposed improvements to existing water wells. The project would not increase the demand for wastewater service. Therefore, the project would not result in insufficient wastewater service, and would cause no related impacts.
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 66
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
The project is located in a developed urban area and within the City's refuse collection area. The project would not result in the need for a new or in substantial alteration to the existing system of solid waste collection and disposal. Therefore, the project would cause no impacts under this topic.
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
In 1992, the City adopted the "Source Reduction and Recycling Element" to comply with the California Integrated Waste Management Act. This Act requires that jurisdictions maintain a 50% or better diversion rate for solid waste. The City implements this requirement through Section 8.61 of the Pasadena Municipal Code, which establishes the City’s “Solid Waste Collection Franchise System.” As described in Section 8.61.175, each franchisee is responsible for meeting the minimum recycling diversion rate of 50% on both a monthly basis and annual basis. The proposed project is required to comply with the applicable solid waste franchise’s recycling system and, thus, will meet Pasadena’s and California’s solid waste diversion regulations. In addition, the project complies with the City’s Construction and Demolition Ordinance (PMC Section 8.62) and design requirements for refuge storage areas (PMC Section 17.64.240). Therefore, the project would not cause any significant impacts from conflicting with statutes or regulations related to solid waste.
21. EARLIER ANALYSIS.
Earlier analysis 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. See CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D).
a) Earlier Analysis Used. No program EIR, tiering, or other process can be used for analysis of the project’s environmental effects.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Not applicable.
c) Mitigation Measures. Not applicable.
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 67
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
As discussed in Sections 3 and 5 of this document, the proposed project would not have substantial impacts to aesthetics or air quality. Also, as discussed in Section 6 of this document, the proposed project would not have substantial impacts to special status species, stream habitat, and wildlife dispersal and migration. Furthermore, the proposed project would not significantly affect the local, regional, or national populations or ranges of any plant or animal species. Also, as discussed in Section 7 of this document, the proposed project would not have substantial impacts on historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources and, thus, would not eliminate any important examples of California history or prehistory. As discussed in Sections 12 and 14 of this document, the proposed project would not have substantial impacts to water quality or mineral resources. Therefore, the project will not substantially degrade the quality of the land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future project?
The proposed project would not cause impacts that are cumulatively considerable. The project has the potential to contribute to cumulative air quality, hydrology, water quality, noise, public services, traffic, and utility impacts. However, the project’s contribution to these cumulative conditions is not considerable. Therefore, the proposed project does not have a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to cumulative impacts.
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
As discussed in Sections 5, 12, and 19 of this document, the proposed project would not expose persons to the hazards of air pollution, flooding, or transportation hazards. Section 9 of this document explains that although the proposed facility would be exposed to typical southern California earthquake hazards, modern engineering practices would ensure that geologic and seismic conditions would not directly cause substantial adverse effects on humans. In addition, as discussed in Sections 3 Aesthetics, 13 Land Use and Planning, 15 Noise, 16 Population and Housing, 17 Public Services, 18 Recreation, 19 Transportation/Traffic, and 20 Utilities and Service Systems the project would not indirectly cause substantial adverse effects on humans. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to environmental effects that could cause substantial adverse effects on humans. Several mitigation measures are required that will reduce the temporary short term impacts related to Noise and Traffic and Transportation: East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 68
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
Noise:
Mitigation Measure N-1: All noise generating construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays and holidays.
Mitigation Measure N-2: All equipment used by the project shall comply with City of Pasadena Municipal Code Section 9.36.080 and shall not generate a noise level in excess of 85 dBA at a distance of 100 feet.
Traffic and Transportation:
Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: A Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan shall be prepared for each construction site and submitted to the Pasadena Department of Public Works and Pasadena Department of Transportation for review and approval prior to the start of construction work. This plan shall include such elements as the location of lane closures, restrictions on hours or times of the year during which lane closures or other work would be allowed, the location of access to each off-street construction site, the designation of haul routes for construction-related trucks, requirements for protective devices and traffic controls (such as barricades, cones, flagmen, lights, warning beacons, warning signs, temporary turn restrictions), identification of local traffic detours (where necessary and where reasonable alternate routes exist), measures to address restrictions on access to abutting properties, provisions to maintain emergency access through construction work areas, and designation of staging and parking areas for workers and equipment.
Mitigation Measure TRAF-2: During project construction, alternative pedestrian and bicycle access routes shall be provided where existing sidewalks, crosswalks, or bike lanes would be affected. All changes shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Transportation.
Mitigation Measure TRAF-3: Prior to the commencement of construction activities, advance notice shall be provided to any affected residents, businesses, and property owners in the vicinity of each construction site, and shall identify alternative means of access where existing property access would be reduced.
Mitigation Measure TRAF-4: The Pasadena Water & Power Department shall coordinate with emergency service providers (police, fire, ambulance, and paramedic services) to provide advance notice of any planned lane closures, construction hours, or changes to local access and to identify alternative routes where appropriate.
Mitigation Measure TRAF-5: The Pasadena Water & Power Department shall coordinate with public transit providers (Metro, Pasadena ARTS, Foothill Transit, and Montebello Bus Service) to provide advance notice of lane closures, construction hours and, where necessary, identify sites for temporary bus stops within a reasonable walking distance of any displaced bus stops.
Mitigation Measure TRAF-6: Upon completion of construction and testing at the Eastside Wells and collector pipes, streets, sidewalks, driveways and public transit stops shall be completely restored to pre-construction conditions.
Mitigation Measure TRAF-7: The project shall comply with all Building, Fire and Safety Codes and plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works and the Transportation Departments, and the Building and Planning Divisions, and the Fire Department.
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 69
Significant Potentially Less Than Unless Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation is Impact Impact Incorporated
As described in Section 11 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials) of this document, PWP will be taking appropriate precautions in the design and procedural operations to protect sensitive receptors and limit the exposure of the disinfection chemicals due to an accidental release. The proposed disinfection system incorporates various design features and operating procedures to ensure the safe storage and handling of potentially hazardous materials. The system will also require compliance with the California Accidental Release Prevention program, and operate in accordance with numerous procedural and emergency plans (Hazardous Materials Business Plan, Injury and Illness Prevention Plan, Emergency Action Plan, Hazard Communication Plan). Therefore, the proposed project would not have a Mandatory Finding of Significance due to environmental effects that could cause substantial adverse effects on humans.
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 70
INITIAL STUDY REFERENCE DOCUMENTS # Document
1 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, California Public Resources Code, revised January 1, 1994 official Mt. Wilson, Los Angeles and Pasadena quadrant maps were released March 25, 1999. 2 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, South Coast Air Quality Management District, revised 1993 3 East Pasadena Specific Plan Overlay District, City of Pasadena Planning and Development Department, codified 2001 4 Energy Element of the General Plan, City of Pasadena, adopted 1983 5 Fair Oaks/Orange Grove Specific Plan Overlay District, City of Pasadena Planning and Development Department codified 2002 6 Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) Land Use and Mobility Elements of the General Plan, Zoning Code Revisions, and Central District Specific Plan, City of Pasadena, certified 2004 7 2008-2014 Housing Element of the General Plan, City of Pasadena. 8 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Pasadena Municipal Code Chapter 17.71 Ordinance #6868 9 Land Use Element of the General Plan, City of Pasadena, adopted 2004 10 Mobility Element of the General Plan, City of Pasadena, adopted 2004 11 Noise Element of the General Plan, City of Pasadena, adopted 2002 12 Noise Protection Ordinance Pasadena Municipal Code Chapter 9.36 Ordinances # 5118, 6132, 6227, 6594, and 6854 13 North Lake Specific Plan Overlay District, City of Pasadena Planning and Development Department, Codified 1997 14 Pasadena Municipal Code, as amended 15 Recommendations On Siting New Sensitive Land Uses, California Air Resources Board, May 2005 16 Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, Southern California Association of Governments, 2008 17 Safety Element of the General Plan, City of Pasadena, adopted 2002 18 Scenic Highways Element of the General Plan, City of Pasadena, adopted 1975 19 Seismic Hazard Maps, California Department of Conservation, official Mt. Wilson, Los Angeles and Pasadena quadrant maps were released March 25, 1999. The preliminary map for Condor Peak was released in 2002. 20 South Fair Oaks Specific Plan Overlay District Planning and Development, codified 1998 21 State of California “Aggregate Resource in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area” by David J. Beeby, Russell V. Miller, Robert L. Hill, and Robert E. Grunwald, Miscellaneous map no. .010, copyright 1999, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology 22 Storm Water and Urban Runoff Control Regulations Pasadena Municipal Code Chapter 8.70 Ordinance #6837 23 Transportation Impact Review Current Practice and Guidelines, City of Pasadena, August, 2005 24 Tree Protection Ordinance Pasadena Municipal Code Chapter 8.52 Ordinance # 6896 25 West Gateway Specific Plan Overlay District, City of Pasadena Planning and Development Department codified 2001 26 Zoning Code, Chapter 17 of the Pasadena Municipal Code
East Well Collector and Centralized July 2012 Disinfection Facility Project Initial Study Page 71