The URL can be used to link to this page

18-0515_VERMEULEN RANCH CENTER, LLC_D1_Agenda Report_Encl 2 FINAL INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO in[owonas[o • sssuusen 1961 4776 ■ o LSA April 2018 This page intentionally left blank FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO r�ir• ` 11IllIPGi0.1E0 � iSiP1lISNiO ' 19G1 • Submitted to: City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Department 32400 Paseo Adelanto San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 Prepared by: LSA 20 Executive Park, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92614 (949) 553-0666 LSA Project No.JCA1703 This page intentionally left blank FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT APRIL 2018 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS..................................... 1 INDEX OF COMMENTS RECEIVED..................................................................................................4 RESPONSES-1-1.............................................................................................................................9 RESPONSES-2-1........................................................................................................................... 13 RESPONSES-2-2........................................................................................................................... 13 RESPONSES-2-3........................................................................................................................... 13 RESPONSES-2-4........................................................................................................................... 14 RESPONSES-2-5........................................................................................................................... 14 RESPONSES-2-6........................................................................................................................... 14 RESPONSES-3-1........................................................................................................................... 19 RESPONSES-3-2........................................................................................................................... 19 RESPONSES-3-3........................................................................................................................... 19 RESPONSES-3-4...........................................................................................................................20 RESPONSES-3-5...........................................................................................................................20 RESPONSES-3-6...........................................................................................................................21 RESPONSES-3-7...........................................................................................................................21 RESPONSEL-1-1...........................................................................................................................25 RESPONSEL-1-2...........................................................................................................................25 RESPONSEL-1-3...........................................................................................................................26 RESPONSEL-1-4...........................................................................................................................26 RESPONSEL-1-5...........................................................................................................................26 RESPONSEL-1-6...........................................................................................................................26 RESPONSEL-1-7...........................................................................................................................27 RESPONSEL-2-1...........................................................................................................................31 RESPONSEL-2-2...........................................................................................................................31 RESPONSEIP-1-1 .........................................................................................................................35 RESPONSEIP-1-2 .........................................................................................................................35 RESPONSEIP-1-3 .........................................................................................................................36 RESPONSEIP-2-1 .........................................................................................................................39 RESPONSEIP-3-1 .........................................................................................................................43 RESPONSEIP-4-1 .........................................................................................................................47 RESPONSEIP-5-1 .........................................................................................................................51 RESPONSE IP-5-2 .........................................................................................................................51 RESPONSE IP-5-3 .........................................................................................................................51 RESPONSE IP-5-4 .........................................................................................................................52 RESPONSE IP-6-1 .........................................................................................................................55 RESPONSE IP-7-1 .........................................................................................................................61 RESPONSE IP-8-1 .........................................................................................................................65 SECTION2 ERRATA................................................................................................... 67 SECTION 3 DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CIRCULATED FROM MARCH 6, 2018, AND APRIL 5, 2018) ......................................... 71 P:A1CA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx a04/17/18» THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 This page intentionally left blank II \\vcorpl2\projects\JCA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT APRIL 2018 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS State Agency: S-1—Native American Heritage Commission State Agency: S-2—California Department of Transportation State Agency: S-3—California Department of Fish and Wildlife Local Agency: L-1—Orange County Transportation Authority Local Agency: L-2—Orange County Public Works Interested Party: 1-1—Michele and Norman Reveal Interested Party: 1-2—Lisa Wise Interested Party: 1-3—Lux Berg Interested Party: 1-4—Rancho Alvarez Residents Association (1 of 2) Interested Party: 1-5—Rancho Alvarez Residents Association (2 of 2) Interested Party: 1-6—Jack Chestek Interested Party: 1-7—Howard Newman Interested Party: 1-8—Dave Lewis \\vcorpl2\projects\1CA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» 1 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 This page intentionally left blank 2 \\vcorpl2\projects\JCA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT APRIL 2018 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION This section comprises the Comments and Responses of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for The Farm Specific Plan project (proposed project) in the City of San Juan Capistrano. The purpose of this document is to respond to all comments received by the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) regarding the environmental information and analyses contained in the IS/MND. As required by the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15073, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was sent to responsible agencies and trustee agencies, as well as to various public agencies, citizen groups, and interested individuals concerned with the proposed project. In addition, the NOI was filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk on March 5, 2018. The Draft IS/MND was circulated for public review for a period of 31 days, from March 6, 2018, through April 5, 2018. Copies of the Draft IS/MND were made available for public review at the City Development Services Department, the San Juan Capistrano Library, and on the Internet (http://sanjuancapistrano.org/Departments/Development-Services/Planning-Zoning/Environmental -Documents). Comments were accepted for a period of 31 days in order to ensure adequate time for residents and agencies to comment on the Draft IS/MND. Twelve comment letters were received during the public review period, or immediately thereafter. Comments were received from the Native American Heritage Commission, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Orange County Public Works, and from eight interested parties. The City, as the Lead Agency, is required to consider agency and public comments on a CEQA document as part of the decision process to approve a project. Although the preparation of responses to comments received on an IS/MND is not required by CEQA, responses have been prepared. No significant changes have been made to the information contained in the IS/MND as a result of the responses to comments, and no significant new information has been added that would require recirculation of the document. However, minor revisions were made for clarification purposes to the versions of the Specific Plan and the Draft IS/MND that were circulated during the public review period. Refer to Appendix C of this Final IS/MND for an updated version of the Specific Plan and Section 2, Errata, of this Final IS/MND for an overview of revisions to the publicly circulated Draft IS/MND. Together, the responses to comments and the Draft IS/MND are collectively referred to as the Final IS/MND. The Final IS/MND will be submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration, and will ultimately be reviewed by the City Council, which will have the final vote on whether to adopt the Final IS/MND and approve the proposed project. \\vcorpl2\projects\1CA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» 3 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 INDEX OF COMMENTS RECEIVED The following is a list of the written comments received on the IS/MND prior to the close of the public comment period or immediately thereafter. Each comment letter received is indexed with a number below. Responses to each of the comment letters are provided on the following pages. The comment index numbers are provided in the upper right corner of each comment letter, and individual points within each letter are numbered along the right-hand margin of each letter. The City's responses immediately follow each letter and are referenced by index numbers in the margins. Comment Code Commenter Date State Agencies S-1 Native American Heritage Commission April 2, 2018 S-2 California Department of Transportation April 3, 2018 S-3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife April 3, 2018 Local Agencies L-1 Orange County Transportation Authority April 4, 2018 L-2 Orange County Public Works April 5, 2018 Interested Parties 1-1 Michele and Norman Reveal March 5, 2018 1-2 Lisa Wise March 8, 2018 1-3 Lux Berg March 14, 2018 1-4 Rancho Alvarez Residents Association (1 of 2) March 15, 2018 1-5 Rancho Alvarez Residents Association (2 of 2) March 16, 2018 1-6 Jack Chestek March 16, 2018 1-7 Howard Newman March 21, 2018 1-8 Dave Lewis April 10, 2018 4 \\vcorpl2\projects\1CA1703\CECA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT APRIL 2018 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA RESPONSES TO COMMENTS \\vcorpl2\projects\1CA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» ,rj THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 This page intentionally left blank \\vcorpl2\projects\JCA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» Alyssa Helper From: Art Bashmakian <ABashmakian@sanjuancapistrano.org> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 9:34 AM To: Alyssa Helper Cc: Ashley Davis; Sergio Klotz Subject: FW:The Farm Specific Plan Project SCH#2018031031 Hi Alyssa Here is another comment. I have not looked into it yet but I didn't want to delay forwarding it to you. Thanks Art From:Totton, Gayle@NAHC [mailto:Gayle.Totton@nahc.ca.gov] Sent: Monday,April 2, 2018 2:21 PM To:Art Bashmakian <ABashmakian@sanivancapistrano.org> Subject:The Farm Specific Plan Project SCH#2018031031 Good afternoon Mr. Bashmakian, I have finished reviewing the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the above referenced project. Since the document is substantially in compliance with AB-52, I didn't want to send a formal comments letter but there is one error in the mitigation measures for Cultural Resources. CUL-4 misstates the timeline for a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to make recommendations for disposition of Native American human remains. Public Resources Code (PCR) section 5097.98 allows the MLD 48 hours to make recommendations after being granted access to the site. That 48 hours does not begin when they are notified by the NAHC. Please make the change to the mitigation measure to follow PRC 5097.98. Thanks, Gayle Totton, M.A., Ph.D. Associate Governmental Program Analyst Native American Heritage Commission (916)373-3714 1 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 This page intentionally left blank 8 \\vcorpl2\projects\JCA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT APRIL 2018 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA STATE AGENCY: NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION LETTER CODE: S-1 COMMENTER: Gayle Totton, Associate Program Analyst DATE: October 5, 2017 RESPONSE S-1-1 The comment indicates that the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed project, and states that the document is substantially in compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52. However, the commenter notes that Mitigation Measure CUL-4 misstates the timeline for a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to make recommendations for disposition of Native American Human Remains. The commenter indicates that Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) allows the MLD 48 hours to make recommendations after being granted access to the site, not 48 hours after notification by the NAHC. Therefore, the text on Pages 4-37 and 4-38 of Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, and Page 5-8 of Section 5.0, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of the Draft IS/MND, has been revised as follows: CUL-4: Human Remains. Consistent with the requirements of CCR Section 15064.5(e), if human remains are encountered during site disturbance, grading, or other construction activities on the project site, the construction contractor shall halt work within 25 feet of the discovery; all work shall be redirected and the Orange County (County) Coroner notified immediately. No further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site eetifie-atiepbythe PJ"G. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Consistent with CCR Section 15064.5(d), if the remains are determined to be Native American and an MLD is notified, the City shall consult with the MLD identified by the NAHC to develop an agreement for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Upon completion of the assessment, the consulting archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results and provide recommendations regarding the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate, and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report shall be submitted to the City Development Services Director, or designee, and the South Central Coastal Information Center. The City Development \\vcorpl2\projects\1CA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» 9 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 Services Director, or designee, shall be responsible for reviewing any reports produced by the archaeologist to determine the appropriateness and adequacy of the findings and recommendations. This change has been noted in the Errata to the Final IS/MND and does not change the analysis or conclusions contained in the Draft IS/MND. Therefore, no further response is necessary. 10 \\vcorpl2\projects\1CA1703\CECA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» STATE OF CALIFORNIA—CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G BROWN Jr Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 s s 1750 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 100 SANTA ANA,CA 92705 Making Conservation PHONE (657)328-6267 a California Way of Life. FAX (657)328-6510 TTY 711 wwwAot.ca.gov April 3, 2018 Art Bashmakian File: IGR/CEQA City of San Juan Capistrano SCH#: 2018031031 32400 Paseo Adelanto 12-ORA-2018-00830 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 I-5, PM 8.174 Dear Mr. Bashmakian, Thank yott for including the California Department of Transportation(Caltrans)in the review of the Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Farm Specific Plan. The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability. Following the approval of a General Plan Amendment,the Specific Plan proposes a plan for the future development of a residential community which includes 180 single-family residential units, a park, and a shared-use trail. The project is bordered by Del Obispo Street and Alipaz Street in proximity to Interstate 5 (I-5). Caltrans is a responsible/commenting agency on this project and upon review, we have the following comments: Planning Upon review, we recommend that the proposed bicycle facilities in the project area should be connected to existing Class II bicycle facilities located on Del Obispo Street and Alipaz Street. This would increase regional connectivity, as the existing facilities are both connected to Trabuco Creek Trail which is an existing Class I facility. Several churches, schools, and a community center are located near the project. Therefore, appropriate safety measures(e.g. yellow crosswalk striping to indicate school zones, etc.) should be considered for both pedestrians and bicyclists to increase safety, access, and mobility for all users of the active transportation system. We understand the proposed Farm Specific Plan project area is also located within close proximity to the River Street project location. Please ensure that the cumulative traffic impacts to both projects are considered and that appropriate mitigation measures are addressed. Encroachment Permits Please be advised that that any project work proposed in the vicinity of the State Highway System will require an Encroachment Permit and all environmental concerns must be adequately addressed. If the environmental documentation for the project does not meet Caltrans' requirements, additional documentation would be required before approval of the Encroachment "Provide a safe,sustainable,integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" City of San Juan Capistrano April 3, 2018 Page 2 Permit. For specific details for Encroachment Permits procedure,please refer to the Caltrans' Encroachment Permits Manual. The latest edition of the Manual is available on the web site: h!ti)://www.dot.ca. ov/h /traffo s/develo serv/ ermits/ Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments which could potentially impact SHS. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Joseph Jamoralin, at(657) 328-6276 or Joserih.Jamoralin(a)dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, MARLON REG . IFORD Branch Chief, Regional-IGR-Transit Planning District 12 "Provide a safe,sustainable,integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 STATE AGENCY: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION-DISTRICT 12 LETTER CODE: S-2 COMMENTER: Marlon Regisford, Branch Chief, Regional—IGR-Transit Planning DATE: April 3, 2018 RESPONSE S-2-1 The comment thanks the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for The Farm Specific Plan (proposed project). The comment also summarizes the key project components and notes that Caltrans is a Responsible/Commenting Agency on the project. This comment is introductory and does not contain any substantive comments or questions about the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) or analysis therein. No further response is necessary. RESPONSE S-2-2 The comment recommends that the proposed bicycle facilities in the project area be connected to existing Class II bicycle facilities on Del Obispo Street and Alipaz Street, so as to promote regional connectivity. Although this comment does not contain any substantive comments or questions about the environmental analysis or conclusions contained in the Draft IS/MND, it should be noted that the multi-use trail included as part of the project would allow for increased connectivity between bicyclists traveling on the site and bicyclists traveling along the existing Class II bike lanes on Del Obispo Street and Alipaz Street within the vicinity of the project site. RESPONSE S-2-3 The comment notes that there are several churches, schools, and a community center near the project site. As such, Caltrans recommends that appropriate safety measures (e.g., yellow crosswalk striping to indicate school zones) should be considered for pedestrians and bicyclists to increase safety, access, and mobility. Although this comment does not contain any substantive comments or questions about the environmental analysis or conclusions contained in the Draft IS/MND, it should be noted that future Tentative Tract Map approvals would require all planned streets to comply with all street signage codes, including crosswalk striping to indicate crosswalks in a school zone. Therefore, no further response is necessary. \\vcorpl2\projects\1CA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» 13 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 RESPONSE S-2-4 The comment indicates that the proposed project is within close proximity to the River Street Project. As such, the comment requests that the cumulative traffic impacts for both projects be considered and appropriate mitigation measures be addressed. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) (LSA, February 2018) for the proposed project accounts for the River Street Project, as well as all other cumulative (approved and pending) projects in the City, in both the Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative (2022) and Year 2040 Buildout scenarios. Based on the results of the TIA, mitigation measures are neither required nor recommended for the project. No further response is necessary. RESPONSE S-2-5 The comment indicates that encroachment permits may be necessary for any work that is proposed in the vicinity of a State Highway and that all environmental concerns must be adequately addressed. The comment also provides a link to the latest version of Caltrans' Encroachment Permits Manual. The nearest Caltrans facilities to the project site are the northbound and southbound ramps to Interstate 5 and Ortega Highway (SR-74). These facilities were included in the TIA for the proposed project, which determined that the proposed project would have less than significant environmental impacts on all Caltrans facilities for each scenario (i.e., Existing Plus Project, Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative (2022), and Year 2040 Buildout scenarios). Furthermore, all construction and operational activities associated with the project would be confined to the boundaries of the project site, with the exception of infrastructure connections on Del Obispo Street and Via Positiva (neither of which are Caltrans facilities). Therefore, encroachment permits are neither required nor anticipated. No further response is necessary. RESPONSE S-2-6 The comment provides contact information should the City have any questions regarding Caltrans' comments. This comment does not contain any substantive comments or questions about the Draft IS/MND or analysis therein. No further response is necessary. 14 \\vcorpl2\projects\1CA1703\CECA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» r�r State of California- Natural Resources Agency EDMUND G. BROWN JR. 0" Or Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H.BONHAM,Director s South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 •oax' (858) 457-4201 www.wildlife.ca.gov April 3, 2018 Mr. Art Bashmakian City of San Juan Capistrano 32400 Paseo Adelanto San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 abashmakian@sanjuancapistrano.org Subject: Comments on the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for The Farm Specific Plan Project, San Juan Capistrano, CA (SCH# 2018031031) Dear Mr. Bashmakian: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) has reviewed the above- referenced Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for T I he Farm Specific Plan Project, dated March 2018.The following statements and comments have been prepared pursuant to the Department's authority as Trustee Agency with jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project (California Environmental Quality Act, [CEQA] Guidelines §15385) and pursuant to our authority as a Pesponsible Agency under CEQA Guidelines section 15381 over those aspects of the proposed project that come under the purview of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA, Fish and Game Code § 2050 et seq.) and Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq. The Department also administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program. The Farm Specific Plan (project) details future subdivisions for a 35-acre historic agricultural site, which includes up to 180 single familyhomes, a recreational park, and a multi-use pedestrian, cycling and equestrian trail. The project site is located at 32382 Dei Obispo Street within the City of San Juan Capistra ,o (City), bounded on the northwest by Del Obispo Street, on the south by Via P )sitiva, and on the west by Alipaz Street. The site project site is located within the County of Orange Central and Coastal Subregion NCCP/Habitat Conservation Plan area but is outside of the designated habitat reserve. The Department offers the following comments and re ommendations to assist the City in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the proposed project's significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fiskt and wildlife resources. 1. Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), a species listed as endangered under CESA and the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), have been found approximately 0.75 miles east of the project site (CNDDB, 2010). The draft MND describes the creation of a multi- purpose trail that includes equestrian use (page 2-20). Equestrian use is known to attract the exotic brown-headed cowbird, Molothrus ater, (Borgmann and Morrison 2010). Brown-headed cowbirds parasitize the nests of sensitive avian species including the least Bell's vireo. Since the project proposes an equestrian trail within the vicinity of Least Bell's vireo habitat, it could result in an increase of brown-headed cowbird Conserving Caf fornia's ri•V d Cife Since 1870 Mr. Art Bashmakian City of San Juan Capistrano April 3, 2018 Page 2 of 3 parasitism. Accordingly, we recommend the MND address this potential impact and incorporate an appropriate litigation measure such as a manure management receptacle/maintenance plan` The mitigation measure should identify the entity that will be responsible for incorporating this guidance into any applicable homeowner's association Declaration of Cdvenants, Conditions; and Restrictions 2. The MND states that; "The project would also include solid perimeter walls, with the exception of walls along Del Obispo Street, which will be decorative to conform to design standards for this area" (page 2-20)_ If glass panels are an anticipated fence design, we recommend alternative, non- effective materials be used to construct any wall or fence proposed because of the pot antial for reflective glass panels to result in death or injury to bird species. Further avoidance of bird stri e, a direct impact to which migratory species are particularly susceptible, can a achieved through incorporation of`bird safe" elements in architectural design. Elemen such as glazed windows, well-articulated building facades; and minimal nighttime lighting are encouraged to reduce collisions of migratory birds with buildings. Large flat windows, reflective glass, and transparent corners are strongly discouraged. We re ommend that the City follow as many of these guidelines as appropriate when considering structure design; as described in Standards for Bird Safe Buildings (San Francisco Planning Department 2011), 3, San Juan Creek is located approximately 0.5 mile southeast of the project site and is home to sensitive biological resources including southern California steeihead (Oncorhynchus mykiss; ESA listed- endangered), tidewater goby (Eucyciogobius newberryi, ESA listed- endangered) and other aquatic species. Because the proposed project would convert a substantial amount of agricultural land to impervious surfaces; we have concerns regarding project impacts on storm water quality and general hydrology in the surrounding rea. The final MND should analyze the efficacy of Low Impact Development (LID) options to minimize storm water impacts, including: a. site layout with regard to sensitive resources, including off-site native habitat, b, the use of pervious suri ces (crushed aggregate, turf block, unit pavers, pervious concrete and sphialt) as alternatives to impervious surfaces, and c. structure roof spouts emptying over pervious surfaces. If it is anticipated that runoff cannot be dispersed through LIDs, the final MND should consider directing runoff to facilities designed to detain and treat runoff, such as detention or bioret ntion basins. Storm water impacts should be explored throughout the pr ject footprint as well as off-site native habitat. 4. While the iVIND describes the locations of, "decorative landscaping" (page 2-19), it does not provide a description of a plant palette to be used in landscaping. Use of native plants in landscaping not only avoids spread of invasive species, but also provides additiona benefits such as the attraction of native pollinators and reduced water consurrption. Therefore, the Department recommends that Mr. Art Bashmakian City of San Juan Capistrano April 3, 2418 Page 3 of 3 appropriate native plants should be used to the greatest extent feasible in landscaped areas. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the MND for this project and to assist the City in further minimizing and mitigating project impacts to biological resources. If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter, please contact Jennifer Turner at (858) 467-2717 or via email at Jennifer.Turner@wildlife.ca.gov. Sincerely, r 104 r 1 Gail K. Sevrens Environmental Program Manager South Coast Region ec: Christine Medak (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) Scott Morgan (State Clearinghouse) Literature Cited- Borg m an n, ited:Borgmann, Kathi L. and Michael L. Morrison. 2010. Fictors influencing the frequency of nest parasitism by Brown-headed Cowbirds in the northern Sierra Nevada. Western North American Naturalist- Vol. 70 : No. 2 , Article 1. Available at: hftps://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/wnan/vol70/iss2/1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2010. Leat Bell's Vireo. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). Retrieved March 28, 2018 from http://bios.dfg.ca.gov. San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for Bird-Safe Buildings. San Francisco, CA: City of San Francisco. Available online at http:/lwww.sf- planning.org/ftp/files/publications_reports/bird_safe_bldgS/Standards for_Bird- Safe_Buildings_8-11-11.pdf THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 This page intentionally left blank 18 \\vcorpl2\projects\JCA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT APRIL 2018 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA STATE AGENCY: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE-SOUTH COAST REGION LETTER CODE: S-3 COMMENTER: Gail K. Sevrens, Environmental Program Manager DATE:April 3, 2018 RESPONSE S-3-1 The comment states the role of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) in the environmental review process for The Farm Specific Plan (proposed project). The comment also summarizes the key project components and notes that CDFW is a Responsible Agency on the project. This comment is introductory and does not contain any substantive comments or questions about the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) or analysis therein. No further response is necessary. RESPONSE S-3-2 The comment notes that least Bell's vireo (Vireo belli pusillus), a species listed as endangered, has been found approximately 0.75 mile east of the project site. The comment notes that the implementation of the multi-use trail as part of the project would encourage equestrian uses in the area, which are known to attract the exotic brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater). The comment indicates that brown-headed cowbirds parasitize the nests of sensitive bird species, including least Bell's vireo. As such, the comment recommends that the IS/MND address this potential impact and incorporate any necessary mitigation, such as a manure management plan. The proposed project is not an equestrian community, and the only aspect related to equine uses is the proposed multi-use trail. The proposed multi-use trail would accommodate existing equestrian activity, but would not, itself, increase the level of horse activity or horse keeping in the community. Therefore, the proposed project and the ancillary multiuse trail would not attract cowbirds more so than existing conditions. Furthermore, as required by Section 9-4.505, Bicycle and Equestrian Trails, of the City of San Juan Capistrano's (City) Municipal Code, the Homeowner's Association (HOA) (or equivalent body) for future development on the site would be required to provide regular maintenance of the proposed trail, including the removal of horse manure, pet waste, and debris Therefore, the proposed project (including the ancillary multi-use trail) would not attract brown- headed cowbirds more than existing conditions in the community. RESPONSE S-3-3 The comment notes that the Draft IS/MND includes language that the project would include solid perimeter walls. As such, the commenter recommends that alternative, non-reflective materials be utilized if glass panels are anticipated to be used in the fence design. The comment notes that use of non-reflective materials would reduce the likelihood of death or injury to bird species. \\vcorpl2\projects\JCA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» 19 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 No glass panels are anticipated to be used in the fence designs. In addition, future development on the project site would be required to adhere to the Development Standards established in the Specific Plan, which themselves are consistent with the City's development standards for residential districts, including the Single-Family 4,000 (RS-4,000) District. Consistent with Section 9-3.301, Residential District, of the City's Municipal Code, the use of highly reflective materials is not allowed in residential districts. The City's Director of Development Services, or designee, would review future Tentative Tract Maps (TTMs) and Site Plans to ensure that proposed future developments on the project site would not include reflective materials that would increase the likelihood of death or injury to bird species. RESPONSE S-3-4 The comment recommends that the project include architectural elements, such as glazed windows, well-articulated building facades, and minimal nighttime lighting to reduce potential collisions of migratory birds with buildings. The comment recommends that the City follow as many of these guidelines, including those described in the Standards for Bird Safe Buildings, when considering structure design. As described further in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft IS/MND, the project would comply with Standard Conditions AES-2 and AES-3, which require preparation of a comprehensive lighting plan and a photometric study to reduce potential lighting impacts, including nighttime lighting impacts. Therefore, adherence with Standard Conditions AES-2 and AES-3 would ensure that nighttime lighting on the project site would be minimal, which in turn would reduce potential collisions of migratory birds with buildings. Additionally, Design Guidelines established in The Farm Specific Plan encourage well-articulated building facades and roof articulations, which would serve to further minimize potential collisions of birds with buildings to be developed on the site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in increased impacts with respect to bird collisions with on-site buildings. No further response is necessary. RESPONSE S-3-5 The comment notes that San Juan Creek is 0.5 mile southeast of the project site and is home to sensitive biological resources, including southern California steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss; endangered), tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi; endangered), and other aquatic species. Because the project would convert a substantial amount of agricultural land to impervious surfaces, the comment notes potential concerns related to project impacts on storm water quality and general hydrology in the surrounding area. As such, the comment recommends that the Final IS/MND analyze the efficacy of Low Impact Development (LID) options to minimize storm water impacts, including site layout with regard to sensitive resources, the use of pervious surfaces as alternatives to impervious surfaces, and structure roof spouts emptying over pervious surfaces. The comment concludes by suggesting that the Final IS/MND consider directing runoff to facilities designed to treat runoff if it is anticipated that runoff cannot be dispersed through LIDS. The comment also recommends that storm water impacts be explored within the project footprint, as well as off-site habitat. As described further in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft IS/MND, the project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure WQ-2, which itself requires compliance with 20 \\vcorpl2\projects\1CA1703\CECA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT APRIL 2018 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA the requirements of Title 8, Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) Draining the Watersheds Within the San Diego Region (Order No. R9-2013-0001, NPDES No. CAS010266, as amended by Order No, 139-2015-0001) (South Orange County MS4 Permit). In compliance with the Municipal Code and South Orange County MS4 Permit, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) would be prepared that would specify the site design, source control, low impact development (LID), and/or hydromodification best management practices (BMPs) that would be implemented to capture, treat, and reduce stormwater runoff. In compliance with the South Orange County MS4 Permit, LID BMPs will be implemented to the maximum extent practicable to address increases in impervious surface area and changes in water quality and quantity. The LID BMPs would be designed to target and remove pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff, as well as reduce stormwater runoff to mimic pre-development hydrology, which would reduce potential impacts to sensitive biological species in receiving waters, including species in the San Juan Creek. RESPONSE S-3-6 The comment indicates that the Draft IS/MND describes landscaping included as part of the project as "decorative landscaping," but does not provide a description of a plant palette to be used in landscaping. The comment notes that use of native landscaping avoids the spread of invasive species and also provides additional benefits, such as the attraction of native pollinators and reduced water consumption. Therefore, CDFW recommends the use of native plants to the greatest extent feasible. Due to the nature of the project as a Specific Plan, a plant palette has not yet been developed for the project and would be developed at the time future TTMS are brought forth following approval of the project. However, as described on Page 2-20 of the Draft IS/MND, "all plants included as part of the project would be drought-tolerant native and/or would be adapted plant species suitable for the City's climate, consistent with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines." RESPONSE S-3-7 The comment thanks the City for the opportunity to comment on the Draft IS/MND and provides contact information should the City have any questions regarding the comments from CDFW. This comment does not contain any substantive comments or questions about the Draft IS/MND or analysis therein. No further response is necessary. \\vcorpl2\projects\1CA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» 21 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 This page intentionally left blank 22 \\vcorpl2\projects\JCA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» OCTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 4, 2018 Lisa A.Radlett Chair Tim Shaw Mr. Art Bashmakian Vice Chairman Planner Laurie Davies City of San Juan Capistrano Director 32400 Paseo Adelanto Barbara Delgleize San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Director Andrew Do Director Subject: The Farm Specific Plan Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Lori Donchak Director Declaration (IS/MND) Michael Hennessey Director Dear Mr. Bashmakian: Steve Jones Director Thank you for providing the Orange County Transportation Authority(OCTA)with Mark A.Murphy the IS/MND for the Farm Specific Plan Project (Project). The following comments Director are provided for your consideration: Richard Murphy Director • Page 4-152 discusses potential impacts to bicycle and pedestrian Al Murray facilities. We recommend the impact summary identify if the Project will Director provide bicycle lanes along Del Obispo Street and Alipaz Street along the Shawn Nelson Director Project frontage. Currently, Class 11 bicycle lanes identified in the General Miguel Pulido Plan Figure PR-1 are not constructed adjacent the Project. Please clarify Director if the Project will provide bikeway facilities on Del Obispo Street, Alipaz Todd Spitzer Street, Via Positiva, or The Farm Road. Director Michelle Steel . _Appendix C (`Specific Plan'): Director O We recommend providing a graphic illustrating circulation for Tom Tait pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian users within and along Director roadways at the Project. It is unclear how equestrian users will Gregory T.Winterbottom Director travel from the project site to nearby facilities (where provided). Ryan Chamberlain Ex-Officio Member o In Section II (`Land Use, Grading Plan and Landscape Plans') it is unclear if The Farm Road will provide a public roadway with on- street bike lanes, or if the "proposed multi-use pedestrian, bicycle, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE and equestrian trail" is a joint facility, or if it is paved or soft-surface. Darrell Johnson Chief Executive Officer o Page II-13 provides a cross-section that does not depict how the shoulder will be striped (parking, bike lane, loading, unknown); please clarify. Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street/P.O.Box 14184/Orange/California 92863-1584/(714)560-OCTA(6282) Mr. Art Bashmakian April 4, 2018 Page 2 o Section III (`Circulation and Infrastructure') discusses the roadways and circulation. It is unclear if Via Positiva will be widened along the Project frontage to provide additional travel lanes, bicycle lanes, trails, etc... Please provide additional information clarifying planned improvements along Via Positiva, which appears to have recently been improved to include a sidewalk along the northerly edge of the roadway. o Section III discusses pedestrian circulation. The pedestrian circulation on Page III-20 includes a placeholder "XXX-foot-wide lighted pedestrian walkways". Please clarify if the "XXX" needs revision. o Page III-21 refers to OCTA as the "Orange County Transit Authority." Please correct the name for the agency to read "Orange County Transportation Authority." Throughout the development of this project, we encourage communication with OCTA on any matters discussed herein. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at (714) 560-5907 or at dphu(�octa.net. Sincerely, c � Dan Phu Manager, Environmental Programs FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 LOCAL AGENCY: ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY LETTER CODE: L-1 COMMENTER: Dan Phu, Manager, Environmental Programs DATE: April 4, 2018 RESPONSE L-1-1 The comment thanks the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) for including the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) in the environmental review process for The Farm Specific Plan (proposed project). The comment notes that OCTA has several recommendations for the City's consideration, and begins with the recommendation that the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) clarify whether or not the project would provide bicycle facilities on Del Obispo Street, Alipaz Street, Via Positiva, or The Farm Road. The comment notes that Class II bicycle lanes are identified on Figure PR-1 of the City's General Plan. The project would include a multi-use trail that would be adjacent to, and separate from, The Farm Road. This multi-use trail would serve bicyclists (as well as pedestrians and equestrians) and would improve connectivity to existing Class II bicycle facilities on Del Obispo Street and Alipaz Street. All proposed trail improvements would be limited to the boundaries of the project site, and the installation of off-site bicycle facilities is not proposed as part of the project. RESPONSE L-1-2 The comment recommends providing a graph illustrating circulation for pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian users within and along the roadways at the project.The comment notes that it is unclear how equestrians will travel from the project site to nearby facilities. The proposed project involves the implementation of the Specific Plan, which is broad in nature and does not include details related to pedestrian, bicycle, or equestrian circulation within the project vicinity, with the exception of the identification of the general location of the proposed multi-use trail traversing the site from the Del Obispo Street access point to the Via Positiva access point. However, as illustrated on Figure PR-1 of the City's Parks and Recreation General Plan Element, the proposed multi-use trail on the site would promote connectivity to existing and planned bicycle, equestrian, and pedestrian facilities within the vicinity of project site. Specifically, the proposed multi-use trail on the project site would encourage connectivity to existing Class II bicycle lanes on Del Obispo Street and Alipaz Street, Cook Lane Equestrian Trail west of the project site, the Trabuco Creek Equestrian Trail east of the site, and several other multi-use/equestrian trails throughout the City. While the project would allow for equestrian uses on the proposed multi-use trail, it should be noted that additional equestrian facilities would be required to connect the proposed multi-use trail on the site to equestrian facilities east and west of the project site. \\vcorpl2\projects\1CA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» 25 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 RESPONSE L-1-3 The comment notes that it is unclear in Section II (Land Use, Grading Plan, and Landscape Plans) of The Farm Specific Plan whether or not The Farm Road will provide a public roadway with on-street bike lanes or if the proposed multi-use trail is a joint facility, or if it is a paved or soft-surface. The proposed multi-use trail would be implemented in accordance with applicable provisions of the City's Municipal Code, which define a "multi-use" trail as a facility that is used for equine, pedestrian, and bicycle uses. The proposed trail would be 20 feet (ft) in width and would consist of decomposed granite.The multi-use trail would be separate from the proposed Farm Road; however, the trail would parallel The Farm Road throughout the project site. RESPONSE L-1-4 The comment notes that Page II-13 of The Farm Specific Plan provides a cross-section that does not depict how the shoulder will be striped (parking, bike lane, or loading) and asks for further clarification. The proposed project is a Specific Plan and is broad in nature, and no striping of the roadway is proposed at this time. As previously stated, the trail would be 20 ft in width and would be separate from the proposed Farm Road. Future roadway improvements, including how the shoulder of The Farm Road and other internal roadways will be striped, would be identified at the time future Tentative Tract Maps (TTMs) are proposed. No further response is necessary. RESPONSE L-1-5 The comment notes that Section III (Circulation and Infrastructure) of The Farm Specific Plan discusses roadways and circulation, but is unclear if Via Positiva will be widened along the project frontage to provide additional travel lanes, bicycle lanes, and trails. As such, the commenter requests clarification regarding planned improvements along Via Positiva, which appears to have recently been improved to include a sidewalk along the northerly edge of the roadway. The proposed project is a Specific Plan and is broad in nature. The proposed project does not include improvements to Via Positiva along the project frontage, and no additional improvements are proposed along Via Positiva within the project vicinity. RESPONSE L-1-6 The comment notes that Section III (Circulation and Infrastructure) of The Farm Specific Plan describes the lighted pedestrian walkways as being "XXX-feet wide." As such, the commenter requests clarification regarding the width of the proposed pedestrian walkways. Although this comment does not contain any substantive comments or questions about the Draft IS/MND or analysis therein, it should be noted that the Specific Plan has been amended to clarify that the project proposes to include 6 ft wide lighted pedestrian walkways throughout the site and designated crossing areas, and a 20 ft wide multi-use trail. Please refer to the strikeout/underline changes in the updated Specific Plan (Appendix C of this Final IS/MND) for the exact changes to the Specific Plan related to the proposed pedestrian walkways and multi-use trail. 26 \\vcorpl2\projects\1CA1703\CECA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT APRIL 2018 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA RESPONSE L-1-7 The comment notes that Page III-21 refers to OCTA as the Orange County Transit Authority and requests that the Specific Plan be corrected to refer to OCTA as the Orange County Transportation Authority. The comment also thanks the City for the opportunity to comment on the Draft IS/MND and provides contact information should the City have any questions regarding the comments from OCTA. Although this comment does not contain any substantive comments or questions about the Draft IS/MND or analysis therein, it should be noted that the suggested revision has been incorporated into The Farm Specific Plan (Appendix C). Please refer to the strikeout/underline changes in the updated Specific Plan (Appendix C of this Final IS/MND) for the exact changes related to the OCTA reference. \\vcorpl2\projects\1CA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» 27 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 This page intentionally left blank 28 \\vcorpl2\projects\JCA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» i PubficWorks 04 "'1 Integrity, Accountability, Service, Trust Shane L. Silsby, Director • April 5,2018 NCL-18-015 Art Bashmakian, Planner City of San Juan Capistrano 32400 Paseo Adelanto San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Farm Specific Plan Project Dear Mr. Bashmakian: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR)for the Farm Specific Plan Project. The County of Orange offers the following comments for your consideration. OC Public Works—Environmental Resources 1. In Section 4.9(a)(pg.4-66),Mitigation Measure WQ-2 states"Design of the BMPs specified in the WQMP Report shall be based on the final design plans and shall be consistent with the requirements of the Model Water Quality Management Plan..., the Technical Guidance Document...,and the South Orange County Hydromodification Plan."The proposed project site is located at 32382 Del Obispo Street,San Juan Capistrano,CA 90802 and the stormwater runoff from the proposed project site will discharge to San Juan Creek. The South OC WMA Water Quality Improvement Plan(WQIP),submitted to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in April 2017, proposed hydromodification management control exemption to large rivers such as San Juan Creek. The South OC WMA WQIP has not been approved by the RWQCB and the hydromodification exemptions for projects discharging to or through large rivers or engineered channels, referenced in the Technical Guidance Document and Hydromodification Management Plan, should be disregarded at this time.Upon approval of the South OC WMA WQIP, anticipated in 2018, these exemptions will be in effect. The proposed project will need to conduct the Watershed Management Area Analysis to determine if it must implement hydromodification controls. 2. On June 2, 2017, the RWQCB issued Order No. R9-2017-0077, pursuant to California Water Code section 13383, requires Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Permittees to submit a written notice indicating whether Track 1 or Track 2 control measures will be used to comply with the Trash Provisions. The City of San Juan Capistrano has indicated it will be implementing Track 2 control measures, and the incorporation full capture BMPs for the proposed project should be considered,if applicable. 300 N.Flower Street,Santa Ana,CA 92703 www.ocpublicworks.com P.O.Box 4048,Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 714.667.8800 1 Info@OCPW.ocgov.com If you have any questions regarding these comments,please contact Jacqueline Sedighi at(714)955- 0671 in OC Environmental Resources; or Ashley Brodkin at (714) 667-8854 in OC Development Services. Sincer , Ric hard Vuong,Manager,P annmg ivision OC Public Works Service Area/OC Development Services 300 North Flower Street Santa Ana, California 92702-4048 Richard.Vuong@ocpw.ocgov.com cc: Jacqueline Sedighi, OC Public Works—Environmental Resources 300 N. Flower Street,Santa Ana,CA 92703 www.ocpublicworks.com P.O.Box 4048,Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 714.667.8800 1 Info@OCPW.ocgov.com FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT APRIL 2018 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA LOCAL AGENCY: ORANGE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS LETTER CODE: L-2 COMMENTER: Richard Vuong, Manager, Planning Division DATE: April 5, 2018 The comment thanks the City of San Juan Capistrano (City)for including Orange County Public Works (OCPW) in the environmental review process for The Farm Specific Plan (proposed project). This comment does not contain any substantive comments or questions about the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) or analysis therein. No further response is necessary. RESPONSE L-2-1 The comment notes that Mitigation Measure WQ-2 states that the best management practices (BMPs) specified in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be based on the final design plans and shall be consistent with the requirements of the Model WQMP for South Orange County, the Technical Guidance Document for the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Plans, and the South Orange County Hydromodification Plan. The comment goes on to note that the South Orange County Watershed Management Area (WMA) Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQIP) proposes hydromodification management control exemption to large rivers, such as the San Juan Creek. The comment notes that the South Orange County WMA WQIP has not been approved by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Diego RWQCB), and hydromodification exemptions for projects discharging to or through large rivers or engineered channels, referenced in the Technical Guidance Document and Hydromodification Plan, should be disregarded at this time until the plan is approved. The comment concludes by stating that the project will need to conduct the WMA Analysis to determine whether it must implement hydromodification controls. The proposed BMPs will comply with the applicable San Diego RWQCB requirements in effect at the time of preparation of the WQMP, including the most current Model WQMP, Technical Guidance Document, and Hydromodification Plan. As noted in the comment, if the South Orange County WMA WQIP and hydromodification BMPs have not been approved at the time of preparation of the WQMP, a WMA Analysis will be conducted to determine if hydromodification controls are required. RESPONSE L-2-2 The comment notes that the San Diego RWQCB issued Order No. R9-2017-0077 in June 2017 pursuant to California Water Code Section 13383, which requires Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Permittees to submit a written notice indicating whether Track 1 or Track 2 control measures will be used to comply with the Trash Provisions. The comment notes that the City has indicated it will be implementing Track 2 control measures and that incorporation of full capture BMPs for the project should be considered, if applicable. The comment concludes by providing contact information should the City have questions regarding OCPW's comments. \\vcorpl2\projects\1CA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» 31 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 A WQMP will be prepared in compliance with the Model WQMP, Technical Guidance Document, and Hydromodification Plan. As noted in the comment, full capture BMPs will be considered during preparation of the WQMP and implemented if determined to be applicable. 32 \\vcorpl2\projects\1CA1703\CECA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» From:Art Bashmakian <ABashmakian@sanivancapistrano.org> Date: March 5, 2018 at 5:34:18 PM PST To: George Alvarez<GAlvarez@sanivancapistrano.org>, Sergio Klotz<SKlotz@sanivancapistrano.org>, Joel Rojas<JRoias@sanivancapistrano.org>, "Alyssa.Helper@lsa.net" <alvssa.helper@lsa.net>, "Ashley.Davis@Isa.net" <ashley.davis@Isa.net> Subject: Fwd:The Farm Specific Plan Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Mickey<mreveal@mail.com> Date: March 5, 2018 at 3:44:17 PM PST To: "abashmakian@sanluancapistrano.org" <abashmakian@sanluancapistrano.org> Subject:The Farm Specific Plan Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Dear Mr. Bashmakian, My husband and I are long time residents of SJC and own and live in San Juan Moble Estates. For nearly 2 years we have lived with water restrictions and adding more homes will not help abate those restrictions.The traffic on Alipaz St. is getting worse every year.The signal at Del Obispo and Alipaz, at specific times of day, can back up all the way to the entrance of our park. We plan our trips to town early in the day, prior to 2pm, because the traffic gets so bad.The traffic corresponds with the time the schools let out for the day.There are 4 schools within this 1 mile radius, Kinoshita, Marco Forrester, Del Obispo Elem, Capo Valley Christian, and they create a traffic nightmare in the afternoon.Then add the trains and it's a mess.Throw another 180 single family residences into the mix and it becomes a logistical nightmare. We have already enough problems in San Juan out Ortega Hwy. Our town is too small to keep on building. Thank you for listening . Sincerely, Michele and Norman Reveal THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 This page intentionally left blank 34 \\vcorpl2\projects\JCA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT APRIL 2018 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA INTERESTED PARTY LETTER CODE: IP-1 COMMENTER: Michele and Norman Reveal DATE: March 5, 2018 RESPONSE IP-1-1 The comment states that the commenters are long-time residents of the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) and currently live in the San Juan Mobile Estates. The comment indicates that the commenters have lived with water restrictions over the past two years, and the addition of homes included as part of the project will not help abate those restrictions. Water restrictions for residents in the City were enacted in response to the State-mandated restrictions on water use associated with Governor Brown's Executive Order B-37-16, which declared the Drought State of Emergency. Since the issuance of Executive Order B-37-16, Governor Brown has issued Executive Order B-40-17 terminating the prior Drought State of Emergency. As such, the City has rescinded monthly drought penalties, but has retained restrictions prohibiting wasteful water practices (refer to Municipal Code, Title 6, Chapter 12 [Water Conservation Urgency Ordinance]). These restrictions are to remain in place and would be retained with or without approval of the proposed project. In addition, Section 4.18, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) discusses project-related impacts with respect to water supplies. As described further on Page 4-165 of the Draft IS/MND, the project-related increase in the demand for water (71,460 gallons per day) would represent 0.9 percent of the City's current and projected annual water demand (based on the City's consumption of 8,531 acre feet [af] in 2015 and the projected water demands of 8,618 of in 2020 and 8,688 of in 2040). As described further in the City's Final 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City has sufficient entitlements to receive imported water from the Metropolitan Water District, and also has significant water reserves from local groundwater supplies. Based on the Final UWMP, the City would be able to purchase additional water to supply the project-related increase in demand for potable water. As such, the City would have adequate water supplies to serve existing and projected water demands through the year 2040 under normal, single-dry year, and multiple-dry year scenarios.The incremental water demand generated by the proposed project would be within the available water supplies to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources. The project would also be required to comply with State law regarding water conservation measures, including pertinent provisions of Title 24 of the California Government Code regarding the use of water-efficient appliances and low-flow plumbing fixtures. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not exacerbate existing water supplies, and would not necessitate additional water restrictions. RESPONSE IP-1-2 The comment states that traffic congestion on Alipaz Street is worsening every year and that traffic from the four nearby schools creates a traffic nightmare. \\vcorpl2\projects\1CA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» 35 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 As described in Section 4.16, Transportation/Traffic, of the Draft IS/MND and the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) (LSA, February 2018) for the proposed project, the project-related increase in traffic would not result in traffic impacts under the Existing Plus Project, Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative (2022), and Year 2040 Buildout scenarios.The addition of project traffic was analyzed in both the a.m. peak hour (between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.) and the p.m. peak hour (between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.). Based on the results of the TIA, mitigation measures are neither required nor recommended for the project. The addition of project traffic during the peak hours does not exceed the City's level of service policies for intersections and roadway segments. The analysis also showed that some school-related trips would be captured internally due to a school being located directly adjacent to the proposed project. RESPONSE IP-1-3 This comment asserts that the town is too small to keep on building. This comment does not contain any substantive comments or questions about the Draft IS/MND or the analysis therein. This comment will be made available to the decision-makers. No further response is required. 36 \\vcorpl2\projects\1CA1703\CECA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» Page 1 of 1 ballbuster3@cox.net From: <ballbuster3@cox.net> Date: Thursday,March 08,2018 10:47 AM RECEIVED To: <abashmakian@sanjuancapisumo.org> Subject: 32382 DEL OBISPO STREET APP, - 5; 2017 i DEVELOPMENT SERVICES f I STRONGLY OPPOSE BUILDING 180 UNITS AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS DUE TO WATER SHORTAGES AND TRAFFIC. I LIVE ON ALIPAZ STREET DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE FARM. OUR MOBILE HOME PARK WAS FINED $7,500.00 FOR USING TO MUCH WATER CAUSED BY ONE FAMILY OF ELEVEN,THEY DARED TO SHOWER EVERYDAY AND THEN THEY HAD THE NERVE TO WANT TO WASH THEIR DIRTY CLOTHES. I HAD TO REMOVE MY GRASS, WE NO LONGER WATER OUTSIDE, WE CAN'T WASH OUR CARS, WE DON'T FLUSH EVERY TIME, ETC. AND YOU WANT TO ADD 180 MORE FAMILIES? NO NO NO LISA WISE 32742 ALIPAZ SPACE 4 SAN JUAN CAPD, CA 3/13/2018 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 This page intentionally left blank 38 \\vcorpl2\projects\JCA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 INTERESTED PARTY LETTER CODE: IP-2 COMMENTER: Lisa Wise DATE: March 8, 2018 RESPONSE IP-2-1 The comment expresses opposition to the proposed project due to water shortages and traffic. The comment goes on to note that residents of a mobile home park were fined for using too much water and have been subject to water restrictions. Water restrictions for residents in the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) were enacted in response to the State-mandated restrictions on water use associated with Governor Brown's Executive Order B- 37-16, which declared Drought State of Emergency. Since the issuance of Executive Order B-37-16, Governor Brown has issued Executive Order B-40-17 terminating the prior Drought State of Emergency. As such, the City has rescinded monthly drought penalties, but has retained restrictions prohibiting wasteful water practices (refer to Municipal Code, Title 6, Chapter 12 [Water Conservation Urgency Ordinance]). These restrictions are to remain in place and would be retained with or without approval of the proposed project. Section 4.18, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) discusses project-related impacts with respect to water supplies. As described further on Page 4-165 of the Draft IS/MND, the project-related increase in the demand for water (71,460 gallons per day) would represent 0.9 percent of the City's current and projected annual water demand (based on the City's consumption of 8,531 acre feet [af] in 2015 and the projected water demands of 8,618 of in 2020 and 8,688 of in 2040). As described further in the City's Final 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City has sufficient entitlements to receive imported water from the Metropolitan Water District, and also has significant water reserves from local groundwater supplies. Based on the Final UWMP, the City would be able to purchase additional water to supply the project-related increase in demand for potable water. As such, the City would have adequate water supplies to serve existing and projected water demands through the year 2040 under normal, single-dry year, and multiple-dry year scenarios. The incremental water demand generated by the proposed project would be within the available water supplies to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources. The project would also be required to comply with State law regarding water conservation measures, including pertinent provisions of Title 24 of the California Government Code regarding the use of water-efficient appliances and low-flow plumbing fixtures. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not exacerbate existing water supplies, and would not necessitate additional water restrictions. As described in Section 4.16, Transportation/Traffic, of the Draft IS/MND and the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) (LSA, February 2018) for the proposed project, the project-related increase in traffic would not result in traffic impacts under the Existing Plus Project, Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative (2022), and Year 2040 Buildout scenarios. Based on the results of the TIA, mitigation measures are neither required nor recommended for the project. This comment will be made available to the decision-makers. No further response is required. \\vcorpl2\projects\1CA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» 39 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 This page intentionally left blank 40 \\vcorpl2\projects\JCA17O3\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» Alyssa Helper From: Art Bashmakian <ABashmakian@sanjuancapistrano.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 1:26 PM To: Alyssa Helper Cc: Ashley Davis Subject: FW: Gpa 16-001, bad news FYI From:Art Bashmakian Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 1:25 PM To: 'Lux Burg' <zerothehero67@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Gpa 16-001, bad news Hello Lux Burg The City is in receipt of your email expressing concerns with the proposed project. Your email is now part of the public record and will be provided to the Environmental Review consultants and ultimately to the Planning Commission and City Council when the project comes before theme for action. Let me know if you have any questions Thank you Art Bashmakian, AICP Contract Planner City of San Juan Capistrano 32400 Paseo Adelanto San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 (949)487-4314 From: Lux Burg [mailto:zerothehero67@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 1:01 PM To:Art Bashmakian <ABashmakian@sanluancapistrano.org> Subject: Gpa 16-001, bad news Opposed to this idea! Would be too much traffic and congestion for the area. Would make it impossible to get around and too cramped to survive. Please no. i THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 This page intentionally left blank 42 \\vcorpl2\projects\JCA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT APRIL 2018 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA INTERESTED PARTY LETTER CODE: IP-3 COMMENTER: Lux Berg DATE: March 14, 2018 RESPONSE IP-3-1 The commenter expresses opposition to the proposed project on the basis that the project would generate too much traffic and congestion for the area. As described in Section 4.16, Transportation/Traffic, of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) (LSA, February 2018) for the proposed project, the project-related increase in traffic would not result in traffic impacts under the Existing Plus Project, Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative (2022), and Year 2040 Buildout scenarios. Based on the results of the TIA, mitigation measures are neither required nor recommended for the project. This comment will be made available to the decision-makers. No further response is required. \\vcorpl2\projects\1CA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» 43 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 This page intentionally left blank 44 \\vcorpl2\projects\JCA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» RARA March 15, 2018 City of San Juan Capistrano RlimVE Mr. Art Bashmakian, Contract Planner MAR 16 2018 32400 Paseo Adelanto I San Juan Capistrano, Ca. 92675 L DI VELOME-NT Jti=RVICcs Re: GPA 16-001 The Farm Specific Plan Dear Mr. Bashmakian, As I discussed with you Wednesday, March 14, 1 have read the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above referenced project. The Board of Rancho Alipaz Residents Association, the mobile home community southwest of the Farm Project referenced above, supports the Farm Specific Plan as proposed in the Documents with the following amendment: Adjacent to the Rancho Alipaz property, limit the height of the dwelling units to single story or a height of 14' above the adjacent grade, or provide other spatial relief such as a circulation road along that border. We look forward to having an opportunity to review additional documents as they are submitted. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at (949) 661-6715 or by email at wcmfaia cox.net. Your consideration is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, William C. McCulloch, Director cc: Mr. Ben Siegel, City Manager Mr.Howard Newman, President RANCHO ALIPAZ RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION 32371 ALIPAZ St SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA 92675 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 This page intentionally left blank 46 \\vcorpl2\projects\JCA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT APRIL 2018 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA INTERESTED PARTY LETTER CODE: IP-4 COMMENTER:William C. McCulloch, Director of the Rancho Alipaz Residents Association DATE: March 15, 2018 RESPONSE IP-4-1 The comment indicates that the Board of the Rancho Alipaz Residents Association (the mobile home community southwest of the project site) supports the proposed project, but suggests that the height limitation of the dwelling units be limited to a single story or a height of 14 feet (ft) above the adjacent grade, or provide other spatial relief (such as a circulation road) along the Rancho Alipaz property boundary. This comment does not contain any substantive comments or questions about the environmental analysis or conclusions contained in the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), but rather expresses support for the proposed project and recommends an amendment to the Specific Plan. It should be noted the Development Standards established in the Specific Plan that allow for development of residential uses of up to two stories (maximum height of 35 ft [or 37.5 ft with administrative review and approval]) are consistent with the City of San Juan Capistrano's (City) existing development standards for single-family residential uses in the RS-4,000 zoning classification. Consistent with the City's existing development standards for properties classified as RS-4,000,two-story residential uses developed on the project site would be required to be setback a minimum of 20 ft from the property line to provide spatial relief along the project boundary. Furthermore, the Specific Plan has been modified to include language that would ensure compatibility with abutting residential uses in terms of the project's building height, scale, and mass by considering setback buffers, intensified landscaping, and/or design elements. Therefore, no such amendment to the Specific Plan is proposed at this time. This comment will be made available to the decision-makers. No further response is required. \\vcorpl2\projects\1CA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» 47 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 This page intentionally left blank 48 \\vcorpl2\projects\JCA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» RARA March 16, 2018 I Mr. Art Bashmakian, Contract Planner f City of San Juan Capistrano 32400 Paseo Adelanto San Juan Capistrano, Ca. 92675 Re: GPA 16-001 The Farm Specific Plan Dear Mr. Bashmakian, The Board of Rancho Alipaz Residents Association, the mobile home community southeast of the Farm Project referenced above, supports the Farm Specific Plan as proposed in the Documents, with the amendments addressed in our March 15 letter. After reviewing The Farm Specific Plan we were pleased to see that a solid block wall is proposed along the property bordering Alipaz Street. A direct driveway entrance to The Farm from Alipaz would present two concerns: 1) traffic flow complications when you consider there are already eight uncontrolled driveway or road entrances in this general area of Alipaz Street, and 2) a substantial increased safety hazard to the sizeable number of school children who traverse that sidewalk area each day of school. RARA strongly supports the position that no direct entrance from Alipaz to The Farm be permitted. Thank you for this opportunity to contribute to your evaluation of GPA 16-01. We look forward to having an opportunity to review additional documents as they are submitted. Sincerely, Howard Newman President cc: Mr. Ben Siegel, City Manager Mr. Joel Rojas, Director of Development Services Mr. William McCulloch, Director RANCHO ALIPAZ RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION 32371 ALIPAZ St SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA 92675 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 This page intentionally left blank 50 \\vcorpl2\projects\JCA17O3\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT APRIL 2018 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA INTERESTED PARTY LETTER CODE: IP-5 COMMENTER: Howard Newman, President of the Rancho Alipaz Residents Association DATE: March 16, 2018 RESPONSE IP-5-1 The commenter expresses the Rancho Alipaz Residents Association's support for the proposed project, with the amendments proposed in their previous letter (Comment Letter IP-4 and Response IP-4-1). This comment expresses support for the proposed project with recommended amendments to the Specific Plan. Please see Response IP-4-1. This comment will be made available to the decision- makers. No further response is required. RESPONSE IP-5-2 The commenter expresses support for the solid block wall proposed along the project site's boundary with Alipaz Street. This comment does not contain any substantive comments or questions about the environmental analysis or conclusions contained in the Draft IS/MND. This comment will be made available to the decision-makers. No further response is required. RESPONSE IP-5-3 The commenter expresses two concerns related to the proposed driveway entrance to the project site off Alipaz Street: (1) traffic flow complications considering there are already eight uncontrolled driveway or road entrances off Alipaz Street within the project vicinity, and (2) safety hazards associated with the number of school children who traverse that sidewalk when walking to school. As described further in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed project (LSA, February 2018, Appendix E to the Draft IS/MND), access to the project site is proposed at two locations (via full-access driveways on Del Obispo Street and Via Positiva). The project does not include any access points to the project site off of Alipaz Street. Although the project would include a new access point off Via Positiva, this access point would be stop-controlled to reduce potential safety hazards to school children traveling in the project area. In addition, all motorists (project and non-project) are required to obey local and State laws (including the California Vehicle Code), as well as yield the right-of-way to all pedestrians (including school children). As such, the project would not pose a safety hazard to children walking to and from school and home. Furthermore, the TIA concluded that the project-related increase in traffic would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.Therefore,the project would not result in an increase in traffic congestion within the project area, including congestion along Del Obispo Street, Alipaz Street, or Via Positiva. \\vcorpl2\projects\1CA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» 51 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 RESPONSE IP-5-4 The comment strongly suggests that no direct entrance from Alipaz Street be provided to the project site under the proposed Specific Plan. The comment concludes by thanking the City for the opportunity to review the project. As described further in the TIA for the proposed project (LSA, February 2018, Appendix E to the Draft IS/MND), access to the project site is proposed at two locations: at Del Obispo Street and Via Positiva. No access point is proposed from Alipaz Street. Therefore, no further response is necessary. 52 \\vcorpl2\projects\1CA1703\CECA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» Alyssa Helper From: Art Bashmakian <ABashmakian@sanjuancapistrano.org> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 3:26 PM To: Alyssa Helper Cc: Ashley Davis; George Alvarez; Sergio Klotz; Joel Rojas Subject: Fwd: Proposed General Plan Amendment Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Carol Chestek<jackchestek@gmail.com> Date: March 16, 2018 at 1:40:53 PM PDT To: <abashmakian@sanjuancapistrano.org> Subject: Proposed General Plan Amendment I oppose 180 new homes on Vermeulen property. My justification is Del Obispo cannot handle any more traffic. Recently, I got trapped in a gridlock of cars at Camino Capistrano and Del Obispo around 6:00 pm waiting for ghost trains and real trains to pass through town. I was stuck and couldn't move through four green lights. Whatever that amounts to in time I don't know. While sitting in traffic I started to wonder how a fire engine would get to Los Rios two blocks away from our town's Fire Station when there was no way around the gridlock. I believe it's unfair to cut off about half of our town from fire and medical service because of a train crossing. Jack Chestek 27563 Paseo Segovia i THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 This page intentionally left blank 54 \\vcorpl2\projects\JCA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT APRIL 2018 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA INTERESTED PARTY LETTER CODE: IP-6 COMMENTER:Jack Chestek DATE: March 16, 2018 RESPONSE IP-6-1 The comment expresses opposition to the proposed project on the basis that Del Obispo Street cannot handle any more traffic. As described further in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)for the proposed project(LSA, February 2018,Appendix E to the Draft IS/MND),the project-related increase in traffic would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.Therefore,the project would not result in an increase in traffic congestion along Del Obispo Street. RESPONSE IP-6-2 The comment indicates that the commenter has experienced traffic congestion at the intersection of Camino Capistrano and Del Obispo Street while waiting for ghost trains and real trains to pass through town.The commenter goes on to state the possibility that emergency vehicles would be unable to navigate through town due to vehicular congestion at this intersection.The comment concludes by indicating that it is unfair to cut off half of the town from fire and medical services because of a train crossing. As described further in the TIA (LSA, February 2018),the project-related increase in traffic would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required. In addition,the train crossing (ghost trains and real trains) is an existing condition.The proposed project would not affect or exacerbate the operations of the train crossing.Therefore,the project would neither result in an increase in traffic congestion within the project area nor would it negatively affect the response times of fire and medical services within the City of San Juan Capistrano. \\vcorpl2\projects\1CA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» 55 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 This page intentionally left blank 56 \\vcorpl2\projects\JCA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» Art Bashmakian,AICP i Contract Planner, City of San Juan Capistrano 32400 Paseo Adelanto r � �. San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 i0 OR i DEU �.DP�IEl�f� SERVICS GPA 16-100,The Farm Specific Plan Dear Mr. Bashmakian: The soil in the South Pond basin and beneath the existing membrane liner should be sampled and tested for concentrations of hazardous agricultural chemicals used in typical nursery operations. The precise location of the hazardous material test sample, Specimen labeled S-4, reported in the Feb. 13,2013, Phase 1 ESA report, is not clear. If that sample was not collected within the basin of the small holding pond, also referred to as South Pond, in the southwest part of the property near the Alipaz-via Positiva intersection,there is reason to request that such a test be conducted. The soil in South Pond will be disturbed during development of the property. South Pond was constructed to collect surface runoff from a complex of man-made ditches.The runoff would contain hazardous materials commonly part of a plant nursery growing operation. It was recirculated for use in continuing nursery operations. Evaporation at the pond surface would concentrate the hazardous compounds to levels possibly elevated above acceptable concentrations. South Pond is lined with a membrane to retain runoff. For several years my walks took me past the pond location. Over-the-fence conversations with workers indicated there was water leakage past the membrane. The soil in the South Pond basin and beneath the existing membrane liner should be sampled and tested for concentrations of hazardous agricultural chemicals used in typical nursery growing operations. Howard Newman 32371 Alipaz St.,#30 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 949-493-6568 how_new@hotmail.com Alyssa Helper From: Art Bashmakian <ABashmakian@sanjuancapistrano.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 10:19 AM To: 'howard newman' Cc: Joel Rojas;Alyssa Helper Subject: RE: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - The Farm Specific Plan Project Hi Howard The soil sample locations are illustrated on Page 46 of the Spieker Phase I Studies.PDF document (Figure 4, Soil Sample Locations). I copied portion of the page for you but the Phase I Study is one of the related documents to the MND that is available on-line. I hope this is helpful. Let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks Art Bashmakian, AICP Contract Planner City of San Juan Capistrano 32400 Paseo Adelanto San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 (949)487-4314 i x.as "—sSc_ss x SITE K-31 1 From: howard newman [mailto:how new@hotmail.com] Sent:Tuesday, March 13, 2018 11:11 AM To:Art Bashmakian <ABashmakian@sanivancapistrano.org> Subject: Inital Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration -The Farm Specific Plan Project Good Morning Art- In the last paragraph on page 4-56 of this report it is stated that six(6) samples were collected for analysis. Can someone show me where, on the site map, those specimens were collected? Thank you. Howard 2 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 This page intentionally left blank 60 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx((04/17/18)) FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT APRIL 2018 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA INTERESTED PARTY LETTER CODE: IP-7 COMMENTER: Howard Newman DATE: March 20, 2018 RESPONSE IP-7-1 The comment questions the locations of the on-site hazardous materials testing and asserts that the soil in the South Pond basin and beneath the existing membrane liner should be sampled and tested for concentrations of hazardous agricultural chemicals typically used in nursery operations. The comment goes on to describe the locations of soil samples taken as part of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) (February 2013) for the project site. Specifically, the commenter opines that if Sample No. 4 was not taken within the basin of the small holding pond, there is reason to request that such a test be conducted, as soil in the pond area would be disturbed during development of the property. A limited soil sampling analysis was conducted as part of the Phase I ESA to determine if there were potential hazards related to the use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. The Phase I ESA and sampling locations were prepared in conformance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 1527-05, "Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Process."As described further in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the IS/MND, there is a potential that on-site unknown hazardous substances, including those associated with the site's prior use as a commercial nursery, would be encountered during project construction activities. As such, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, Contingency Plan, requires that the Director of the County Environmental Health Division, or designees, review and approve a contingency plan that addresses the procedures to be followed should on-site unknown hazards or hazardous substances be encountered during demolition and construction activities. Specifically, in the event that construction workers encounter underground tanks, gases, odors, uncontained spills, or other unidentified substances,the Contingency Plan requires the contractor to stop work, cordon off the affected area, and notify the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). The OCFA responder shall determine the next steps regarding possible site evacuation, sampling, and disposal of the substance consistent with local, State, and federal regulations. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would reduce potential impacts with respect to unknown hazardous substances on the site (including the potential for substances near the South Pond area) to a less than significant level. P:AJCA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx a04/17/18» 61 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 This page intentionally left blank 62 P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx((04/17/18)) Alyssa Helper From: Art Bashmakian <ABashmakian@sanjuancapistrano.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 2:55 PM To: Alyssa Helper Cc: Ashley Davis; Phillip Schwartze <phillip@prsgrp.biz> (phillip@prsgrp.biz) Subject: FW:Vermeulen Ranch Another comment... From: David Lewis [mailto:davelewis3448@sbcgloba1.net] Sent:Tuesday,April 10, 2018 10:20 AM To:Art Bashmakian<ABashmakian@sanivancapistrano.org> Subject:Vermeulen Ranch I live in the Oliva community directly north of the proposed development referenced above. Several years ago, the city reversed an approval of a senior project by Reata. A project that would have had a lot less cars due to the age of the occupants and the use of shuttle buses, etc. We all know that the proposed secondary access at Del Opisbo will be used more than the primary entrance adding to the heavily travelled Del Opisbo. Just common sense. Dave Lewis 32301 Paseo Candela San Juan Capistrano 92675 i THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 This page intentionally left blank 64 P.\JCA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx((04/17/18)) FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT APRIL 2018 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA INTERESTED PARTY LETTER CODE: IP-8 COMMENTER: Dave Lewis DATE:April 10, 2018 RESPONSE IP-8-1 The comment indicates that the commenter lives in the Oliva community near the project site. The comment goes on to describe the fact that the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) overturned a previously proposed project on the site that would have allowed for the development of an age- restricted community. The commenter concludes by stating that the access point off Del Obispo Street will be used more than the access point proposed off of Alipaz Street. As described further in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed project (LSA, February 2018, Appendix E to the Draft IS/MND), primary access to the project site is provided along Del Obispo Street. Secondary access is provided along Via Positiva (via Alipaz Street). Although the majority of project traffic would utilize the Del Obispo Street access, the TIA concluded that the project-related increase in traffic would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required. Therefore, the project would not result in an increase in traffic congestion within the project area, including congestion along Del Obispo Street. P:AJCA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx a04/17/18» 65 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 This page intentionally left blank 66 P.\JCA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx((04/17/18)) FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT APRIL 2018 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA SECTION 2 ERRATA This section of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) provides changes to the Draft IS/MND that have been made to clarify or correct the analysis for The Farm Specific Plan (proposed project). Such changes are a result of further review of, and public comments related to, the Draft IS/MND. The changes described in this section are minor changes or clarifications that do not constitute significant new information, change the conclusions of the environmental analysis, or require recirculation of the document (State California Environmental Quality Act[CEQA] Guidelines Section 15088.5). Such changes to the Draft IS/MND are indicated in this section under the appropriate Draft IS/MND section. Deletions are shown with stFikethFeugh and additions are shown with underline. 1) Chapter 2.0, Project Description Page 2-5:The language on Page 2-5 in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, of the Draft IS/MND has been revised to clarify that the Vermeulen family acquired the project site in two phases during the 1950s and 1960s. This revision does not change the analysis or conclusions contained in the IS/MND. The correction to the language on Page 2-5 is indicated in underline and strikeout below: The project site was acquired by the Vermeulen family in two phases during the 1950s and 1960s 19:73. Page 2-19: The language on Page 2-19 in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, of the Draft IS/MND has been revised to clarify that Del Obispo Street is the primary access point to the project site and that the access point off Via Positiva would be the secondary access point to the project site. This revision clarifies and more correctly characterizes the proposed access points to the project site, and does not change the analysis or conclusions contained in the IS/MND. The TIA prepared for the proposed project correctly identified the access on Del Obispo Street as the primary access point to the project site. The correction to the language on Page 2-19 is indicated in underline and strikeout below: Existing access to the project site is provided by Del Obispo Street and Alipaz Street. The project proposes to provide vehicular access to the site via two entrances: one primary entrance on Del Obispo Street Via Pesitiva and one secondary entrance on Via Positiva Del Obispo StFeet 2) Section 4.5, Cultural Resources The language on Pages 4-37 and 3-38 in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, of the Draft IS/MND has been revised to clarify the time during which the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) may inspect the site of discovery. This revision is a correction to clarify the time limits and does not change the analysis or conclusions contained in the IS/MND. P:AJCA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx a04/17/18» 67 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 The text on Pages 4-37 and 4-38 of Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, has been revised as follows: CUL-4: Human Remains. Consistent with the requirements of CCR Section 15064.5(e), if human remains are encountered during site disturbance, grading, or other construction activities on the project site, the construction contractor shall halt work within 25 feet of the discovery; all work shall be redirected and the Orange County (County) Coroner notified immediately. No further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site AP-t+fiGatilDR by the NAHG. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Consistent with CCR Section 15064.5(d), if the remains are determined to be Native American and an MLD is notified,the City shall consult with the MLD identified by the NAHC to develop an agreement for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Upon completion of the assessment, the consulting archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results and provide recommendations regarding the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate, and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report shall be submitted to the City Development Services Director, or designee, and the South Central Coastal Information Center. The City Development Services Director, or designee, shall be responsible for reviewing any reports produced by the archaeologist to determine the appropriateness and adequacy of the findings and recommendations. 3) Section 4.6, Geology and Soils The language on Page 4-42 in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, of the Draft IS/MND has been revised to clarify that the project would increase impervious area on the project site. This revision is a correction and does not change the analysis or conclusions contained in the IS/MND. The correction to the language on Page 4-43 is indicated in underline below: As discussed in further detail in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would increase impervious surface area on the project site, which would increase stormwater runoff. 4) Section 4.12, Noise The language on Page 4-111 in Section 4.12, Noise, of the Draft IS/MND has been revised to clarify that the project site is 17 miles south of John Wayne Airport. This revision does not change the analysis or conclusions contained in the IS/MND. 68 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT APRIL 2018 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA The correction to Page 4-11 is indicated in underline and strikeout below: The project is approximately 17 miles south nerth of John Wayne Airport (SNA). 5) Section 5.0, Mitigation and Monitoring Program Mitigation Measure CUL-4, on Page 5-8 in Section 5.0, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, has been revised to clarify the time during which the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) may inspect the site of discovery. This revision clarifies and more correctly states the required mitigation, and does not change the analysis or conclusions contained in the IS/MND. The correction to Mitigation Measure CUL-4 is indicated in underline and strikeout below: CUL-4: Human Remains. Consistent with the requirements of CCR Section 15064.5(e), if human remains are encountered during site disturbance, grading, or other construction activities on the project site, the construction contractor shall halt work within 25 feet of the discovery; all work shall be redirected and the Orange County (County) Coroner notified immediately. No further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site nA-t+fic�t A-.n by the NAHG. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Consistent with CCR Section 15064.5(d), if the remains are determined to be Native American and an MLD is notified,the City shall consult with the MLD identified by the NAHC to develop an agreement for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Upon completion of the assessment, the consulting archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results and provide recommendations regarding the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate, and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report shall be submitted to the City Development Services Director, or designee, and the South Central Coastal Information Center. The City Development Services Director, or designee, shall be responsible for reviewing any reports produced by the archaeologist to determine the appropriateness and adequacy of the findings and recommendations. P:AJCA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx a04/17/18» 69 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 This page intentionally left blank 70 P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx((04/17/18)) FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT APRIL 2018 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA SECTION 3 DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CIRCULATED FROM MARCH 6, 2018, AND APRIL 5, 2018) P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx«04/17/18» 71 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA APRIL 2018 This page intentionally left blank 72 P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Final MND\Final MND.docx((04/17/18)) INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Purpose of this Initial Study..............................................................................................1-1 1.2 Summary of Findings.........................................................................................................1-1 1.3 Organization of the Initial Study.......................................................................................1-1 1.4 Contact Person..................................................................................................................1-2 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................... 2-1 2.1 Project Site and Site Description.......................................................................................2-1 2.2 Proposed Project.............................................................................................................2-13 2.3 Required Permits and Approvals.....................................................................................2-22 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED........................................ 3-1 4.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................... 4-1 4.1 AESTHETICS. ......................................................................................................................4-3 4.2 AGRICULTURE & FOREST RESOURCES.............................................................................4-10 4.3 AIR QUALITY....................................................................................................................4-15 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.................................................................................................4-24 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES....................................................................................................4-30 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS.......................................................................................................4-39 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS........................................................................................4-47 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS........................................................................4-53 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY................................................................................4-63 4.10 LAND USE/PLANNING......................................................................................................4-74 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES. ....................................................................................................4-90 4.12 NOISE...............................................................................................................................4-92 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING. .......................................................................................4-113 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES...........................................................................................................4-116 4.15 RECREATION..................................................................................................................4-124 4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC..........................................................................................4-126 4.17 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES .....................................................................................4-154 4.18 UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS. ........................................................................................4-158 4.19 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE...................................................................4-167 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM .................................. 5-1 5.1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS........................................5-1 5.2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROCEDURES............................................5-2 6.0 REFERENCES..................................................................................................... 6-1 P:AJCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» i THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES Figure 2.1: Regional Project Location ................................................................................................. 2-3 Figure2.2: Project Vicinity.................................................................................................................. 2-7 Figure 2.3: Existing Project Site........................................................................................................... 2-9 Figure2.4: Land Use Map ................................................................................................................. 2-11 Figure2.5: Zoning Map..................................................................................................................... 2-15 Figure2.6: Specific Plan.................................................................................................................... 2-17 Figure 4.12.1: Noise Monitoring Locations....................................................................................... 4-99 TABLES Table 4.2.A: Project Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Scoring .................................................4-12 Table 4.2.13: Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Significance Determination...................4-12 Table 4.3.A: Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions............................................................... 4-19 Table 4.3.13: Summary of On-Site Construction Emissions, Localized Significance...........................4-20 Table 4.3.C: Opening Year Regional Operational Emissions.............................................................4-20 Table 4.3.D: Long-Term Operational Localized Impacts Analysis..................................................... 4-21 Table 4.7.A: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions.....................................................................4-49 Table 4.7.13: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions.......................................................................4-51 Table 4.10.A: General Plan Consistency Analysis.............................................................................. 4-76 Table 4.12.A: Exterior Noise Standards for Residential, Public, and Institutional Districts'.............4-96 Table 4.12.13: Interior Noise Standards for Residential Uses'...........................................................4-96 Table 4.12.C: Ground-Borne Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise Impact Criteria for General Assessment..............................................................................................................................4-97 Table 4.12.D: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria ....................................................................4-98 Table 4.12.E: Existing Noise Level Measurements..........................................................................4-101 Table 4.12.F: Existing Traffic Noise Levels ......................................................................................4-102 Table 4.12.G: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels..........................................................4-104 Table 4.12.H: Potential Construction Noise Impacts......................................................................4-105 Table 4.12.1: Existing Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Project.............................................4-107 Table 4.12.J: Buildout Year Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Project...................................4-108 Table 4.14.A: Current School Capacities and Enrollment...............................................................4-121 Table 4.14.13: Projected School Enrollment .................................................................................... 4-121 Table 4.16.A: Existing Plus Construction Traffic Intersection Level of Service Summary(ICU)......4-133 Table 4.16.13: Existing Plus Construction Traffic Intersection Level of Service Summary(HCM)....4-134 Table 4.16.C: Existing Plus Construction Traffic Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary.....4-135 Table 4.16.D: Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Summary(ICU) ..........................4-137 Table 4.16.E: Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Summary(HCM) ........................4-138 Table 4.16.F: Existing Plus Project Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary.........................4-139 Table 4.16.G: Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative Intersection Level of Service Summary (ICU).......................................................................................................................................4-140 ii P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA Table 4.16.H: Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative Intersection Level of Service Summary (HCM) .....................................................................................................................................4-142 Table 4.16.1: Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary................................................................................................................................4-144 Table 4.16.J: Buildout Intersection Level of Service Summary(ICU) ..............................................4-146 Table 4.16.K: Buildout Intersection Level of Service Summary(HCM) ...........................................4-148 Table 4.161: Buildout Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary.............................................4-150 Table 4.18.A: Project-Related Water Demand................................................................................4-160 Table 4.18.B: Project-Related Wastewater Generation..................................................................4-163 Table 5.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program .................................................................5-3 APPENDICES (BOUND SEPARATELY) A: AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS B: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS C: SPECIFIC PLAN D: NOISE ANALYSIS E: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS F: AB 52 CONSULTATION LETTERS P:A1CA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/05/18» III THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 This page intentionally left blank iv P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx((03/02/18)) INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS INITIAL STUDY In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared for The Farm Specific Plan project (hereafter referred to as the "proposed project") in San Juan Capistrano, California. This IS/MND has been prepared pursuant to CEQA, as amended (Public Resources Code [PRC] §21000 et seq.) and in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR] §15000 et seq.). Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15071, this IS/MND includes a description of the proposed project, an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project, and findings from the environmental analysis. Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) is the Lead Agency for the project. The Lead Agency is the public agency with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. The City, as the Lead Agency, has the authority for project approval and adoption or certification of the accompanying environmental documentation. 1.2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Based on the Environmental Checklist Form prepared for the project (Section 4.0) and supporting environmental analysis (Section 5.0), the proposed project would have no impact or less than significant impacts in the following environmental areas: agriculture and forest land resources, air quality, greenhouse gases, hydrology and water quality, land use, mineral resources, public services, recreation, traffic, and utilities and services. The proposed project has the potential to have significant impacts on the following topics unless the recommended mitigation measures described herein are incorporated into the project: aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, and tribal cultural resources. According to the State CEQA Guidelines, it is appropriate to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed project because, after incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, potentially significant environmental impacts would be eliminated or reduced to a level considered less than significant. 1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY The IS/MND is organized into sections, as described below. • Section 1.0: Introduction.This section provides an introduction and overview of the conclusions in the IS/MND. P:AJCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 1-1 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 • Section 2.0: Environmental Setting and Project Description. This section provides a brief description of the project location, relevant background information, and a description of the existing conditions of the project site and vicinity. This section also provides a description of the proposed project and necessary discretionary approvals. • Section 3.0: Environmental Factors Potentially Affected. This section provides a list of the environmental factors that would be potentially affected by this project and a determination by the City as to the appropriate environmental document. • Section 4.0: Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Environmental Checklist Questions. This section contains an analysis of environmental impacts identified in the environmental checklist and identifies mitigation measures that have been recommended to eliminate any potentially significant effects or to reduce them to a level considered less than significant. • Section 5.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Consistent with the requirements of PRC Section 21081.6, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the proposed project. The program describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of the proposed project would be carried out as described in this IS/MND. • Section 6.0: References.This section identifies the references used to prepare the IS/MND. 1.4 CONTACT PERSON Any questions or comments regarding the preparation of this IS/MND, its assumptions, or its conclusions should be referred to the following: Art Bashmakian, AICP, Contract Planner City of San Juan Capistrano 32400 Paseo Adelanto San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Tel: (949)443-6331 Email:ABashmakian@sanjuancapistrano.org 1-2 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT SITE AND SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1.1 Regional Setting The project site is located at 32382 Del Obispo Street in the southwestern portion of the City of San Juan Capistrano, which itself is located in southern Orange County (County). The City encompasses approximately 14 square miles of land (approximately 8,960 acres) within the County. The City is bounded by the Cities of Mission Viejo and Laguna Niguel to the north, the Cities of Laguna Niguel and Dana Point to the west, the City of San Clemente to the south, as well as unincorporated County land to the east. As shown on Figure 2.1, Regional Project Location, regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate 5 (1-5), State Route 73 (SR-73), State Route 74 (SR-74, also known as Ortega Highway), and Pacific Coast Highway (PCH, also known as State Route 1). 1-5 bisects the central portion of the City in a north-south direction and is approximately 1.5 miles (mi) east of the project site; SR-73 extends in an east-west direction in the northern portion of the City and is located approximately 3.5 miles north of the project site, Ortega Highway extends in an east-west direction approximately 1.3 miles north of the project site, and PCH extends in a north-south direction and is approximately 4 miles south of the project site. 2.1.2 Project History 2.1.2.1 Land Use History The project site was used for citrus and other agricultural production from about 1938 until approximately 1975, when a building permit for a shopping center southwest of the project site was issued. The same year, the project site transitioned from traditional in-ground agricultural production to use as a plant and material warehousing, growing, and distribution center. The shopping center adjacent to the project site was expanded to its current size by 1989 and remains operational under existing conditions. In 1994, the then-current tenant paved large portions of the site in order to accommodate construction of commercial greenhouses and loading docks for tractor trailer distribution vehicles. No in-ground agricultural activities have occurred since operation of the commercial nursery began in 1998. Until 2014, the project site was occupied by a commercial Armstrong nursery containing a regional distribution and growing facility that consisted of several greenhouses, growing areas, outdoor storage sheds, office space for employees, and other agriculture-related facilities. In 2014, the commercial nursery and distribution center on the project site were relocated to Ventura County. The Armstrong Garden Center located directly southwest of the site remained in operation following the relocation of the commercial nursery and distribution center on the site. P:AJCA1703\CERA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 2-1 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 This page intentionally left blank 2-2 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx((03/02/18)) Orange p a County ? ❑ °f'.. 'ejchern3 St °n d"" e ". R a 1•a m° y- R°bOrre mos Ss s Spring St Ra Q°e�a� t� 'FsteJrrd q q DrtepaNrlYS�j� Ga a pst lxlll FF a4 ' CVfe a Gra'+a R PROJECT a aptrrn o II LOCATION San Diego Calle a - County Ricardo - San Juan V o F� 5 troGara Capistrano or 5aHrllan`en G.11 Club 16arrAda V9C F n5 ap Long pasVew ty Prark p`r a)viI"aktrr6e(aA .o ,F@Prada ® �� ca {,aptl ya�o Or ar �saa f ane( ay r G{yl kyr de ly 'oerdido urrc ` nyl, (•' 4 ❑ Is ocl IV C aA°le ° m Ca AarO'Ra ti4Q� a Paseo Toscani ra Mdsn 1� PROJECT a La a' SITE Nara � 'lei Ak'J Charro Or 41le Dana'ky, art _ t2a C°rn :. Woods c anslli Parko Neptune Dr , z Q�ra ZYq Q nits P pastact°.•Jl e Wtrsthors° Via Del Rey c7 4 Yacht Or _ Mariner Or ~ y'° C1 H 0 Ayerlida Aeldpr�efjd n O Dana Sea n y' ¢ I Solis rn Po a p01n tO r W o 0 Calle J Y Chap,.,,o N e p arprp U o Q r4araaJa �� oar Stonehill Dr a Fnt5t4 �? Fa;t'"indOr oa� � iii v 4 i Petr Ory a 4 a' n SNra Ra n u c n — ` La Jolla ° u } n 4 v { Connemara C Sao inIma) al d 0, a Paz Ave n s 11 ea Acu Canyon Park .i �}'S apri ti � tdrnla O � Avenida Cali 9� y La Cresta Or yn u erie �' qu 0. 0a1 Cam"°a mina La; Ranr6ras Q o :� Obispo p Ca Calle SI an M"1l 43 Ar u �anxanrr oQ ylll e4d Park Ic Ocean 0Q6Carle aJ 1a KnoH Park O �A P ��v Z� Jilg0 ilia 7jerCampo r �° �4 Cage �j°� Do `o eye AbrJr 141, le State Bch P 1 yep no°?fit' ? Camlgo�r ` c acrfic Coasr Hry ��=: Via ® Sunset �F°Roy LSA FIGURE 2.1 N 0 1000 2000 The Farm Specific Plan FEET SOURCE:ESRI Regional Project Location 1:\1CA1703\G\Regional Project Location.cdr(10/30/2017) THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 This page intentionally left blank 2-4 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx((03/02/18)) INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA Following the removal of the residential zoning classification on the site and the adoption of the Agri-Business classification in its place in 1990 (in connection with Measure D'), the City and its agents evaluated the project site for permanent open space preservation. The site was evaluated at that time, and again in 2008 (in connection with Measure Y2). In both cases, the City elected not to acquire and convert the site to an open space use and instead acquired other properties both within and outside of the City limits. 2.1.2.2 Ownership and Entitlement History The project site was acquired by the Vermeulen family in 1973. Spieker Senior Development Partners entered into a purchase and sale agreement with the Vermeulen family in 2013 and subsequently began the entitlement process for the Spieker Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) project. The CCRC project involved a General Plan land use designation change from Agri- Business to Specific Plan/Precise Plan and a zone change from A—Agri-Business District to Specific Plan/Precise Plan, as the retirement community included 407 residential units for independent residents not requiring daily assistance and amenities, and a 101-unit health care center for residents requiring daily assistance (e.g., memory support and medical care). The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Spieker CCRC project was certified by the City Council on October 21, 2014, and the project and associated discretionary actions were approved. However, in December 2014, the City Council overturned the Spieker CCRC project approval and the General Plan Land Use Designation reverted back to Agri-Business. The zone change, however, was never reverted back to its previous designation and currently remains designated Specific Plan/Precise Plan, without a specific development plan, as the Spieker CCRC project was overturned. As such, the EIR that was previously prepared for the project remains certified and the General Plan land use designation remains Agri-Business, with a zoning classification for the property of Specific Plan/Precise Plan (refer to Figures 2.4 and 2.5 for illustrations of the existing General Plan and zoning classifications for the site). 2.1.3 Project Vicinity and Surrounding Land Uses The approximately 35-acre project site consists of Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 121-182-53 and 121-182-17. The project site is bordered on the south by Via Positiva, with the Del Obispo Elementary School, Marco Forster Middle School, Kinoshita Elementary School, the Kinoshita Farm, and San Juan Capistrano Community Center and Sports Park located beyond. The Kinoshita Farm is a privately operating agricultural production business located on City-owned property that is part of the City of San Juan Capistrano Public Lands inventory. Alipaz Street forms the eastern border of the site with medium- and medium low-density residential units located further east. Del Obispo Street Measure D allowed for the purchase and preservation of approximately 140 acres of open space in the City. As a result of Measure D, the City acquired two parcels of land for preservation: the Kinoshita Farm (half was utilized for a sports park and community center and the other half was preserved for agricultural uses) and the Swanner Williams Ranch property (preserved for use as a passive park with equestrian facilities, hiking trails, a nature center, and picnic and special events areas). Measure D also provided funds for the creation and implementation of an Open Space Master Plan. 2 Measure Y enabled the City to set up to $30 million in bonds to obtain additional land for open space preservation and improvements. P:AJCA1703\CERA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 2-5 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 forms the western boundary of the site with single-family residential units located further west of the property. A retail center is located near the southwestern corner of the property. The Rancho Alipaz Mobile Home Park (for residents age 55 or older), the Mariners Ocean Hills Church (which currently leases space to Mountain View Church 3) and Private Heart Christian Academy (kindergarten through 8th grade), Community Presbyterian Preschool (preschool through kindergarten), and the Del Obispo Terrace (a senior residential facility) border the project site to the north. A detailed project vicinity map is presented on Figure 2.2, Project Vicinity. The project site is bounded by Existing Public Schools, Agri-Business, and Community Park uses to the south, Low Density Residential (1 to 2 dwelling units per acre [du/ac]) and Medium Low Density Residential uses (2 to 3.5 du/ac) to the west, Medium High Density (3.5 to 8 du/ac) to the east, and Public Institutional uses and Assisted Care Facilities to the north (refer to Figure 2.4). 2.1.4 Existing Project Site The project site was previously developed with the Armstrong Garden Center. The project site has since been cleared of all previous nursery facilities including paving, with the exception of a loading dock area, and is undeveloped in its existing condition. As such, the existing project site is primarily characterized by dirt and scattered ruderal vegetation. The project site is irregular in shape and is relatively flat with a slight slope to the east/southeast. The eastern portion of the project site, which is the lowest topographic area on site, contains a series of open, man-made drainage channels designed to capture and convey surface runoff to a water storage basin located at the southeastern corner of the project site. The water collected in this small basin was previously pumped to a larger storage basin at the western end of the property, where it was used to water plants grown and stored on the site during its use as a commercial nursery. In its existing condition, access to the site is restricted due to the placement of a chain-link fence along the perimeter of the site. Refer to Figure 2.3, Existing Project Site, for photographs of the existing project site. 2.1.5 Existing General Plan Designation and Zoning Classifications As shown on Figure 2.4, Land Use Map, the project site is currently designated Agri-Business on the City's General Plan Land Use Map. The Agri-Business land use designation provides for the production and sale of agricultural crops. Allowable uses within the Agri-Business designation include field and row crops, orchards and vineyards, nurseries, greenhouses, and hydroponic gardens, as well as animal breeding, boarding, raising, and training. 3 Mountain View Church will relocate from its existing location at Mariners Ocean Hills Church to the retail center located southwest of the project site. 2-6 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» f f NA Co%mrSaunly a. Presbyterian Prescho Del Obispo ,_ p� It'lliRA°" ; rut .•' :�rim: " Terrace 411WIN I RlRfi: �• # f. �� Mariners Ocean #� d�. tf y04 , ., R1R� �'w 3_ Hills Churc � 5 1• .ir.�l . _ Private l tf ie� �9 .. �. ;�' %., Chri ianl �' yy v 'M"vrd ! # ■� ,� r' : . - Ukb4eWomims=40 s fi Mountain Ve meulen � '`,rlr �► �1��#! - �r� !i View Church !� iNO Ranch Center 'li} - w 'i, �f1��* ; C� � '1�!i jk t . •. r t4'446lNI��lIF��w" Kinoshita VIA POSITIVA Elementary 2 4077 San Juan I j `. i Capistrano # . 1Yi,'pd1d:4: Community Center Kinoshita a� .; s� -�-�`� '' 5 and Sports Park Farmkf pp.,*a� ,14 �t :r G Del Obis'. FOS Jaiw Element Sc A � - w _ CAMINO DEL-AVION Y i I�i' R �4itR�`► " _ *lam d� ' _i� �.y_s�.J�-_�1—r.�.L+.Y '.mak F,. 1 � �•• .. Y ��}a � � ..-: rt=i•�'s '� � t_:.. � .-{jFa rIs' - ;.■ a f�� S^ r<':_' � !��r f _.' � 11' Ili / 1 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 This page intentionally left blank 2-8 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx((03/02/18)) AG e5�.•�1 View of the project site facing west on Alipaz Street. View of the project site facing east on Via Positiva. i:t> i View of the project site facing southeast on Del Obispo Street. View of the project site facing southwest on Del Obispo Street. LSA FIGURE 2.3 The Farm Specific Plan Existing Project Site :\1CA1703\G\Existing Project Site.cdr(2/16/2018) THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 This page intentionally left blank 2_10 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx((03/02/18)) VA SWA WOR,► Ifl� ��I�j�l�I r■_ Site ii►i r e� riff►p �r�,11►� � ►t1E�1E1E111)J�iEEf)�� i4 �� - .•.. .rte Ifllllllllllllll�ll� Y1lfflfl�l�f1 ��!■■■■it IN No ■■ W r■■�,■� �' o �•_, 21 41 21 ON MM iy�:;tilslrxxirrJ ;;iii ON MEN . ... . • THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 This page intentionally left blank 2_12 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx((03/02/18)) INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA As shown on Figure 2.5, Zoning Map, the project site is currently zoned as Specific Plan/Precise Plan (SP/PP) despite not being regulated by an approved specific plan at present. According to Section 9- 3.317 of the City's Zoning Code, the intent of the SP/PP district is to provide a zoning classification for areas in the City that have important aesthetic, cultural, historical, or environmental characteristics as special study areas so that such areas will not be destroyed by premature or poorly planned development. 2.2 PROPOSED PROJECT 2.2.1 The Farm Specific Plan The project proposes the approval of"The Farm Specific Plan" (referred to hereafter as the Specific Plan and/or the proposed project), which would serve to facilitate future development on the site under subsequent subdivision approvals. The Specific Plan establishes a plan for the future development of a residential community consisting of up to 180 single-family residential units, a 0.5-acre park, and a 1-acre shared-use trail (i.e., the "Ecology Trail") leading from Del Obispo Street to the existing Ecology Center on Alipaz Street (approximately 0.1 mile south of the project site). The Specific Plan intends to create a new residential community with a trail system that would provide convenient access to multiple public and private schools, public parks, the San Juan Capistrano Community Center, Sports Park, and the Ecology Center within the vicinity of the project site. In addition, the project site's proximity to the Historic Town Center, approximately 1.3 miles northeast of the site, would provide residents with nearby retail and entertainment opportunities. Refer to Figure 2.6, Specific Plan, for an illustration of the proposed conceptual Specific Plan. As previously stated, the project site is designated Agri-Business on the City's General Plan, but is classified as SP/PP on the City's Zoning Map. As such, the project would require approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the designation of the property to Specific Plan/Precise Plan. The Specific Plan/Precise Plan designation applies to areas regulated by a specific plan or precise plan adopted prior to development. Approval of the GPA requested as part of the project would also ensure consistency with the existing zoning classification for the site. 2.2.2 Specific Plan Regulations 2.2.2.1 Development Standards and Design Guidelines The Specific Plan establishes the development standards that would guide the future development of the project site. As detailed further in the Specific Plan, development standards would be consistent with the development standards in the City's Zoning Code for Single-Family Residential 4000 (RS-4,000) uses. Examples of these development standards include but are not limited to, a list of allowable and conditionally permitted uses, height regulations, setback standards, density standards, recreational facilities standards, and development review procedures. In addition, the Specific Plan establishes Design Guidelines that would serve to guide the aesthetic character and visual quality of future development on the site. These guidelines would be consistent with the City's Design Guidelines (2003). P:AJCA1703\CERA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 2-13 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 This page intentionally left blank 2-14 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx((03/02/18)) • ` � I ® �. Com] 1 54 L4 ns ` : %ii- � Imo• 63-40-13�- III ■ .. . I m UP 1111111111111 �'■■■■ ,US ■■■ i yn- 00 .� 161■ �fti��fRRRa �. �. .. . i .,�♦ '� vim= mm flRR� IR11Rf �� ■. .. . '' 1 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 This page intentionally left blank 2-16 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx((03/02/18)) J� } YLL { T Proposed Multi-Use Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Equestrian Trail r Single Family Residential : } {' Up to 180 Units +: Final Land Use Plan ` to be Provided with Subdivision • 5 LSA LEGEND FIGURE 2.6 Proposed Residential Uses N Proposed Park and Recreational Areas The Farm Specific Plan SOURCE:City of San Juan Capistrano Specific Plan I:\JCA1703\G\Specific Plan.cdr(2/16/2018) THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 This page intentionally left blank 2-18 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx((03/02/18)) INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA 2.2.2.2 Implementation and Administration In addition to establishing Development Standards and Design Guidelines, the Specific Plan outlines the procedures for revising and/or modifying the Specific Plan following its adoption. These procedures would cover minor/administrative adjustments and revisions, as well as more comprehensive Specific Plan Amendments in the event such amendments are requested. The Specific Plan also includes implementation procedures for future development proposals occurring as a result of the approval of the Specific Plan. 2.2.2.3 Vehicular and Pedestrian Access Existing access to the project site is provided by Del Obispo Street and Alipaz Street. The project proposes to provide vehicular access to the site via two entrances: one primary entrance on Via Positiva and one secondary entrance on Del Obispo Street. These two entrance points would be connected via an internal access road (i.e., The Farm Road) that would traverse the central portion of the site in a northwest-southeast fashion. In addition, a traffic signal at the intersection of Del Obispo Street/Via Pimienta—Project Driveway is included as a project design feature in the Specific Plan. The proposed traffic signal would be coordinated with the traffic signals at the intersections of Del Obispo Street/Calle Aspero and Del Obispo Street/Via Vermeulen. Pedestrian access to the site would be provided via existing sidewalks along the perimeter of the site, a new pedestrian trail extending from Del Obispo to the existing Ecology Center off Alipaz Street, and by internal walkways and designated crossing areas. 2.2.2.4 Landscaping and Fencing As illustrated on Figure 2.6, the project would incorporate ornamental landscaping along Del Obispo Street, Alipaz Street, Via Positiva, and the internal access road. The project would also include decorative landscaping near the two access points to demarcate these areas as entrance points to the property; however, particular emphasis would be made at the access point off Via Positiva, as this access point would serve as the main entrance to the project site. Additionally, the Specific Plan includes the creation of a 0.5-acre park (referred to as "Harvest Park") in the central area of the property. The Specific Plan would also include a trail system that would identify existing and proposed park areas and trails, for residents of the project to access passive and outdoor amenities in the project area. Landscaping proposed along the internal access road, the perimeter of the site, at entry monuments, and along the park would serve to establish the character of the project site. Consequently, the Specific Plan includes the establishment of several "Landscape Zones," which would serve to define areas of similar visual character and planting design. Further detail related to landscaping included as part of the project and the proposed Landscape Zones is provided below. P:AJCA1703\CERA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 2-19 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 • The Farm Road and Internal Roadways: The Specific Plan would utilize a selection of large-scale trees with drought-tolerant shrubs, groundcovers, and ornamental grasses along The Farm Road and internal roadways. Primary street trees would be located closest to the street in an effort to provide each roadway with its scale and form. Shrubs would be used in landscaped easements and medians to soften the visual aesthetic of internal roadways and visually link all landscape materials. Low-growing shrubs will be used in combination with groundcovers and grasses in medians, parkways, and sidewalks included as part of the project. Groundcovers and ornamental grasses, including park turf, would be drought-tolerant to minimize the project's water demand. • Harvest Park and Community Trail: As previously stated, the project proposes the creation of a park (Harvest Park) on the central portion of the site. The park would consist of landscaped open space areas that would accommodate neighborhood recreational uses, including a tot lot. Harvest Park would be accessible via The Farm Road, and would link to a multi-use trail (i.e., a pedestrian and an equestrian trail) included as part of the project. In addition, informal recreational facilities, such as picnic tables and seating areas, may be implemented in the park area and along the trail. • The Farm Entry: The two entrance points to the project site would be demarcated with the use of landscape materials and streetscape design elements. These design elements would include large groups of singular plantings, low stone walls, signage and logo for identification, street lighting, and landscape treatments. • Perimeter Landscaping: Landscaping proposed along the perimeter of the project site would consist of a variety of trees, ornamental landscaping, and ground coverings. Implementation of landscaping along the perimeter of the site would serve as a visual buffer between surrounding roadways and development with the future development proposed on the project site. All plants included as part of the project would be drought-tolerant native and/or would be adapted plant species suitable for the City's climate, consistent with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines (Ordinance 966; Section 9-3.527 of the City's Municipal Code). The project would also include solid perimeter walls, with the exception of walls along Del Obispo Street,which will be decorative to conform to design standards for this area. 2.2.2.5 Transit Service Transit service is provided within the project vicinity by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Specifically, OCTA runs Route 91 within the project vicinity. Route 91 originates in Laguna Hills at the Laguna Hills Mall and ends in San Clemente at the Metrolink Station. Within the project vicinity, Route 91 runs along Del Obispo Street,which forms the western border of the project site. In addition, Metrolink provides service in close proximity to the project site. Specifically, the Inland Empire-Orange County and Orange County lines run along railroad tracks located approximately 0.5 mile east of the project site. An Amtrak/Metrolink Station is located approximately 0.8 mile northeast of the project site at 26701 Verdugo Street. 2-20 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA 2.2.2.6 Lighting Outdoor lighting included as part of future development on the project site would be typical of residential uses (e.g., wall-mounted lighting, pole-mounted street lights, and security lighting along pathways). Accent lights would also be incorporated to highlight landscape focal points and directional monument signs. All outdoor lighting would be directed downward and shielded to minimize off-site spill. Additionally, the location of all exterior lighting would comply with lighting standards established in Section 9-3-529 of the City's Municipal Code. 2.2.2.7 Sustainability Features Future development facilitated by project approval would be consistent with California's Green Building Code and would include the following sustainability features: • Installation of"purple pipes" to maximize the use of reclaimed water, once it becomes available, and incorporated as part of subsequent subdivision approvals. • Installation of energy-efficient lighting technologies. • Installation of"smart"weather-based irrigation controllers. • Exclusion of landscape materials that are listed on the Invasive Plant Inventory of the California Invasive Plant Council. • Inclusion of California or Mediterranean Species requiring minimal watering. • Utilization of bubblers or low-flow sprinklers for all non-turf areas. 2.2.3 Infrastructure Improvements The following infrastructure improvements are anticipated as part of future development occurring as a result of project approval: • Water: The project site receives domestic water service from the City of San Juan Capistrano Utilities Department. Construction of an on-site potable water distribution system would be required. It is anticipated that the water system would include 8-inch and 12-inch water distribution pipes, with up to three connections to the existing 10-inch water lines located in Del Obispo Street and Via Positiva (owned and operated by the City). • Sewer Service: The existing on-site sewer system would collect flows from future development and convey them toward the southeast entrance of the site. Although the project would be connected to and served by the existing sewer system, the project may require improvements to the off-site sewer system along Via Positiva. The final design and sizing of on-site and off-site sewer lines and connection would occur as part of the final design for the future subdivision plans for the up to 180 residences. P:AJCA1703\CERA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 2-21 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 • Storm Drains: Stormwater runoff from the project site currently outflows to an existing 78-inch drain line located in Alipaz Street near the southwest corner of the site. The project is anticipated to include the installation of an underground circular detention tank to reduce stormwater runoff. The on-site open man-made channels, which were previously used to capture runoff and convey it to two storage basins for watering the nursery plants, will be removed with project implementation. 2.2.4 Implementation/Phasing Approval of the Specific Plan would allow for future development on the site to occur under subsequent subdivision approvals. Future development is anticipated to occur in two distinct phases. • Phase 1: Phase I would include the creation of the proposed trail system, Harvest Park, and other community amenities included as part of the project. Phase 1 would occur over an approximately 1-year period. All mass grading (which would occur throughout the 35-acre project site), backbone utility installations, and off-site infrastructure improvements would be completed during Phase 1. • Phase 2: Phase 2 would include the construction of up to 180 residences. Construction of these residences is anticipated to occur over an approximately 1.5-year period. Project construction is anticipated to commence in late 2019 and is expected to occur over the course of 2.5 years.As such, buildout of the Specific Plan would occur in mid-2022. 2.2.5 Development Agreement A Development Agreement is a legal contract, negotiated between a project applicant and a public agency,which governs the land uses and terms and conditions of approval that may be allowed for a particular project. A Development Agreement can also outline public benefits that the project proponent is guaranteeing to the public agency (e.g. additional fees, land dedications, or public facilities improvements). A Development Agreement is not required, but is being negotiated for the proposed Farm Project. The Farm Specific Plan Development Agreement requires the Applicant to make a monetary contribution to the City to be used for future public improvements, in exchange for vested rights on the subject property. Future improvements funded as a result of the Development Agreement would be subject to separate CEQA reviews at the time they are proposed. 2.3 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS 2.3.1 Discretionary Actions Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would require various approvals and permits from local, State, and federal agencies with jurisdiction over specific elements of the project. The discretionary approvals by the City of San Juan Capistrano, as the Lead Agency, would include the following: 2-22 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA • General Plan Amendment: GPA 16-001 would change the project site's land use designation from Agri-Business to Specific Plan/Precise Plan. • Specific Plan: The Farm Specific Plan would establish development standards that would guide the future development of the project site including allowable and conditionally permitted uses, height regulations, setback standards, density standards, recreational facilities standards, and development review procedures. • Development Agreement: A Development Agreement between the Applicant and the City would identify the terms, conditions, and regulations for development of the project site and would identify the Applicant's obligations associated with the proposed project. • Lot Line Adjustment: A Lot-Line Adjustment would relocate the lot lines to exclude an existing commercially developed area separate from the project site. 2.3.2 Future Discretionary and Ministerial Approvals Future discretionary and ministerial approvals would be required from both the Lead Agency and from Responsible agencies. Responsible agencies for the project include the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). These approvals would allow for the implementation of new development envisioned under the Specific Plan.These include, but are not limited to,the following: • Architectural Control (AC): Future projects facilitated by approval of the Specific Plan would be required to go through the AC process, which requires a review of a development project to ensure compliance with the City's Zoning Code and Design Guidelines established by the Specific Plan. • Tentative Tract Maps: Tentative Tract Maps (TTMs) and final maps would be required for all subdivisions creating four or more lots. The review process would assure that the proposed lots are consistent with the City's General Plan, the Specific Plan, and Municipal Code. Approval of a Tentative Tract Map requires public hearings by both the City's Planning Commission and the City Council. • Final Grading Plan: A Final Grading Plan would be prepared to address the mass grading activities that are anticipated throughout the 35-acre site. The Grading Plan would be submitted to the City subsequent to the adoption of the Specific Plan. • Grading Plan Modification: Approval of a Grading Plan Modification would be required to facilitate any grading activities that would alter existing slopes on the site by more than 2 feet. • Tree Removal Permits: In accordance with Section 9-2.349 of the City's Municipal Code, Tree Removal Permits would be required to allow for the removal of existing trees on the project site to facilitate future development occurring as part of project implementation. P:AJCA1703\CERA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 2-23 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 • Sewer Connection Permit: A sewer capacity and connection permit would be required for the project's connection to the trunk lines currently located in Via Positiva. • Regulatory Permit Applications: Concurrent with the environmental document prepared for the project, the Applicant may be required to submit applications to one or more regulatory agencies seeking permits or approvals related to site development, including off-site infrastructure improvements, water supply (e.g., local approvals), and resource agencies (e.g., for project-related effects on drainages). 2-24 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact"without the incorporation of mitigation. As indicated by the checklist on the following pages, all project-related potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a level below significance with the incorporation of mitigation measures and adherence to applicable standard conditions. ❑Aesthetics ❑Agriculture&Forest Resources ❑Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑Cultural Resources ❑Geology/Soils ❑Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards&Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑Transportation/Traffic ❑Tribal Cultural Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION. On the basis of this initial evaluation: 1. 1 find that the project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a ❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 2. 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 3. 1 find the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an ❑ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 4. 1 find that the proposed project may have a "potentially significant impact" or ❑ "potentially significant unless mitigated impact" on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. S. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the ❑ environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 0>.Z- E4ntalA�dministrator Date P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» 3-1 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 This page intentionally left blank 3-2 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx((03/02/18)) INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA 4.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g.,the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced, as discussed below). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identity the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated", describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g.,general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared 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. P:AJCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-1 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9. The explanation of each issue should identify: a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. 4-2 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA 4.1 AESTHETICS. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ (b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited to,trees, rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state ❑ ❑ ❑ scenic highway? (c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of ❑ ® ❑ ❑ the site and its surroundings? (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ❑ ❑ ® ❑ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Impact Analysis: (a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. A scenic vista is the view of an area that is visually or aesthetically pleasing from a certain vantage point. It is usually viewed from some distance away. Aesthetic components of a scenic vista include (1) scenic quality, (2) sensitivity level, and (3) view access. A scenic vista can be impacted in two ways: a development project can have visual impacts by either directly diminishing the scenic quality of the vista or by blocking the view corridors or "vista" of the scenic resource. Important factors in determining whether a proposed project would block scenic vistas include the project's proposed height, mass, and location relative to surrounding land uses and travel corridors. The project site is located in the City of San Juan Capistrano (City), on the western slope of the San Juan Creek floodplain. The majority of the project site is currently characterized by an undeveloped dirt lot and ruderal vegetation. While there are no locally designated scenic vistas in the City, distant views of the Santa Ana Mountains, Saddleback Mountain, and the Colinas Hills are visible from various vantage points throughout the City. Regional visual resources that are visible from the project site include the Santa Ana Mountains and the Colinas Hills. Construction. Construction of the proposed project would require site preparation, grading, and construction activities. Construction activities would be visible to travelers along Del Obispo Street,Alipaz Street, Via Positiva, and other adjacent roadways. Any partial obstruction of scenic views of the Colinas Hills and Santa Ana Mountains as a result of construction activities would be short-term in nature and would cease upon project completion. In addition, construction equipment is not of sufficient height or mass to substantially block views of distant scenic vistas. Therefore, construction impacts related to adverse effects on a scenic visa would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Operation. The Community Design Element of the City's General Plan has designated Del Obispo Street, Camino del Avion, and Alipaz Street as scenic corridors requiring view protection. The project site is visible from Del Obispo Street and Alipaz Street; therefore, the project site is considered to be within a portion of a public scenic corridor from these roadways. While no P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-3 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 designated trails or vantage points currently exist on the project site, members of the public may access views of the surrounding hills from public roads and adjacent sidewalks surrounding the site. Implementation of the proposed project would allow for the development of up to 180 single- family residential units on the project site. On-site residential uses would be a maximum of two stories in height, and therefore, would not obstruct or block views of the surrounding hills from nearby roads and sidewalks, including City-designated scenic corridors (i.e., Del Obispo Street and Alipaz Street). Furthermore, landscaping elements included throughout the project site and the decorative perimeter wall along Del Obispo Street would serve to enhance and frame views of these scenic corridors and would block views of the proposed residential uses from adjacent roadways. While implementation of the proposed project would modify views of and from the project site by allowing for development of a residential community on the site,the project would not result in significant impacts on views of the surrounding hills from adjacent roadways and sidewalks. Motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians would continue to enjoy these views following project implementation. Additionally, the multi-use trail included as part of the project would connect recreational amenities on the site (i.e., the proposed 0.5-acre park) to off-site amenities (e.g., the Marco Forster Athletic Fields, Sports Parks, and San Juan Community Center), which will allow additional public access to distant views of the surrounding hills. Therefore, potential impacts of the proposed project on scenic vistas would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) Landscape Architecture Program administers the Scenic Highway Program, contained in Streets and Highways Code Sections 260-263. State highways are classified as either Officially Listed or Eligible. The portion of State Route 74 (SR-74) located approximately 1 mile north of the project site is identified as an Eligible State Scenic Highway, but is not officially designated as a scenic highway by Caltrans.4 In addition, no existing aesthetic or visual resources are located on the project site or in the surrounding vicinity. The project site is located within a developed area of the City primarily characterized by commercial, residential, and educational uses. As discussed further in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, existing vegetation on the project site is ruderal and non-native. The proposed project would replace existing ruderal vegetation on the site with ornamental landscaping and would include the addition of a park on the site. Therefore, the proposed project does not have the potential to damage resources within a State-designated scenic highway, and no mitigation would be required. 4 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). California Scenic Highway Mapping System (Los Angeles County). Website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm (accessed December 7, 2017). 4-4 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA (c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located within a developed area of the City. The existing site is irregular in shape and encompasses approximately 35 acres.The project site is relatively flat with a slight slope to the east/southeast and a few minor slopes within and adjacent to the site. The project site is currently undeveloped, and as such, is currently characterized by dry soils and ruderal vegetation. In addition, two water retention basins previously utilized for irrigation purposes by the past tenant are also present on the project site: one southeastern side of the site and one at the western end of the property. The undeveloped nature of the site allows for much of the site to be visible from vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians along Del Obispo Street. However, overhead lines, street lights, and a small cellular facility located on top of a faux water tower on the western portion of the site slightly encroach upon views of the project site.5 Construction. Construction of the proposed project would require excavation, grading, and construction activities. Construction activities would be visible to travelers along Del Obispo Street, Via Positiva, and Alipaz Street. Construction activities would be short-term in nature and all construction vehicles and equipment would be staged on the project site throughout the duration of the construction period. Temporary construction fencing would be placed along the perimeter of the undeveloped portion of the site to visually screen construction activities from the street level. It is recognized that construction fencing could serve as a potential target for graffiti if not appropriately monitored. Therefore, Mitigation Measure AES-1 is proposed and would require that temporary barriers and walkways are maintained in a visually attractive manner throughout the construction period. Mitigation requiring the maintenance of the project site fencing would ensure that impacts associated with unwanted debris and graffiti would be less than significant. Furthermore, visual impacts associated with construction would be temporary in nature and would cease upon project completion. Therefore, construction impacts related to the degradation of the existing visual character of the project site would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1. Operation. The proposed project would allow for the development of the currently vacant project site with a single-family residential community. All structures developed on the project site would be of the California Spanish architectural style, which is a modern interpretation of the landmark Mission Revival and Mediterranean architectural styles seen throughout the City. New development would also be consistent with the Design Guidelines established in the proposed Specific Plan. As such, the architectural style and design of the proposed single-family residences would be consistent with the visual character of the surrounding area, as described in more detail below. 5 No changes to the faux water tower on the site are proposed as part of the proposed project. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-5 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 The proposed project would incorporate ornamental landscaping and a wall along the perimeter of the project site. Additionally, the project would include decorative landscaping near the two access points to demarcate these areas as entrances to the site, and landscaping within the proposed park and trail areas. All landscaping included as part of the project would be drought- tolerant. Consistent with the provisions of the proposed Specific Plan and the City's Development Standards (Section 9-3.01 of the Municipal Code) for residential uses, single-family residential uses proposed as part of the project would be developed at a maximum height of two stories in height (or the equivalent of 35 feet). The Specific Plan would also allow for height deviations of up to 5 percent, which would permit structures to a maximum height of 37.5 ft, subject to administrative review and approval. The height and massing of the proposed residential uses would be visually consistent with the height and massing of development in the surrounding area, which is generally characterized by low- to medium-density uses comprised of one-and two-story buildings. As previously stated, uses surrounding the project site vary in architectural style. Specifically,the surrounding mobile home communities, Mariners Ocean Hills Church, and the adjacent retail center are constructed in architectural styles that differ from the Mission Revival and Mediterranean styles generally seen throughout the City. Buildings proposed as part of the project would be constructed in the California Spanish architectural style and would be consistent with the architectural style of the surrounding single- and multifamily residential units and nearby elementary and middle schools, as well as with the general architectural style of the majority of development in the City. In summary, although the proposed project would permanently alter the existing visual character and quality of the site by allowing for development of the property with a residential community, the project would be developed at a scale and massing that is compatible with the surrounding development.The project would not degrade the character or quality of the project site, nor would the proposed project contribute to an overall degradation of the visual character or quality of the surrounding area. Implementation of the proposed project would, therefore, result in less than significant visual character impacts with implementation of the following mitigation measure to address potential construction impacts. Mitigation Measure: AES-1 Maintenance of Construction Barriers. Prior to issuance of any construction permits, the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) Development Services Director, or designee, shall verify that construction plans include the following note: "During construction, the Construction Contractor shall ensure, through appropriate postings and daily visual inspections, that no unauthorized materials are posted on any temporary construction barriers or temporary pedestrian walkways, and that any such temporary barriers and walkways are maintained in a visually attractive manner. In the event that unauthorized materials or markings are discovered on any temporary construction barrier or temporary pedestrian walkway, the Construction 4-6 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA Contractor shall remove, paint over, or otherwise obscure such items within 48 hours." (d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact. Spill light occurs when lighting standards, such as streetlights, parking lot lighting, exterior building lighting, and landscape lighting, are not properly aimed or shielded to direct light to the desired location and light escapes and partially illuminates a surrounding location. The spillover of light onto adjacent properties has the potential to interfere with certain activities, including vision, sleep, privacy, and general enjoyment of the natural nighttime condition. Light-sensitive uses include residential, some commercial and institutional uses, and, in some situations, natural areas. Changes in nighttime lighting may become significant if a proposed project substantially increases ambient lighting conditions beyond its property line and project lighting routinely spills over into adjacent light-sensitive land uses areas. The City's Municipal Code Section 9-3.529, requires that spill light generated from a residential development not exceed 1 footcandle6 on the adjacent property. Reflective light (glare) is the result of sunlight or artificial light reflecting from finished surfaces (e.g., window glass) or other reflective materials. Glass and other materials can have many different reflectance characteristics. Buildings constructed of highly reflective materials from which the sun reflects at a low angle commonly cause adverse glare. Reflective light is common in urban areas. Glare generally does not result in the illumination of off-site locations but results in a visible source of light viewable from a distance. Currently, there are no existing sources of light or glare emanating from the undeveloped project site. Existing sources of light in the project vicinity include headlights on nearby roadways; building fagade and interior lighting from adjacent development; pole-mounted lighting in parking areas of adjacent developments; and field lighting associated with the San Juan Capistrano Sports Park. Adjacent residential uses, public facility uses (i.e., Mariners Ocean Hills Church and nearby middle school and elementary schools), commercial uses, and the San Juan Capistrano Sports Park currently emit light and glare in the area. The existing parking lot and mobile home community bordering the northern portion of the site and residential uses east of the site also contribute light to the area. Lighting from existing distant development within the City also contributes light to the area. Construction. Short-term construction activities would occur primarily during daylight hours; however, construction activities may require periodic nighttime lighting. Any construction- related illumination during evening or nighttime hours would be shielded to the extent feasible and would consist of the minimal lighting required for safety and security purposes and would only occur on a temporary and as-needed basis. Due to its limited scope and duration, light 6 A "footcandle" is a unit of measurement related to illumination. One footcandle is equivalent to the illumination produced by a source of one candle at a distance of one foot. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-7 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 generated during project construction would not substantially alter the character of off-site areas surrounding the construction area, or interfere with the performance of an off-site activity. Therefore, construction lighting impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Operation. The proposed project would introduce new sources of light to the project site that are typical of residential uses. Outdoor lighting proposed as part of the project would include wall-mounted lighting, pole-mounted street lights, and security lighting along pathways. Accent lights would also be incorporated to highlight landscape focal points and directional monument signs. All outdoor lighting would be directed downward and shielded to minimize off-site spill. Additionally, the location of all exterior lighting would comply with lighting standards established in the proposed Specific Plan, which are consistent with lighting standards established in Section 9-3-529 of the City's Municipal Code. Although the proposed project is not anticipated to incorporate design features that would result in excessive lighting or the generation of glare on the site, lighting plans are subject to City review and approval as part of the site plan review process. Standard Conditions AES-2 and AES- 3 require the Applicant to prepare a lighting plan and photometric study for review and approval by the City's Development Services Department. These conditions are intended to ensure that new sources of light and glare do not impact adjacent land uses that nighttime lighting is limited to that necessary for security, and that lighting is shielded to reduce glare and spill lighting effects on adjacent sensitive uses. A comprehensive lighting plan would illustrate the final locations for parking lot lights, walkway lights, and landscaping lights and demonstrate consistency with the City's Municipal Code. Implementation of these standard conditions would ensure that impacts associated with new lighting would remain less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required to reduce potential project-related impacts with respect to the light and glare. In addition, refer to Standard Condition AES-2 and AES-3, below. Standard Condition AES-2: Comprehensive Lighting Plan. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the project Applicant shall prepare a comprehensive lighting plan for review and approval by the City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Director and/or the City's Design Review Committee, or designee. The lighting plan shall be prepared by a qualified lighting engineer and shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the City's Municipal Code. The lighting plan shall address all aspects of lighting, including infrastructure, on-site driveways, recreation, safety, signage, and promotional lighting, if any. The lighting plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following, as determined by the lighting engineer: • Exterior on-site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. 4-8 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA • No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites. • "Walpak"type fixtures are not permitted. • Parking area lighting shall include cut-off fixtures, and light standards shall not exceed 20 feet in height. • Lighting fixtures that blink, flash, or emit unusual high intensity or brightness are not permitted. • The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the illumination recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if, in the opinion of the City Development Services Director, or designee, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The City Development Services Director, or designee, may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. Standard Condition AES-3: Photometric Study. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a photometric study shall be prepared by the project Applicant in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the City Development Services Director, or designee. The photometric study shall show that lighting values are 1 footcandle or less at all property lines. P:AJCA17O3\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx aO3/02/18» 4-9 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 4.2 AGRICULTURE & FOREST RESOURCES. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as depicted on the 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? (c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ to non-agricultural use? Discussion: The discussion and analysis provided in this section is based on the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment for the Spieker CCRCSpecific Plan (LESA Model) (LSA; April 25, 2014). Although the LESA model was prepared for the previously proposed Spieker CCRC Specific Plan project, the analysis in the model is not tied to the proposed use, but rather is tied to the acreage of the site, on-site soil characteristics, surrounding agricultural land, water resources availability, and surrounding protected resource land rating. Consequently, because these parameters have not changed, the analysis and conclusions remain applicable to the proposed project. The results of the LESA Model are available at the City of San Juan Capistrano for review and reference. Impact Analysis: (a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as depicted on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency? Less Than Significant Impact. The approximately 35-acre project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The project site was used for citrus and other agricultural production from 1938 to 1975. In 1975, the project site transitioned from traditional in-ground agricultural production to use as a plant and material warehousing, growing, and distribution center. In 1994, the tenant paved large portions of the site in order to accommodate construction of commercial greenhouses and loading docks for tractor trailer distribution vehicles. No in-ground agricultural activities have occurred since operation of the commercial nursery began in 1998. Operation of the commercial nursery continued on the site until 2014, when the commercial nursery and distribution center was relocated to Ventura County. Subsequent to the relocation of the commercial nursery on the site, building foundations, paving, and structures associated with the nursery (with the exception of the loading dock paving area) were demolished and the site was restored to a vacant and undeveloped condition. No agricultural activities or uses are currently present on the property. 4-10 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA According to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) of the Department of Conservation (DOC 2014), the project site is currently designated as Unique Farmland.' As defined pursuant to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) land inventory and monitoring criteria, Unique Farmland is land that has been used for the production of specific high-economic-value crops at some time during the two, 2-year update cycles prior to the mapping date. The current mapping date is 2014, which means that such crops must have been produced for the 4 years prior(i.e., 2010 to 2014). Unique Farmland includes the combination of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high quality or high yields of a specific crop when rated and managed according to current farming methods. Unique Farmland is usually irrigated, but may include nonirrigated orchards or vineyards." As such, although the nursery operations previously located on the site were limited to pot and pallet planting and no crops were grown in the on-site soils, the site is designated as Unique Farmland because nurseries and greenhouses are considered major contributors to crop production in California. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the conversion of DOC-designated Unique Farmland. Because Unique Farmland is considered a finite and irreplaceable resource, the conversion to a non-agricultural use as a result of project implementation could be potentially significant. To assess potential agricultural resource impacts that may result from project implementation, the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model was calculated for the project site. The LESA Model is composed of six different factors. Two Land Evaluation (LE) factors are based on measures of soil quality, and four Site Assessment (SA) factors provide measures of a project's size, water resource availability, and surrounding agricultural and surrounding protected resource lands. The final project scoring is based on a scale of 100 points, with a given project capable of deriving a maximum of 50 points from the LE factors and 50 points from the SA factors. Scoring thresholds are based upon the total LESA score, as well as the component LE and SA subscores. This score serves as the basis for making a determination of a project's potential significance, based upon a range of established scoring thresholds. As identified in Table 4.2.A, a single LESA score is generated for a given project after all of the individual LE and SA factors have been scored and weighted. According to the Tentative Tract Map for the previously proposed project, the project site is 34.8 acres.9 The results of the LESA analysis are illustrated below in Table 4.2.A. In addition, Table 4.2.13 identifies the significance determinations based on the LESA Scoring System. 7 California Department of Conservation,California Important Fact Finder.Website: https://maps. conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/(accessed December 7,2017). 8 California Department of Farmland Mapping and Monitoring, Important Farmland Map Categories. Website: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/mccu/Pages/map_categories.aspx(accessed December 11, 2017). 9 The project site is 34.8 acres; however, roadway easements total 1.5 acres, leaving approximately 33.3 acres that were formerly utilized for nursery operations. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-11 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Table 4.2.A: Project Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Scoring Factor Rating Factor Weighting Weighted Factor Factor Name (0-100 points) (Total=1.00) Rating Land Evaluation Factors Land Capability Classification 96.7 0.25 24.2 Storie Index Rating 82.03 0.25 20.5 Land Evaluation Subtotal 44.7 Site Assessment Factors Project Size 50 0.15 7.5 Water Resource Availability 75 0.15 11.25 Surrounding Agricultural Land 0 0.15 0 Protected Resource Land 0 0.05 0 Site Assessment Subtotal 18.75 Total LESA Score 63.45 Source: LSA.California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment for the Spieker CCRC Specific Plan(April 25,2014). LESA=Land Evaluation and Site Assessment 1 Although the Kinoshita Farm is located adjacent to the site, the surrounding agricultural land value is 0 because, in accordance with the LESA guidelines, it is based on the percent of agricultural land in production in the site's Zone of Influence". The acreage in the Zone of Influence is 335.06 and the land in agricultural production is 28.69 acres, for a percentage of 8.5. Anything less than 40 percent is given a Land Score of 0. Table 4.2.13: Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Significance Determination Total LESA Score Scoring Decision 0-39 Points Not considered significant 40-59 Points Considered significant only if LE and SA subscores are each greaterthan or equal to 20 points 60-70 Points Considered significant unless either LE or SA subscore is less than 20 points 80-100 Points Considered significant Source:LSA.California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment for the Spieker CCRC Specific Plan(April 25,2014). LE=Land Evaluation LESA=Land Evaluation and Site Assessment SA=Site Assessment As outlined in Table 4.2.6, sites receiving a total LESA score of 60 to 70 points indicate that proposed conversion of the site from agricultural to urban land uses is considered "significant unless either the LE or SA subscore is less than 20 points." As identified in Table 4.2.A, the project site attained a score of 63.45. While a score of 63.45 could be considered significant,the project site's SA subscore of 18.75 is less than 20 points.Therefore, pursuant to the LESA Model, the proposed conversion of the site from agriculture to non-agricultural uses would not be considered significant, and no mitigation would be required. The City initiated the process to remove the project site from the FMMP of the DOC during the next mapping cycle (2020). As part of this process, the project site will be monitored for 4 years (from 2016 to 2020) to confirm that no agricultural production is present on the site and that agricultural production is permanently going out of production. If no irrigated agricultural production is present on the site, it would be removed from the "Unique Farmland" designation on the 2020 Important Farmland Map and would be changed to either "Grazing Land" if the 4-12 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA property has not been developed and/or was graded, or "Urban and Built-Up Land" if homes are present on the site.10 An update to the designation of the project site on the FMMP would also serve to reduce potential impacts related to the conversion of agricultural land to a non- agricultural use. Furthermore, although the project's impacts to agricultural resources are less than significant, the City does require the Applicant to pay an agricultural impact fee, which is intended to implement the goals of open space and agriculture established in the General Plan. The City's current Agricultural Preservation Fee is $500 per residential unit, which equates to approximately$90,000 for the up 180 units proposed as part of the project. Payment of this fee as required in Standard Condition AGR-1 would reduce potential impacts related to conversion of the Unique Farmland to a non-agricultural use. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required to reduce potential impacts with respect to the conversion of agricultural land to a non-agricultural use. In addition, refer to Standard Condition AGR-1, below. Standard Condition AGR-1: Agricultural Preservation Funds: Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall provide proof to the City of San Juan Capistrano's Development Services Director, or designee, that payment of fees to the City's Agricultural Preservation Fund have been made in accordance with City Ordinance Number 316. (b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within an area covered under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any Williamson Act contract. No impacts related to this issue would occur with implementation of the proposed project, and no mitigation would be required. Implementation of the proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the land use designation on the project site from Agri-Business to Specific Plan/Precise Plan (SP/PP). According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element (2002), the Agri-Business land use designation allows for the production and sale of agricultural crops. Specifically, allowable uses include field and row crops, orchards and vineyards, nurseries, greenhouses, and hydroponic gardens, as well as animal breeding, boarding, raising, and training. According to the City's Zoning Map, the project site is zoned SP/PP. The SP/PP zoning classification allows for an adopted specific plan to regulate development, including allowable land uses and the maximum intensity/density of uses, on a particular property. While the project site is classified as SP/PP, there is currently no adopted specific plan regulating development on the site (in December 2014, the City Council overturned the prior project approval, including the previously approved Spieker CCRC Specific Plan). As such, approval of the requested GPA would allow for the proposed Farm Specific Plan to serve as the guiding land 10 Written correspondence between the City of San Juan Capistrano and Michael Kisko, Environmental Scientists at the California Department of Conservation.January 4, 2018. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-13 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 use document on the site and would ensure consistency with applicable development standards and design guidelines. Similarly, approval of the GPA would ensure consistency between the City's General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map. Therefore, approval of the requested GPA would minimize conflicts with the agricultural land use designation on the site. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (c) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? Less than Significant Impact. Construction. Construction of the proposed project would result in an increase in dust generated on the site that if unmitigated, could affect the Kinoshita Farm located south of the site. As discussed further in Section 4.3, Air Quality, the project would be required to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not result in impacts to adjacent agricultural uses. Operation. According to the most recent Census of Agriculture for Orange County (2012), the County had a total of 60,497 acres of farmland.11 The loss of approximately 33.3 acres of Unique Farmland would represent approximately 0.6 percent of the total farmland inventoried in the County. Although the proposed project would result in the permanent loss of DOC-designated Unique Farmland, the project site remains vacant and undeveloped in its existing condition and is not utilized for any crop related production. Additionally, the LESA model run for the project concluded that the loss of agricultural uses would be less than significant.Therefore, because no agricultural activities are present on the site, implementation of the proposed project would not involve the conversion of Farmland to a non-agricultural use nor would the project interfere with other agricultural uses. No mitigation would be required. " United States Department of Agriculture. 2012. Census of Agriculture.County Profile-Orange County, California.Website: https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/County_ Profiles/California/cp06O59.pdf (accessed February 15, 2018). 4-14 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA 4.3 AIR QUALITY. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact (a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable ❑ ❑ ® ❑ air quality plan? (b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially ❑ ❑ ® ❑ to an existing or projected air quality violation? (c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air ❑ ❑ ® ❑ quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ® ❑ concentrations? (e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of people? Discussion: The following section is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum for the Farm Specific Plan Project in the City of San Juan Capistrano, California (Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum) (LSA; February 2018; provided in Appendix A of this IS/MND). Impact Analysis: (a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in the City of San Juan Capistrano, within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes all of Orange County (County) and portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Air quality within the SCAB is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for formulating and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for SCAB. The latest plan is the 2016 AQMP, which incorporates the latest scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories. The main purpose of an AQMP is to describe air pollution control strategies to be taken by a city, county, or region classified as a nonattainment area in order to bring the area into compliance with federal and State air quality standards. A nonattainment area is considered to have air quality worse than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as defined in the federal Clean Air Act. The SCAB is in nonattainment for the federal and State standards for ozone (03) and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). In addition, the SCAB is in nonattainment for P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-15 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 the State standard for particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter(PM10). The SCAB is in attainment/maintenance for the federal PM10, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead, and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) standards. Consistency with the 2016 AQMP would be achieved if a project is consistent with the goals, objectives, and assumptions in the respective plan to achieve the federal and State air quality standards. Per SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993), there are two main indicators of a project's consistency with the applicable AQMP: (1) whether the project would increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the applicable AQMP (2016 AQMP); and (2) whether the project would exceed the AQMP's assumptions for final year for the AQMP. The CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that consistency with AQMP growth assumptions must be analyzed for new or amended General Plan elements, Specific Plans, and significant projects. Significant projects include airports, electrical generating facilities, petroleum and gas refineries, designation of oil drilling districts, water ports, solid waste disposal sites, and offshore drilling facilities. For the proposed project to be consistent with the AQMP, the pollutants emitted from the project should not exceed the SCAQMD daily threshold or cause a significant impact on air quality. Additionally, if feasible mitigation measures are implemented and shown to reduce the impact level from significant to less than significant, a project may be deemed consistent with the AQMP. As discussed in Sections 4.3 (b), 4.3 (c), 4.3 (d), and 4.3 (e), the proposed project's emissions would be below the emissions thresholds established in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Analysis Handbook and would not be expected to result in significant air quality impacts. Additionally, the proposed project would not be considered as a "significant project" affecting air quality in the region. Furthermore, the project would allow for the development of up to 180 residential units, which is consistent with the growth projections anticipated for the SCAB in the AQMP. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with and not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2016 AQMP. No mitigation is required. (b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. Specific criteria for determining the significance of potential air quality impacts of a project are set forth in SCAQMD's Air Quality Analysis Handbook. The criteria include emission thresholds and compliance with State and national air quality standards. A summary of the specific criteria is presented as follows. Thresholds for Construction Emissions. The following significance thresholds for construction emissions have been established by SCAQMD: 75 pounds per day (lbs/day) of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 100 lbs/day of nitrogen oxides (NOX) • 550 lbs/day of CO 4-16 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA • 150 lbs/day of PM10 55 lbs/day of PM2.5 150 lbs/day of sulfur oxides (SOX) Thresholds for Operational Emissions. The following significance thresholds for operational emissions have been established by SCAQMD: • 55 lbs/day of ROG • 55 lbs/day of NOx • 550 lbs/day of CO • 150 lbs/day of PM10 • 55 lbs/day of PM2.5 • 150 lbs/day of SOx Projects in the SCAB with construction or operation emissions that exceed any of the emission thresholds above would be considered significant under SCAQMD guidelines. Localized Significance Thresholds. Localized significance thresholds (LSTs) represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area (SRA) and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. SCAQMD provides look-up tables to determine a project's SRA and associated mass rate LST by project size.The proposed project is in Capistrano Valley(SRA 21). The LST levels typically apply to projects that are less than 5 acres in area; however, guidance is provided for projects larger than 5 acres that use the California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) for the air quality emissions analysis (SCAQMD 2011). Under the SCAQMD guidance, the maximum daily-disturbed area should be calculated and used for determining the size of the project site's disturbed acreage. Using SCAQMD's method for calculating the maximum daily- disturbed area, construction information provided by the Applicant and CaIEEMod default construction equipment lists, no more than 5 acres would be disturbed on any one day for the proposed project.Thus, the 5-acre LSTs have been used for construction emissions.12 The 5-acre thresholds would also apply during project operations because on-site vehicle emissions (i.e., the largest source of emissions during project operations) and on-site travel routes for the proposed project would occupy up to 5 acres of the surface area. 12 A maximum disturbance of 5.0 acres would occur during the grading phase from three rubber-tired dozers,two scrapers, and two tractors for 7 hours per day of usage. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-17 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Although residential uses are present east and southeast of the project site, the closest sensitive receptors to the project site include residences located immediately to the north and west of the project boundary. SCAQMD LST Methodology (SCAQMD 2003) specifies, "Projects with boundaries located closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters." The nearest single-family residence is 20 feet (6 meters) to the north of the project site; therefore, the LST at 25 meters is the appropriate threshold. The following construction significance thresholds for LSTs would apply to the 5-acre disturbed acreage in SRA 21 at a distance of 25 meters: • 197 lbs/day of NOX • 1,804 lbs/day of CO 12 lbs/day of PM10 • 8 lbs/day of PM2.5 The following operation significance thresholds for LSTs would apply to the 5-acre disturbed acreage in SRA 21 at a distance of 25 meters: • 197 lbs/day of NOX • 1,804 lbs/day of CO 3 lbs/day of PM10 2 lbs/day of PM2.5 Projects in the SCAB with construction or operation emissions that exceed any of the LSTs above are considered significant by SCAQMD. Short-Term (Construction) Emissions. Air quality impacts could occur during construction of the proposed project due to soil disturbance and equipment exhaust. Major sources of emissions during grading and site preparation include (1) exhaust emissions from construction equipment and vehicles; and (2) fugitive dust generated by grading activities, construction vehicles, and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces. The following summarizes construction emissions and associated impacts of the proposed project. Construction of the proposed project would include the following tasks: site preparation, grading, construction, paving, and architectural coating. Emissions were analyzed using CalEEMod (Version 2016.3.2). Project-specific information provided by the Applicant was used where available, including land use details and the construction schedule. Default CalEEMod inputs were used for the remaining modeling variables in the absence of project-specific information (e.g., types construction equipment and number of construction vehicles/ equipment, number of construction workers, and the duration of construction activity). The CalEEMod default inputs are considered a "worst-case" scenario for the purposes of CEQA analysis. 4-18 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with land clearing, exposure, and cut-and-fill operations. The amount of dust generated daily during construction would vary substantially, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions. Nearby sensitive receptors and on-site workers may be exposed to blowing dust, depending on prevailing wind conditions. Fugitive dust would also be generated as construction equipment or trucks travel on unpaved areas of the construction site. The PM10 and PM2.5 fugitive dust emissions are included in Table 4.3.A. Fugitive dust emissions would be substantially reduced by compliance with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403; compliance with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 is required for all projects in the SCAB. The implementation of on-site watering on exposed unpaved surfaces at least three times daily and limiting vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour (mph) on all unpaved surfaces were accounted for in the project emission estimates. Table 4.3.A: Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions Total Regional Pollutant Emissions(lbs/day) Construction Phase VOC NO CO SO Fugitive Exhaust Fugitive Exhaust x z PM" PM" PM'.' PMz.S Site Preparation 5.8 64.2 31.7 0.1 8.5 2.9 4.1 2.7 Grading 4.5 50.3 32.6 0.1 4.1 2.2 1.7 2.0 Building Construction 3.3 27.9 26.0 0.1 2.9 1.2 0.8 1.1 Paving 1.5 11.2 15.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.5 Architectural Coatings 15.9 1.6 1 3.0 1 0.0 1 0.5 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Peak Daily 19.2 64.2 32.6 0.1 11.4 6.8 SCAQMD Thresholds 75.0 100.0 550.0 150.0 150.0 55.0 Significant Emissions? No No No No No No Source:Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum(February 2018). 1 Peak daily emissions of VOCs occur during overlap of Building Construction and Architectural Coatings Phases. CO=carbon monoxide PM1D=particulate matter less than 10 microns in size lbs/day=pounds per day SCAQMD=South Coast Air Quality Management District NOx=nitrogen oxides SOx=sulfur oxides PM2.5=particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size VOC=volatile organic compounds Table 4.3.A summarizes the peak daily construction emissions based on the CalEEMod emission estimates, which includes some overlap of the architectural coating application and the building construction phase. This table shows that construction equipment/vehicle emissions during construction periods would not exceed any of the SCAQMD established daily emissions thresholds. Table 4.3.A also shows that the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD emissions thresholds for PM10, and PM2.5. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD construction emissions thresholds and short-term (construction) air quality impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Construction Localized Significance. Table 4.33 shows the maximum on-site construction emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 during each construction phase. As shown in Table 4.3.6, the proposed project would not exceed the LSTs for construction emissions for the residences located less than 25 meters from the project site. Therefore, impacts from construction-related emissions would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-19 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Table 4.3.13: Summary of On-Site Construction Emissions, Localized Significance Construction Emission Rates(lbs/day) NO, CO PMI, PM,.,' On-Site Emissions 66.0 48.0 11.0 6.7 Localized Significance Threshold 197.0 1,804.0 12.0 8.0 Exceed Significance? No No No No Source:Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum(February 2018). Note:SRA-Capistrano Valley Area,5.0 acres,receptors at 15 meters 1 Total PM10 and PM2,5 daily emissions with fugitive dust mitigation measures implemented. CO=carbon monoxide PM10=particulate matter less than 10 microns in size lbs/day=pounds per day PM2.5=particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size NOx=nitrogen oxides Long-Term (Operational) Emissions. Long-term air emission impacts are those associated with any change in permanent use of the project site by on-site stationary and off-site mobile sources that substantially increase emissions. Stationary-source emissions include emissions associated with electricity consumption and natural gas usage. Mobile-source emissions usually result from vehicle trips associated with a project. Operational emissions associated with the proposed project (including energy use for appliances, landscaping equipment, use of consumer products, and motor vehicles) were calculated using CalEEMod and are included in Table 4.3.C. Trip generation rates were taken from the Traffic Impact Analysis (LSA 2018) performed for the project. The proposed project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 445 (Wood Burning Devices), which prohibits wood-burning devices from being installed in new developments; therefore, the "no hearth" option was selected in the area mitigation section of CaIEEMod. As shown in Table 4.3.C, the proposed project would not exceed any operational emissions thresholds established by SCAQMD. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause any long-term (operational) air quality impacts, and no mitigation is required. Table 4.3.C: Opening Year Regional Operational Emissions Source Pollutant Emissions(lbs/day) VOC NOx I CO SOx PMI, PM,., Proposed Project Area 7.9 3.2 16.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 Energy 0.1 1.2 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 Mobile 2.6 11.0 36.0 0.1 13.0 3.6 Total Project Emissions 10.7 15.2 52.8 0.2 13.4 4.0 SCAQMD Thresholds 55.0 55.0 550.0 150.0 150.0 55.0 Significant? No No No No No No Source:Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum(February 2018). Note:Column totals may not add due to rounding from the model results. CO=carbon monoxide PM10=particulate matter less than 10 microns in size lbs/day=pounds per day SCAQMD=South Coast Air Quality Management District NOx=nitrogen oxides SOx=sulfur oxides PM2,5=particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size VOC=volatile organic compounds 4-20 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA Operation Localized Significance. Table 4.3.D shows the on-site operational emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. For a worst-case scenario assessment, the emissions shown in Table 4.3.D include all on-site project-related stationary sources and 5 percent of the project-related new mobile sources, which is an estimate of the amount of project-related new vehicle traffic that would occur on site. A total of 5 percent is considered conservative because the average trip lengths assumed are 14.7 miles for home to work, 5.9 miles for home to shopping, and 8.7 miles for other types of trips. The average on-site distance driven is unlikely to be even 1,000 feet, which is approximately 2.2 percent of the total miles traveled. Therefore, a 5 percent assumption is a conservative worst-case analysis. Table 4.3.D: Long-Term Operational Localized Impacts Analysis Emissions Sources Pollutant Emissions(lbs/day) NO, co PM" PM'.' On-Site Emissions 3.7 18.0 1.0 0.5 LST Thresholds 197.0 1,804.0 3.0 2.0 Significant Emissions? No No No No Source:Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum(February 2018). Notes: Column totals may not add due to rounding from the model results. SRA—Capistrano Valley Area,5 acres,receptors at 15 meters. CO=carbon monoxide PM2.5=particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size lbs/day=pounds per day PM10=particulate matter less than 10 microns in size LST=localized significance thresholds SRA=Source Receptor Area NOx=nitrogen oxides As shown in Table 4.3.D, the calculated emissions rates during operation of the proposed project are below the LSTs for CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5.Therefore, the proposed project would not cause any long-term LST significant air quality impacts, and no mitigation is required. Long-Term Microscale (CO Hot Spot) Analysis. Vehicular trips associated with project implementation would contribute to traffic along roadway segments in the project vicinity. Localized air quality impacts would occur when emissions from vehicular traffic increase as a result of the proposed project. The primary mobile-source pollutant of concern is CO, a direct function of idling time, and thus traffic conditions. Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service or with extremely high traffic volumes. An assessment of project-related impacts on localized ambient air quality requires that future ambient air quality levels be projected. Existing CO concentrations in the immediate project vicinity are not available. Ambient CO levels monitored at the Mission Viejo Monitoring Station showed a highest recorded 1-hour concentration of 1.4 parts per million (ppm) (the State standard is 20 ppm) and a highest 8-hour concentration of 0.8 ppm (the State standard is 9 ppm) during the past 3 years.The highest CO concentrations would normally occur during peak traffic hours; hence, CO impacts calculated under peak traffic conditions represent a worst-case analysis. Reduced speeds and vehicular congestion at intersections result in increased CO emissions. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-21 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 According to the Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed project (LSA 2018), all intersections in the project area would continue to operate at satisfactory LOS under all scenarios (i.e., Existing Conditions, Existing Plus Project, Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative [2022, corresponding to the project opening year], and Year 2040 Buildout [corresponding to the building of the City's General Plan, including the project]). Therefore, the project can be implemented in the buildout scenario with no significant peak-hour intersection impacts. Given the extremely low level of CO concentrations in the project area and the lack of significant unavoidable traffic impacts at any intersections, project-related vehicles are not expected to contribute significantly to CO concentrations exceeding the State or federal CO standards. Because no CO hot spots would occur, there would be no project-related impacts on CO concentrations. No mitigation is required. (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)? Less Than Significant Impact. The SCAB is in nonattainment for the federal and State standards for 03 and PM2.5. In addition, the SCAB is in nonattainment for the State PM10 standard, and is in attainment/maintenance for the federal PM10, CO, and NO2 standards. As discussed in Section 4.3 (b), no exceedance of SCAQMD's criteria pollutant emission thresholds would be anticipated for the proposed project. The projected emissions of criteria pollutants as a result of the proposed project are expected to be below the emissions thresholds established for the region. In addition, emissions that do not exceed SCAQMD thresholds also are not cumulatively considerable. Therefore, because project emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds, the project would also not cause a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutant emissions that are in nonattainment status in the SCAB. No mitigation is required. (d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. As described in Section 4.3 (b), the proposed project would not significantly increase short-term (construction) emissions, LST emissions, or long-term (operational) emissions in the project area. Construction of the proposed project may expose surrounding sensitive receptors to airborne particulates as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment). However, construction contractors would be required to implement measures to reduce or eliminate emissions as prescribed in SCAQMD's standard construction practices (Rule 403). Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. The applicable dust suppression techniques from Rule 403, include but are not limited to the following: • Water active sites at least three times daily (locations where grading is to occur will be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving). 4-22 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114 (freeboard means vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer). • Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be reduced to 15 mph or less. Therefore, sensitive receptors are not expected to be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction and potential short-term impacts are considered less than significant. No mitigation is required. (e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Analysis Handbook identifies various secondary significance criteria related to odorous air contaminants. Substantial odor-generating sources include land uses such as agricultural activities, feedlots, wastewater treatment facilities, landfills, or heavy manufacturing uses. The project does not propose any such uses or activities that would result in potentially significant odor impacts. Some objectionable odors may emanate from the operation of diesel-powered construction equipment during construction of the proposed project. However, these odors would be limited to the construction period and would disperse quickly; therefore,these odors would not be considered a significant impact. The proposed project would allow for the implementation of a residential development, which does not typically produce objectionable odors. Potential sources of operational odors generated by the project would include disposal of miscellaneous refuse and common or residential uses. SCAQMD Rule 402 acts to prevent occurrences of odor nuisances. Consistent with City requirements, all project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with solid waste regulations. Therefore, no significant impacts related to objectionable odors would result from the proposed project, and no mitigation is required. P:AJCA17O3\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx aO3/02/18» 4-23 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California ❑ ❑ ❑ Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.) ❑ ❑ ❑ through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with ❑ ® ❑ ❑ established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ordinance? (f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or El El ® Elother approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Impact Analysis: The following section is based on the Biological Resources Assessment for The Farm Specific Plan Project (The Farm Biological Resources Assessment) conducted by LSA (February 2018; provided in Appendix B of this IS/MND). (a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The approximately 35-acre vacant project site is located within an urban area of the City of San Juan Capistrano. The majority of the project site is currently characterized by an undeveloped dirt lot, ruderal vegetation, and limited ornamental landscaping. A row of non-native Peruvian pepper trees (Schinus molle) are located along the edge of the project site, adjacent to the approximately 8-acre retail center. Pepper 4-24 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA trees also line the edge of the paved parking lot adjacent to the retail center. There are also a variety of other ornamental landscape trees surrounding and adjacent to the project site. There are no known sensitive species or habitats on site (including special-status raptors) as identified on local/regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). However, detailed in the Farm Biological Resources Assessment, Allen's hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin), which is included on the CDFW's Special Animals List (and, as such, is considered a special-status animal species),thrives in ornamental vegetation of Orange County. Construction. The proposed project would allow for the conversion of the project site from a vacant lot to a residential development consisting of up to 180 single-family residences. Construction of the proposed residential community may result in the removal of on-site non- native trees. Although the removal of on-site non-native trees is not considered a significant unavoidable impact, bird species, including the Allen's hummingbird could potentially use the non-native ornamental trees on the project site during the likely active breeding season (February 15—August 15) for this species. As such, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which requires preconstruction clearance surveys for active bird nesting and restrictions for tree removals in compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Therefore, compliance with Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce potential construction impacts to on-site nesting birds to a less than significant level. Operation. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the addition of on-site ornamental vegetation and shrubbery that could potentially support limited levels of wildlife, including Allen's hummingbird. Therefore, implementation and operation of the proposed project would potentially provide additional habitat for this species, and adverse impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special-status species would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. In summary, the proposed project would not result in impacts to or adversely affect natural habitats, natural plant communities, special-status plant or animal species, or drainages subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the CDFW, or the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). In addition, the proposed project would not significantly affect wildlife movement, nor would it eliminate or otherwise adversely impact any wildlife movement corridor. Therefore, the proposed project would not cumulatively contribute to the biological resource impacts, when considered with other projects in the project vicinity, and no mitigation would be required. Mitigation Measures: BI0-1 Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In the event that construction activities occur during the breeding season (February 15—August 15), the Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a nesting bird survey within 5 days prior to commencement of construction activities. The nesting bird survey shall identify and document active nesting within 100 feet of the construction limits. If nesting birds are discovered during preconstruction surveys, the biologists shall P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-25 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 identify an appropriate buffer (i.e., up to 500 feet depending on the circumstances and specific bird species) where no construction activities or other disturbances are allowed to occur until after the birds have fledged from the nest. Prior to commencement of grading activities and issuance of any building permits, the City of San Juan Capistrano Director of Development Services, or designee, shall verify that all project grading and construction plans include specific documentation regarding the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), that preconstruction surveys have been completed and the results reviewed by staff, and that the appropriate buffers (if needed) are noted on the plans and established in the field with orange snow fencing. (b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact.The majority of the project site is currently characterized by an undeveloped dirt lot, ruderal vegetation, and limited ornamental landscaping. The project site was previously used as a commercial nursery and agricultural distribution center, but it has been disturbed and barren since May 2014. The project site lacks any natural streams or riparian habitat. According to the Farm Biological Resources Assessment, the eastern portion of the project site contains several open, man-made drainage channels that were used to water plants during nursery operations prior to May 2014. The artificial channels do not support riparian habitat. No riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities, as identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS, occurs on the project site. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not impact any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. No mitigation would be required. (c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)through direct removal,filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. The project site is located within a highly urbanized area of the City and lacks any natural streams or riparian habitat. The project site does not contain any federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. As stated previously, the eastern portion of the project site contains several open, man-made drainage channels and two storage basins that were used to water plants during nursery operations prior to May 2014. Given the purpose of the drainage channel system and water storage basins, which would be considered an efficient wastewater treatment system designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA), these would not be considered jurisdictional waters of the United States per 22 California Code of Regulations (CFR) 328.3. Pursuant to the Preamble of the CWA, the Corps does not typically assert jurisdiction over drainage channels that have been excavated on dry land for the express purpose of controlling on-site flooding and conveying storm water runoff off site.Therefore,the Corps would not regulate these drainage channels and storage basins per Section 404 of the CWA. 4-26 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA Additionally, the artificial channels do not support fish or other aquatic-dependent animal species.Therefore, it is unlikely that the CDFW would consider the artificial drainage channels or water storage basins subject to CDFW jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. However, the CDFW reserves the right to make the final determination regarding their jurisdiction. Therefore, development of the project site would have no impact on federally protected wetlands, and no mitigation would be required. (d) Would the project 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? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located in an urbanized area of the City and is currently characterized by an undeveloped lot containing ruderal vegetation and limited ornamental landscaping. Within the vicinity of the project site, there are no large areas of natural habitat that would facilitate wildlife movement. According to the Farm Biological Resources Assessment, a few common animal species were present on the site during the biological site survey conducted on December 28, 2017. Animals present on the site are typical of those found in developed, suburban areas in Orange County, and include American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), California gull (Larus californicus), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), and western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis). While these animal species would be expected to move throughout the project site, the site does not function as a wildlife movement corridor or special linkage. Therefore, the project site does not contain any native resident or migratory fish, wildlife species, or wildlife corridors. In addition, no portion of the project site or portion of the immediately surrounding areas contains an open body of water that serves as natural habitat in which fish could exist. Construction. Construction of the proposed project would require site preparation, grading, and construction activities that would result in increased noise levels. According to the Farm Biological Resources Assessment, animals observed on the site adapt well to noise and other disturbances associated with temporary construction activities. Additionally,The Farm Biological Resources Assessment determined that increased noise associated with project construction activities would not significantly impact nesting behavior on the project site or on adjacent areas. Any noise increases as a result of construction activities would be short term in nature and would cease upon project completion. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires an appropriate buffer between construction activities and nesting birds, thereby ensuring that construction noise would not impact nesting birds. As previously described, there are no natural plant communities within the project's boundaries due to the disturbed nature of the site. However, the project site contains existing non-native Peruvian pepper trees along the southwestern perimeter of the property that may provide suitable habitat for nesting migratory birds. In addition, a variety of other ornamental landscaping tree species exists on adjacent developments within the vicinity of the project site. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-27 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to disturb active bird nests if construction activities occur in close proximity to the nests. Nesting birds are protected under the federal MBTA (Title 33, United States Code [USC], Section 703 et seq., see also Title 50, CFR, Part 10) and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code. Therefore, the proposed project would be subject to the provisions of the MBTA, which prohibits disturbing or destroying active nests. Project construction must be accomplished in a manner that avoids impacts to active nests during the breeding season. Therefore, if project construction occurs between February 15 and August 15, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey within 5 days prior to the commencement of construction activities. The nesting bird survey shall identify and document any evidence of active nesting within 100 feet of the construction limits. As documented in Mitigation Measure BIO-1, avoidance of impacts can be accomplished through a variety of means, including establishing suitable buffers around any active nests. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Operation. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the addition of on-site ornamental vegetation and shrubbery that could potentially support limited levels of wildlife, including nesting birds. Although the project site does not currently function as a wildlife movement corridor or special linkage, animal species observed on the site are anticipated to move throughout the project site following project implementation. Therefore, operational impacts to migratory species would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure BI0-1, above. (e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site contains existing non-native Peruvian pepper trees along the southwestern perimeter of the property. These trees may be removed during construction and project implementation. A variety of other ornamental landscaping trees exist on adjacent developments within the vicinity of the project site. The City has tree removal permit regulations that allow tree removals associated with a development project that is subject to other discretionary land use approvals. If any tree were proposed to be removed as part of future subdivision approvals occurring subsequent to project approval, the Applicant would be required to apply for a tree removal permit as part of the legislative and discretionary actions to be considered by the City. As part of this process,the City would specify conditions of approval for the replacement of trees and landscaping, as deemed appropriate. As such, development of the proposed project would not conflict with the City's tree preservation policy, as specified in the City's Municipal Code (Section 9-2.349(c)(1), Tree Removal Permit for new development projects). The proposed project would not result in adverse impacts related to local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources during construction, and no mitigation would be required. 4-28 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA (f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located the Central and Coastal Region of the Orange County Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP).13 One of the primary purposes of the NCCP/HCP is to serve as a conservation program that "shifts away from the focus on a project-by-project single species protection to conservation and management of many species and multiple habitats on a subregional level", thereby addressing long term biological protection and management. Therefore, the Orange County NCCP/HCP essentially serves as a cumulative approach to conserving species and addressing biological impacts. The project site is located in an area identified as "developed" and is outside of the designated habitat reserve as identified in the Orange County HCP/NCCP. As such, development of the proposed project would not result in the removal of any sensitive habitat species identified in the Orange County NCCP/HCP. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to potential conflicts with the goals and policies outlined in the Orange County HCP/NCCP, and no mitigation would be required. 13 County of Orange Environmental Management Agency. Natural Community Conservation Plan & Habitat Conservation Plan & EIR & EIS. County of Orange Central & Coastal Subregion. Map Section (Figures 1 through 76). May 1996. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-29 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑ historical resource as defined in§15064.5 of CEQA? (b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ® ❑ ❑ archaeological resource pursuant to§15064.5 of CEQA? (c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ site or unique geologic feature? (d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ❑ ® ❑ ❑ formal cemeteries? Discussion: The discussion and analysis provided in this section is based on the Results of the Cultural Resource Assessment Survey for the 35-acre Spieker Continuing Care Retirement Community in the City of San Juan Capistrano, Orange County, California (Cultural Resources Assessment) (LSA, February 2014) and the Paleontological Resources Assessment, Spieker Continuing Care Retirement Community, City of San Juan Capistrano, Orange County, California (Paleontological Resources Assessment) (LSA, February 2014). Although the above-referenced cultural and paleontological reports were prepared for the previously proposed Spieker CCRC project, the analysis and conclusions are tied to the conditions of the project site and surrounding area rather than the project characteristics. Further, there have been no significant changes in the site conditions since the prior studies were completed. Consequently,the analysis and conclusions remain applicable to the proposed project. The Cultural Resources Assessment and the Paleontological Resources Assessment are available at the City of San Juan Capistrano for review and reference. Impact Analysis: (a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of CEQA? No Impact. On January 6, 2015, a records search to identify previously recorded prehistoric and historic cultural resources and cultural resource surveys within 0.5 mile of the project area was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System at California State University, Fullerton. The SCCIC houses the pertinent archaeological and historic site and survey information necessary to determine whether cultural resources are known to exist within the project area. The records search included a review of all recorded historic and prehistoric archaeological sites within the 0.5-mile radius of the project site, as well as a review of known cultural resource survey and excavation reports. The National Register of Historic Places (National Register), the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the California Historic Resources Inventory (HRI)were also examined. 4-30 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA The records search showed that two studies have been conducted within the boundaries of the project site, six studies have been completed adjacent to the project area, and an additional 28 studies have been conducted within 0.5 mile of the project area. The records search revealed that two prehistoric resources (CA-0RA-23 and CA-ORA-1342) have been recorded within 0.50 mile of the project area. While no historic resources were identified on the project site, four properties were listed within 0.5 mile of the project area (P-30-17663, P-30-176664, P-30-160129, and P-30-176700). Although the records search did not provide a description of all of these resources, several resources were described. Site P-30-176663 is the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (formerly the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad), constructed from 1885-1889. Site P-30- 176664 is the Metrolink Railroad (formerly the California Southern Railroad, a segment of the Southern Pacific Railway Company), originally constructed from 1882-1883. Site P-30-160129 is the location of the several properties listed in the California Register along the west side of Alipaz Street, approximately 0.25 mile south of the project area. These resources include a residence, a barn, a water tower, a worker housing/equipment shed, and a fruit stand associated with the historic Joel R. Congdon House.14 The Joel R. Congdon House is now the site of the City's Ecology Center and is located south of the project site. The records search also provided online historic maps and aerial photographs of the area, which indicated that development on the project site occurred as early as 1980 when the project site became under use as a commercial nursery. Aerial photographs from 1938, 1946, 1952, 1977, and 1980 all depict the site planted in crops. No buildings or structures are depicted on the project site until the commercial nursery occupied the site. Furthermore, according to the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) map of historic buildings and structures,15 there are no historic resources on or within the vicinity of the project site.Therefore,the proposed project would not result in any impacts related to historical resources, and no mitigation would be required. (b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to§15064.5 of CEQA? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As described further in Section 4.5 (a), a records search to identify previously recorded prehistoric and historic cultural resources and cultural resource surveys within 0.5 mile of the project area were conducted at the SCCIC of the California Historical Resources Information System at California State University, Fullerton. The records search showed that two studies have been conducted within the boundaries of the project site, six studies have been completed adjacent to the project area, and an additional 28 studies have been conducted within 0.5 mile of the project area. The records search revealed that the project area contains no previously recorded prehistoric resources. Six cultural resources, two of which are prehistoric and four are historic, were previously recorded within 0.5 mile of the project area. 14 The Joel R. Congdon House is listed on the National Register of Historic Places because it was built by Joel Congdon, a Pony Express rider,and it is the oldest wooden frame home in the City. 15 City of San Juan Capistrano. General Plan Cultural Resources Element. December 14, 1999. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-31 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 On December 27, 2013, LSA archaeologists Deborah McLean and Ivan Strudwick conducted a pedestrian survey of the project site. The survey began in the northwest corner of the site near Del Obispo Street and continued east along the northern boundary of the property to the northeastern corner of the site near Alipaz Street. The eastern portion of the site was then surveyed along north-south transects. The central, western, and southern portions of the nursery were then surveyed in along east-west transects. No cultural resources were identified during the pedestrian survey. However, the survey did identify marine shell in the easternmost portion of the project area, along the approximately 410-feet length of the property just west of Alipaz Street. Venus clam (Chione spp.), bean clam (Donax gouldii), and bay mussel (Mytilus edilus) were found in large mixing pots and on the ground and in areas of this part of the property. The shell was only rarely found on the ground and appears to have fallen out of the mixing pots associated with the site's former use as commercial nursery. At the time the commercial nursery was operating on the site, the shell was being mixed with sediment in large mixing pots to create a soil for plants. Although no cultural resources were identified by the record search or pedestrian survey, the Cultural Resources Assessment concluded that due to the project site's location within the City (approximately 0.4 mile west of the San Juan Creek drainage, approximately 1 mile from Mission San Juan Capistrano, and 2 miles from the coast in an area near recorded prehistoric and historic resources) there is potential for subsurface archaeological deposits below the ground surface. Consequently, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 requires that an archaeological monitor be on site during ground-disturbing activities to monitor for buried prehistoric or historic material. Mitigation Measure CUL-2 includes procedures for recovering any significant or unique archaeological resources and for preparation of a report that documents the monitoring and any recovery at the project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would reduce any potential impacts to previously undiscovered archaeological resources to a less than significant level. At the completion of project construction, the proposed project would not result in further disturbance of native soils on the project site. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation Measures: CUL-1: Archaeological Monitor. Prior to issuance of grading permits, and in adherence to the recommendations of the cultural resources survey, the Applicant shall retain, with approval of the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) Development Services Director, or designee, a qualified archaeological monitor. The monitor shall be present on the project site during ground-disturbing activities to monitor rough and finish grading, excavation, and other ground-disturbing activities in the native soils. Because no cultural resources were identified on the project site, archaeological monitors are not required to be present on a full-time basis, but shall spot check ground-disturbing activities to ensure that no cultural resources are impacted 4-32 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA during construction activities. The exact timing of monitoring activities shall be consistent with the provisions established in the Monitoring Plan, which is required as part of Mitigation Measure CUL-2. CUL-2: Archaeological Monitoring Plan and Accidental Discovery. Prior to commencement of any grading activities on site, the Applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to prepare a Monitoring Plan. The Monitoring Plan shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and shall be reviewed by the City Development Services Director, or designee. The Monitoring Plan should include at a minimum: (1) a list of personnel involved in the monitoring activities; (2) a description of how the monitoring shall occur; (3) a description of the frequency of monitoring (e.g., full-time, part-time, spot checking); (4) a description of what resources may be encountered; (5) a description of circumstances that would result in the halting of work at the project site (e.g., what is considered a "significant" archaeological site); (6) a description of procedures for halting work on site and notification procedures; and (7) a description of monitoring reporting procedures. If any significant historical resources, archaeological resources, or human remains are found during monitoring, work shall be stopped within the immediate vicinity (precise area to be determined by the archaeologist in the field) of the resource until such time as the resource can be evaluated by an archaeologist and any other appropriate individuals. Project personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials or human remains and associated materials. To the extent feasible, project activities shall avoid these deposits. Where avoidance is not feasible, the archaeological deposits shall be evaluated for their eligibility for listing on the California Register of Historic Places. If the deposits are not eligible, avoidance is not necessary. If the deposits are eligible, adverse effects on the deposits must be avoided, or such effects must be mitigated. Mitigation can include, but is not necessarily limited to: leaving the deposits in place, excavation of the deposit in accordance with a data recovery plan (see California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 4(3) Section 5126.4(b)(3)(C)) and standard archaeological field methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials; production of a report detailing the methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials; curation of archaeological materials at an appropriate facility for future research and/or display; an interpretive display of recovered archaeological materials at a local school, museum, or library; and public lectures at local schools and/or historical societies on the findings and significance of the site and recovered archaeological materials. It shall be the responsibility of the City Building Official, or designee, to verify that the Monitoring Plan is implemented during project excavation and grading. Upon completion of all monitoring/mitigation activities, the consulting archaeologist shall submit a monitoring report to the City Development Services Director, or designee, and to the South Central Coastal Information Center summarizing all monitoring/mitigation activities and confirming that all recommended mitigation measures have been met. The monitoring report shall be prepared consistent with P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-33 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 the guidelines of the Office of Historic Preservation's Archaeological Resources Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format. The City Development Services Director, or designee, shall be responsible for reviewing any reports produced by the archaeologist to determine the appropriateness and adequacy of the findings and recommendations. (c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As part of the Paleontological Resources Assessment prepared for the previously proposed project, LSA examined geologic maps of the project site, conducted a pedestrian survey to confirm the results of geologic mapping, and reviewed relevant geological and paleontological literature to determine which geologic units are present within the project site and whether fossils have been recovered within the project site or from similar geologic units elsewhere in the region. A search for known fossil localities was also conducted through the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM) in order to determine the status and extent of previously recorded paleontological resources within and surrounding the project site. Geologic mapping of the project area indicates that the majority of the project site contains Holocene to late Pleistocene in age (less than 126,000 years ago) Young Alluvial Fan Deposits. However, Late to Middle Pleistocene (11,700-781,000 years ago) Old Alluvial Flood-plain Deposits were also mapped along Del Obispo Street on the western border of the project area and Early Pliocene to Late Miocene (3.6-11.62 million years ago) Capistrano Formation on the southwestern border of the project area. It is likely that one or both of these older geologic units are present below the surface on the site. In addition, according to the Geotechnical Due- Diligence Evaluation prepared for the project,16 portions of the site contain Artificial Fill. Young Alluvial Flood-plain Deposits are generally found adjacent to stream and river channels and represent deposition by streams and rivers during flood events. In the project area, these deposits represent flooding events of San Juan Creek. They consist of unconsolidated to poorly consolidated, poorly sorted, permeable deposits of sand, silt, and clay. Although Holocene (less than 11,700 years ago) deposits can contain remains of plants and animals, only those from the middle to early Holocene (4,200-11,700 years ago) are considered scientifically important. Moreover, scientifically important fossils from middle to early Holocene deposits are not very common. However, older Pleistocene deposits that may be reached below a depth of approximately 15 feet have produced scientifically important fossils elsewhere in the County and region. As such, there is a potential to encounter scientifically important resources in the older sediments of this geologic unit at a depth of approximately 15 feet. Therefore, these 16 Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation, Proposed Retirement Community, Armstrong Nursery/Del Obispo Property, City of San Juan Capistrano, California (GMU Geotechnical, Inc. [GMU], August 1, 2013) and the GMU Technical Inc., 2013, Geotechnical Due Diligence Evaluation, Proposed Retirement Community, Armstrong, Nursery/Del Obispo Property, City of San Juan Capistrano, California, dated August 1 (Ninyo & Moore, February 3, 2014). 4-34 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA deposits have a low paleontological sensitivity above 15 feet and a high sensitivity below that mark. Old Alluvial Flood-plain Deposits formed from sediments that were carried by the ancient San Juan Creek and deposited during flood events. Fossils found in these deposits include mammoths, mastodons, horses, bison, camels, saber-toothed cats, coyotes, deer, and sloths, as well as smaller animals like rodents, rabbits, birds, reptiles, and fish. Although not exposed at the surface within the project site, they are mapped along Del Obispo Street on the western edge of the project site. As such, these deposits likely exist below the Young Alluvial Flood-plain Deposits, possibly at depths as shallow as 15 feet. Therefore, these deposits have a high paleontological sensitivity below 15 feet. The marine Capistrano Formation consists of two facies:17 (1) turbidite facies, which formed in marine channel and subsea fan environments, and (2) siltstone facies, which accumulated in deep shelf and slope environments. The siltstone facies is mapped at the surface in a small area along Del Obispo Street on the southwestern and western boundaries of the site and may be encountered in the subsurface of the project site at depths as shallow as 15 feet. This formation has produced abundant and diverse scientifically significant fossils, including bony fish, sharks, whales, porpoises, sea lions, sea cows, and marine birds. Therefore, these deposits have a high paleontological sensitivity below 15 feet. Artificial Fill consists of sediments that have been removed from one location and transported to another location.Therefore,Artificial Fill sediments have no paleontological sensitivity. Results of the literature review indicate that the project site is located within the Coastal Plains Region of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province, a 900-mile-long northwest-southeast- trending structural block that extends from the Transverse Ranges in the north to the tip of Baja California in the south and includes the Los Angeles Basin. According to the locality search conducted by the LACM, there are no known fossil localities on the project site. The locality search also confirmed that the project site is underlain by Young Alluvial Flood-Plain Fan Deposits. However, the museum does have a general Doheny State Beach locality (LACM 2028) in Quaternary Alluvium that produced a Bison specimen. The LACM also has a locality (LACM 1115) that produced specimens of the imperial mammoth (Mammuthus imperator) from older Quaternary Alluvium north of the project site in Salt Creek. Based on the findings of the Fossil Locality Search, LACM believes the excavations in the younger Quaternary Alluvium exposed at the surface of the project site are unlikely to recover any scientifically significant paleontological resources. However, deeper excavations into older sedimentary units may uncover scientifically significant fossils. As such,the LACM recommended monitoring during excavation activities. 17 A"facies" is a body of rock with specified characteristics,which are discernable as attributes of rocks(e.g., overall appearance, composition, and condition of the formation). A facies represents the total characteristics of a rock that distinguish it from another adjacent rock. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-35 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Mitigation Measure CUL-3 requires a qualitied paleontologist to prepare a standard Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) prior to the beginning of ground- disturbing activities. This program would include excavation monitoring and specimen recovery, including screen washing, preparation, identification, and curation of collected specimens into a museum repository. A final report would provide the details of monitoring and curation methods, fossil identification and discussion, cataloging, and repository arrangements. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. At the completion of project construction, the proposed project would not result in further disturbance of native soils on the project site. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a paleontological resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation Measure: CUL-3: Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program. If excavation activities are anticipated to extend deeper than 15 feet below the surface, the Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist, subject to the review and approval of the City Development Services Director, or designee, to prepare a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the proposed project prior to the issuance of any grading permits. The PRIMP shall be consistent with the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology(SVP) and shall include, but not be limited to,the following: • The paleontologist, or his/her representative, shall attend the preconstruction meeting. • Excavation and grading activities in sediments with a High paleontological sensitivity rating (Young Alluvial Floodplain Deposits below a depth of 15 feet, Old Alluvial Floodplain Deposits, and the Capistrano Formation) shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor on a full-time basis. • In the event paleontological resources are encountered when a paleontological monitor is not present, work in the immediate area of the find shall be redirected and the paleontologist contacted to assess the find for scientific significance. If any fossil remains are discovered in sediments with a Low paleontological sensitivity rating (Young Alluvial Floodplain Deposits to a depth of 15 feet beneath the surface),the paleontologist shall make recommendations as to whether monitoring shall be required in these sediments on a full-time basis beginning at a shallower depth. • Collected resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation. This includes washing and picking of mass samples to recover small vertebrate and invertebrate fossils and removal of surplus 4-36 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA sediment around larger specimens to reduce the storage volume for the repository and the storage cost for the developer. • Any collected resources shall be cataloged and curated into the permanent collections of an accredited scientific institution. • At the conclusion of the monitoring program, a report of findings with an appended inventory of specimens shall be prepared. When submitted to the City, the report and inventory shall signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources. (d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Although no human remains are known to be present on the project site, Native American representatives have notified the City in the past that human remains were previously found on the Cook property, north of the project site. As such, buried and undiscovered archaeological remains, including human remains, may be present below ground surface in portions of the project site. Disturbing human remains could violate the State's Health and Safety Code, as well as destroy the resource. As such, precautionary mitigation is required to ensure that the proposed project does not impact or disturb any human remains. Mitigation Measure CUL-4 requires that the proper authorities would be notified and that standard procedures for the respectful handling of human remains during the earthmoving activities would be adhered to in the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during project excavation and/or grading. Construction contractors are required to adhere to California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15064.5(e), Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097, and Section 7050.5 of the State's Health and Safety Code. To ensure proper treatment of burials, in the event of an unanticipated discovery of a burial, human bone, or suspected human bone,the law requires that all excavation or grading in the vicinity of the find halt immediately, the area of the find be protected, and the contractor immediately notify the County Coroner of the find. The contractor, the Applicant, and the County Coroner are required to comply with the provisions of CCR Section 15064.5(e), PRC Section 5097.98, and Section 7050.5 of the State's Health and Safety Code. Compliance with Mitigation Measure CUL-4 would ensure that any potential impacts to unknown buried human remains would be less than significant by ensuring appropriate examination, treatment, and protection of human remains as required by State law. Mitigation Measure: CUL-4: Human Remains. Consistent with the requirements of CCR Section 15064.5(e), if human remains are encountered during site disturbance, grading, or other construction activities on the project site, the construction contractor shall halt work within 25 feet of the discovery; all work shall be redirected and the Orange County (County) Coroner notified immediately. No further disturbance shall P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-37 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD).The MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Consistent with CCR Section 15064.5(d), if the remains are determined to be Native American and an MLD is notified, the City shall consult with the MLD identified by the NAHC to develop an agreement for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Upon completion of the assessment, the consulting archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results and provide recommendations regarding the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate, and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report shall be submitted to the City Development Services Director, or designee, and the South Central Coastal Information Center. The City Development Services Director, or designee, shall be responsible for reviewing any reports produced by the archaeologist to determine the appropriateness and adequacy of the findings and recommendations. 4-38 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial evidence of a known fault (refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42). ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ (b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ (c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially ❑ ® ❑ ❑ result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined by the California Building ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Code(CBC),creating substantial risks to life or property? (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? Discussion: The following section is based on the Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation, Proposed Retirement Community, Armstrong Nursery/Del Obispo Property, City of San Juan Capistrano, California (Draft Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation) (GMU Geotechnical, Inc. [GMU]; August 1, 2013); the GMU Technical Inc., 2013, Geotechnical Due Diligence Evaluation, Proposed Retirement Community, Armstrong, Nursery/Del Obispo Property, City of San Juan Capistrano, California, dated August 1 (Required City Peer Review of Draft Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation) (Ninyo & Moore, February 3, 2014); and the Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations, Proposed Retirement Community-Armstrong Nursery/Del Obispo Property, San Juan Capistrano, California (Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations) (GMU; February 20, 2014). Although the above-referenced geotechnical reports were prepared for the previously proposed Spieker CCRC project, the analysis and conclusions are tied to the conditions of the project site and surrounding area rather than the project characteristics, which for geotechnical considerations are similar to the previously approved project. Consequently,the analysis and conclusions remain applicable to the proposed project. Impact Analysis: (a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-39 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 (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)? Less Than Significant Impact. As with all of Southern California, the project site is located in an area that is subject to strong ground motion resulting from earthquakes on nearby faults. However, according to the Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation prepared for the proposed project,the project site is not located within an established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault ruptures. In addition, there are no known active faults or fault traces with the potential for surface fault rupture crossing the project site. The closest mapped faults to the project site are the Newport-Inglewood and San Joaquin Hills Faults, which are approximately 4.7 miles south and 7.8 miles west of the project site, respectively.Therefore, impacts related to the rupture of a known earthquake fault as depicted on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map are less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As previously stated, the project site is located in an active seismic region and could be subject to strong ground motion resulting from earthquakes. There are several faults in the vicinity of the project site that are capable of producing strong ground motion, including the Newport-Inglewood Fault and the San Joaquin Hills Fault. Ground shaking resulting from earthquakes associated with both nearby and more distant faults may result in the generation of moderate-to-strong shaking at the project site.The severity of the shaking would be influenced by the distance between the site and the seismic source,the soil conditions, and the depth to groundwater. Damage to development and infrastructure associated with the surrounding areas could be expected as a result of significant ground shaking during a strong seismic event in the region. Because the site could be subjected to strong seismic ground shaking from nearby and more distant faults, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 is proposed and requires that the project Applicant prepare a final geotechnical report as each Tentative Tract Map is submitted for development in the Specific Plan area. In addition, Mitigation Measure GEO-2 requires that appropriate geotechnical evaluations are conducted prior to development of structures on the site and that geotechnical measures are incorporated into final design plans. Compliance with Mitigation Measure GEC-2 would also ensure that habitable structures are designed and built in accordance with seismic regulations as recommended by the California Building Code (CBC). With implementation of Mitigation Measures GEC-1 and GEO-2, potential project impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking would be reduced to a less than significant level. 4-40 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA Mitigation Measures: GEO-1: Compliance with Geotechnical Investigations. Prior to approval of any future Tentative Tract Maps (TTMs), a final geotechnical study for each TTM area shall be completed by the project Applicant. These studies shall be submitted for review and approval by the City of San Juan Capistrano City Engineer, or designee, to ensure that future development has been evaluated at an appropriate level of detail by a professional geologist.The location and scope of each final geotechnical report shall be tiered off of and include recommendations from the three geotechnical reports prepared for the overall site: (1) Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation, Proposed Retirement Community, Armstrong Nursery/Del Obispo Property, City of San Juan Capistrano, California (Draft Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation) (GMU Geotechnical, Inc. [GMU; August 1, 2013); (2) the GMU Technical Inc., 2013, Geotechnical Due Diligence Evaluation, Proposed Retirement Community, Armstrong, Nursery/Del Obispo Property, City of San Juan Capistrano, California, dated August 1 (Required City Peer Review of Draft Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation) (Ninyo & Moore; February 3, 2014); and (3) the Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations, Proposed Retirement Community-Armstrong Nursery/Del Obispo Property, San Juan Capistrano, California (Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations) (GMU; February 20, 2014). Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall confirm that all grading and construction plans incorporate and comply with the recommendations included in the Final Geotechnical Report. Design, grading, and construction shall adhere to all of the seismic requirements incorporated into the most current version of the California Building Code (CBC) and the requirements and standards contained in the applicable chapters of the City of San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code, as well as appropriate local grading regulations, and the specifications of the project geotechnical consultant. Specifications in the Draft Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation (GMU Geotechnical, Inc.,August 1, 2013) are summarized below. 1. Removal and recompaction of existing fill soils and upper alluvial soils to depths between 5 and 10 feet during site grading; 2. Specifications related to grading equipment to be used during grading excavating and fill placement; 3. Soil sampling to determine infiltration rates when infiltration rates are determined; 4. Seismic design considerations and requirements for foundations (i.e., ribbed slabs, post-tensioned slabs) and additional testing prior to final design; and 5. Requirements for concrete design, protection for buried metal utilities, and corrosion study. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-41 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Additional site testing and final design evaluation shall be conducted by the project geotechnical consultant to refine and enhance these requirements. If the project geotechnical consultant identifies modifications or refinements to the requirements, the project Applicant shall require appropriate changes to the final project design and specifications. GEO-2: California Building Code Compliance and Seismic Standards. Prior to issuance of building permits for planned structures, the Director of the City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Director, or designee, and the project soils engineer shall review the building plans to verify that the structural design conforms to the requirements of the Final Geotechnical Study and the City Municipal Code. Structures and retaining walls shall be designed in accordance with the seismic parameters presented in the Final Geotechnical Study, the Draft Geotechnical Due- Diligence Evaluation (GMU Geotechnical, Inc., August 1, 2013), and applicable sections of Section 1613 of the most current CBC. (a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction commonly occurs when three conditions are present simultaneously: (1) high groundwater; (2) relatively loose, cohesionless (sandy) soil; and (3) earthquake-generated seismic waves. Structures on or above potentially liquefiable soils may experience bearing capacity failures due to the temporary loss of foundation support, vertical settlements, and/or lateral spreading. Factors known to influence the potential for liquefaction include soil type, relative density, grain size, confining pressure, depth to groundwater, and the intensity and duration of the seismic ground shaking. According to the Required City Peer Review of Draft Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation (Ninyo & Moore; February 3, 2014) and Figure S-1 of the City's General Plan Safety Element, the project site is within a State of California Hazard Zone for Liquefaction and an area with a potentially high risk of impacts related to liquefaction. However, the liquefaction analysis performed for the project site indicated that only very discrete, thin layers of soils would be subject to liquefaction. Furthermore, dry soil settlements and liquefaction are anticipated to result in seismic settlements of less than 0.5 inch. Therefore, the Required City Peer Review of Draft Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation (Ninyo & Moore; February 3, 2014) concluded that liquefaction and liquefaction-related hazards are not of concern on the project site. Moreover, due to the lack of shallow groundwater on the project site (estimated at depths at approximately 30 to 40 feet below the ground surface), the project site is not anticipated to be at risk of lateral spreading. Therefore, soils on the project site would not experience significant impacts related to liquefaction or liquefaction-related hazards as a result of seismic shaking, and no mitigation would be required. 4-42 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA (a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (iv) Landslides? Less Than Significant Impact. Seismically induced landslides and other slope failures are common occurrences during or soon after earthquakes in areas with significant ground slopes. The topography at the existing project site and within the surrounding area is relatively flat. According to the Required City Peer Review of Draft Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation (Ninyo & Moore; February 3, 2014), the project is not within an earthquake-induced landslide zone and is not located within an area subject to potential seismic slope instability. Therefore, seismically induced landslides are unlikely to occur at the site, and no mitigation would be required. (b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. During construction of the proposed project, soil would be exposed and there would be increased potential for soil erosion and siltation compared to existing conditions. During storm events, erosion and siltation could occur at an accelerated rate. The increased erosion potential could result in short-term water quality impacts as discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. As discussed in Section 4.9, the proposed project would be required to comply with the Construction General Permit, which requires preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of construction best management practices (BMPs) to reduce impacts to water quality during construction, including impacts associated with soil erosion and siltation (refer to Mitigation Measure WQ-1). With incorporation of construction BMPs as required by Mitigation Measures WQ-1 and WQ-2 (provided in Section 4.9), impacts related to erosion during construction would be reduced to a less than significant level. As discussed in further detail in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would increase pervious surface area on the project site, which would increase stormwater runoff. The project would comply with the requirements of Title 8, Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code and the South Orange County MS4 Permit, which require preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as specified in Mitigation Measure WQ-2.The WQMP would specify the site design, source control, low impact development, and hydromodification BMPs that would be implemented to capture, treat, and reduce stormwater runoff. Incorporation of post- construction BMPs would reduce stormwater peak flows in compliance with the County hydromodification requirements. The project would also be required to comply with Mitigation Measure WQ-3, which requires preparation of a Hydrology Report. Preparation of a Hydrology Report would ensure that on-site storm drain facilities are appropriately sized to reduce stormwater runoff. Therefore, because the project would reduce stormwater runoff from the project site in compliance with hydromodification requirements, the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil during operation. Therefore, with incorporation of Mitigation Measures WQ-2 and WQ-3, impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-43 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures WQ-1 through WQ-3 in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. (c) Would the project 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? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Landslides. Refer to the impact discussion in Section 4.6 (a)(iv), above. Subsidence. Subsidence is the sinking of the land surface where deep soils are present. Subsidence of deep soil deposits typically occurs as a result of oil, gas, and water production, which causes loss of pore pressure as the weight compacts the underlying sediments. As previously stated, it is estimated that the groundwater level on the project site is between 30 and 40 feet below ground surface. In addition, according to the Required City Peer Review of Draft Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation (Ninyo & Moore; February 3, 2014), the project site is underlain by Capistrano or Niguel Formation bedrock at relatively low depths ranging from approximately 17 to 40 feet. No pumping of petroleum reserves or groundwater would occur as a result of the proposed project. As such, subsidence is not expected to occur on the project site or to affect development of the proposed project. Therefore, impacts related to subsidence would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Lateral Spreading and Liquefaction. Refer to the impact discussion in Section 4.6 (a)(iii), above. Compressible/Collapsible Soils. Compressible soils are soils that consolidate when exposed to new loading, such as fill or foundation loads. Collapsible soils are soils that significantly decrease in volume with increased moisture content, with or without an increase in external loads. As previously stated, the project site is underlain by young alluvial sediments and Artificial Fill. Although the soils on the site would not be subject to collapse as a result of subsidence, the alluvial deposits underlying the project site are unconsolidated, reflective of a depositional history without substantial loading, and therefore may be subject to collapse. Furthermore, porous alluvial soils, which are prone to collapse, were identified on the project site during the subsurface investigation. The project site may also contain unknown older soils that may be compressible and/or collapsible. Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which requires preparation of a final geotechnical report for each Tentative Tract Map (TTM) submitted for the Specific Plan area and compliance with the recommendations outlined in the Draft Geotechnical Due- Diligence Evaluation, would be required to reduce impacts related to compressible/collapsible soils. As described further in the Draft Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation, construction methods related to compressible/collapsible soils include the removal and compaction of existing fill soils and upper alluvial soils to depths between 5 and 10 feet during grading activities. The Draft Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation concluded that there would be no impacts related to the settlement of native alluvial soils on the project due to the loads of new fills and foundations associated with the previously approved project. This remains applicable to the proposed project as the single- family homes are similar to the homes previously proposed 4-44 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA and represent smaller loads than the two- and three-story apartments, one-story villa residences and recreation building, and the two-story club house and maintenance buildings previously proposed. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, impacts associated with compressible/collapsible soils would be less than significant. Corrosive Soils and Soluble Sulfate Content. Corrosive soils have constituents or physical characteristics that attack concrete (water-soluble sulfates) and/or ferrous metals (chlorides, ammonia, nitrates, low pH levels, and low electrical resistivity). Corrosive soils could potentially create a significant hazard to the project by weakening the structural integrity of the concrete and metal used to construct the buildings and could potentially lead to structural instability. Structural damage and foundation instability caused by corrosive soils is a potentially significant impact. Laboratory testing conducted as part of the Draft Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation indicated that on-site soils are moderately corrosive to concrete and highly corrosive to metals. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires preparation of final geotechnical reports and compliance with the recommendations in the Draft Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation related to corrosive soils, including requirements for concrete design, protection for buried metal utilities, and additional corrosion studies. Mitigation Measure GEO-3 requires protection of ferrous metals and copper against corrosion. Corrosion protection may include, but is not limited to, sacrificial metal, the use of protective coatings, and/or cathodic protection. With implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-3, potential impacts related to corrosive soils would be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure: Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-1, above. GEO-3: Corrosive Soils. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the City's Director of Public Works and Utilities, or designee, shall verify that structural design conforms to the requirements of the Final Geotechnical Study and the Draft Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation (GMU, August 1, 2013) with regard to the protection of ferrous metals and copper that will come into contact with on-site soils. In addition, on-site inspections shall be conducted during construction by the project geotechnical consultant and/or City Building Official to ensure compliance with geotechnical specifications as incorporated into project plans. (d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in the California Building Code (CBC), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Expansive soils contain types of clay minerals that occupy considerably more volume when they are wet or hydrated than when they are dry or dehydrated. Volume changes associated with changes in the moisture content of near-surface expansive soils can cause uplift or heave of the ground when they become wet or, less commonly, cause settlement when they dry out. Soils with an expansion index of greater than 20 are classified as expansive for building purposes and, therefore, have a potentially significant impact. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-4S THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Based on laboratory testing in the Required City Peer Review of Draft Geotechnical Due- Diligence Evaluation (Ninyo & Moore; February 3, 2014), the soils on the project site were classified to have low-to-medium expansion potential. Consequently, the project would be required to adhere to the recommendations outlined in the final geotechnical reports prepared for the project (Mitigation Measure GEO-1), which will outline specialized foundation design recommendations and will conduct additional soil testing on the site as TTMs are developed and submitted for approval. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure that impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-1, above. (e) Would the project 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? No Impact. The project would connect to the existing City sewer system and does not include construction of, or connections to, septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to the soils capability to adequately support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, and no mitigation would be required. 4-46 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact (a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ environment? (b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ greenhouse gases? Discussion: The following section is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum for the Farm Specific Plan Project in the City of San Juan Capistrano, California (Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum) (LSA; February 2018) (provided in Appendix A of this IS/MND). Technical Background: "Greenhouse gases" (GHGs) (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." The principal GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CHA nitrous oxide (N20), ozone (03), and water vapor. For the purposes of planning and regulation, Section 15364.5 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) defines GHGs to include, but are not limited to, CO2, CH4, N20, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). 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 one-third of State GHG emissions. Industrial and commercial sources are the second-largest contributors of GHG emissions in the State. California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding GHGs. California's major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the "Global Warming Solutions Act," passed by the California State legislature on August 31, 2006.The major components of AB 32 include the following: • Requiring the monitoring and reporting of GHG emissions beginning with sources or categories of sources that contribute the most to Statewide emissions. • Requiring immediate "early action" control programs on the most readily controlled GHG sources. • Mandating that by 2020, California's GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels. • Forcing an overall reduction of GHGs in California by 25 to 40 percent,from business as usual,to be achieved by 2020. • Stating that these actions must complement efforts to achieve and maintain federal and State ambient air quality standards and to reduce toxic air contaminants. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-47 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 To assist public agencies in the mitigation of GHG emissions or analysis of the effects of GHGs under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), including the effects associated with transportation and energy consumption, Senate Bill (SB) 97 (Chapter 185, 2007) required the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR)to develop State CEQA Guidelines on how to minimize and mitigate a project's GHG emissions. The new CEQA guidelines became State laws as part of Title 14 of the CCR in March 2010. The State CEQA Guidelines encourage Lead Agencies to consider many factors in conducting a CEQA analysis, but preserve the discretion granted by CEQA to Lead Agencies in making their determinations. Section 15064.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines specifies how thresholds of significance for GHG emissions are to be evaluated. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b) provides that, "the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data," and further states that an "ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting."The State CEQA Guidelines also clarify that the effects of GHG emissions are cumulative and should be analyzed in the context of the State CEQA Guidelines requirements for cumulative impact analysis. As such, currently the CEQA statutes, the OPR guidelines, and the State CEQA Guidelines do not prescribe specific quantitative thresholds of significance or a particular methodology for performing a GHG emissions impact analysis. As with most environmental topics, significance criteria are left to the judgment and discretion of the Lead Agency. In the absence of a climate action plan for the City, SCAQMD thresholds, when adopted, would apply to future development in the City. To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group (Working Group).18 Based on the last Working Group meeting (Meeting No. 15) held in September 2010, SCAQMD proposed an analysis methodology using a tiered approach for the evaluation of GHG emissions for development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency (SCAQMD 2010). The applicable tier for this residential development project is Tier 3 (if GHG emissions are less than 3,500 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e per year), project-level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant). This interim 3,500 MT per year recommendation has been used as the City's threshold for this analysis. In the absence of an adopted numerical threshold of significance, project-related GHG emissions in excess of the interim recommended guideline level (3,500 MT per year) are presumed to trigger a requirement for enhanced GHG reduction at the project level. For the purpose of this technical analysis, the concept of CO2e is used to describe how much global warming a given type and amount of GHG may cause, using the functionally equivalent amount or concentration of CO2 as the reference. Individual GHGs have varying global warming potentials and atmospheric lifetimes. CO2e is a consistent methodology for comparing GHG emissions because it 18 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Greenhouse Gases (GHG) CEQA Significance Thresholds. Website: http://www.agmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ghg-significance- thresholds/(accessed December 2017). 4-48 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA normalizes various GHGs to the same metric. The GHG emissions estimates were calculated using CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.2. CalEEMod is an air quality modeling program that estimates air pollution emissions in pounds per day or tons per year for various land uses, area sources, construction projects, and project operations. Mitigation measures can also be specified to analyze the effects of mitigation on project emissions. Impact Analysis: (a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions, with the majority of energy consumption (and associated generation of GHG emissions) occurring during the project's operation (as opposed to its construction). Typically, more than 80 percent of the total energy consumption takes place during building use, and less than 20 percent is consumed during construction. Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions. During construction of the proposed projects, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and vendor vehicles, each of which typically uses fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N20. Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The GHG emission estimates presented in Table 4.7.A show the emissions associated with construction of the proposed project. Table 4.7.A: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Total Regional Pollutant Emissions(MT/yr) Construction Phase COZ CH4 N20 COZe 2019 Site Preparation 50.0 0.0 0.0 51.0 Site Preparation 33.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 2020 Grading 211.0 0.1 0.0 213.0 Building Construction 548.0 0.1 0.0 549.0 2021 Building Construction 805.0 0.1 0.0 808.0 Architectural Coatings 7.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 Building Construction 347.0 0.0 0.0 348.0 2022 Paving 59.0 0.0 0.0 59.0 Architectural Coatings 36.0 0.0 0.0 36.0 Total Construction Emissions 2,096.0 0.3 0.0 2,104.0 Amortized over 30 years 70.0 0.0 0.0 70.0 Source:Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum(February 2018). Note:Column totals may not add due to rounding from the model results. CH4=methane MT/yr=metric tons per year CO2=carbon dioxide N20=nitrous oxide CO2e=carbon dioxide equivalent SCAQMD's GHG emissions policy for construction is to amortize emissions over a 30-year time period (an estimate of the life of the project) due to the long-term nature of the GHGs in the atmosphere. Construction GHGs are then added to the operational emissions and are compared P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» 4-49 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 to the applicable GHG significance threshold. Amortized construction GHG emissions from Table 4.7.6 have been added to the operational GHG emissions, discussed below. The estimated construction emissions (70.0 MT of CO2e per year) would be well below threshold criteria of 3,500 MT of CO2e per year. Therefore, project construction would be considered to have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions and would not, directly or indirectly, have a significant impact on the environment, and no mitigation is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the project would also be required to implement construction exhaust control measures consistent with SCAQMD Rule 403 for other air quality topics discussed above, including minimization of construction equipment idling and implementation of proper engine tuning and exhaust controls. Both of these measures would reduce GHG emissions during the construction period. Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Long-term operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions from area and mobile sources, and indirect emissions from stationary sources associated with energy consumption. Area-source emissions would be associated with activities that include landscaping and maintenance of proposed land uses, natural gas for heating, and other sources. Mobile-source emissions of GHGs would include project-generated vehicle trips associated with on-site residences. Increases in stationary-source emissions would also occur at off-site utility providers as a result of demand for electricity, natural gas, and water by the proposed project. The GHG emission estimates presented in Table 4.7.13 show the emissions associated with operation of the proposed project. As illustrated in Table 4.7.13, operation of the proposed project would result in average emissions of 3,204 MT of CO2e per year. The estimated operational emissions would be below SCAQMD's interim threshold criteria of 3,500 MT of CO2e per year for residential projects. Therefore, project operation would be considered to have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions and would not, directly or indirectly, have a significant impact on the environment. No mitigation is required. (b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant Impact.The City currently does not have an adopted climate action plan to reduce GHG emissions within its jurisdictional boundaries. Absent an adopted climate action plan, goals and policies related to climate change from the California Air Resources Board (ARB), Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), SCAQMD, and the City's General Plan were considered. The Conservation and Open Space Element (December 1999, revised May 2002) of the City's General Plan establishes goals and policies that are directed at improving air quality from projects in the City. A discussion of these policies is provided in Table 4.10.A in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this IS/MND. As shown in this table, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable policies in the City's General Plan, and no mitigation is required. 4-50 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA Table 4.7.6: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pollutant Emissions(MT/yr) Source Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 COZe Construction emissions 0 70 700 0 70 amortized over 30 years Operational Emissions Area Sources 0 46 46 0 0 47 Energy Sources 0 708 708 0 0 711 Mobile Sources 0 2,177 2,178 0 0 2,180 Waste Sources 43 0 43 3 0 106 Water Usage 4 75 79 0 0 91 Total Project Emissions 47 3,006 3,053 3 0 3,204 SCAQMD Threshold 3,500 Level of Significance Exceeded No Source:Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum(February 2018). Note:Column totals may not add due to rounding from the model results. Bio-CO2=biologically generated CO2 MT/yr=metric tons per year CH4=methane N20=nitrous oxide CO2=carbon dioxide NBio-CO2=Non-biologically generated CO2 CO2e=carbon dioxide equivalent SCAQMD=South Coast Air Quality Management District In addition to maintaining consistency with the City's General Plan, the proposed project would comply with the Green Building Code and would include the following sustainable features that would reduce GHG emissions by reducing energy consumption directly or indirectly through reduced water consumption: • Installation of"purple pipes"to maximize the use of reclaimed water, once it becomes available, and incorporated as part of subsequent subdivision approvals.19 • Installation of energy-efficient lighting technologies. • Installation of"smart"weather-based irrigation controllers. • Inclusion of California or Mediterranean Species requiring minimal watering. • Utilization of bubblers or low-flow sprinklers for all non-turf areas. In 2008, the ARB approved a Climate Change Scoping Plan as required by AB 32. The Climate Change Scoping Plan proposed a "comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall carbon GHG emissions in California, improve our environment, reduce our dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health." The Climate Change Scoping Plan has a range of GHG reduction actions, which include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and nonmonetary incentives, voluntary actions, market-based mechanisms (e.g., a cap-and-trade system), and an AB 32 implementation fee to fund the program. In November 2017, the ARB released the Final Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan (2017 Update). The 2017 Update establishes a proposed framework of action for the State to meet the target of 40 percent reduction in GHGs by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. The 2017 Update builds on key programs such as the Cap-and Trade 19 The use of reclaimed water would reduce energy associated with importing water to the site. P:AJCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-51 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Regulation; the Low Carbon Fuel Standard; and much cleaner cars, trucks, and freight movement, powering the State with cleaner renewable energy, and strategies to reduce methane emissions from agricultural and other wastes by using methane to meet energy needs. As recommended in the 2017 Update, the proposed project would use green building features and would be compliant with Title 24 energy requirements. The project's use of green building features and compliance with Title 24 to conserve energy would make the project consistent with AB 32 and the Final Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan (2017 Update).. On April 7, 2016, the Regional Council of SCAG adopted the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. The proposed project would support and be consistent with relevant and applicable GHG emission reduction strategies in SCAG's Sustainable Communities Strategy. These strategies include providing residences near existing transit, minimizing congestion, and promoting walkability. As discussed in Section 4.7 (a), the proposed project would result in operational and amortized construction GHG emissions that are below the 3,500 MT of CO2e per year threshold. As a result, the proposed project would be consistent with SCAQMD's adopted plans and policies, which were determined by SCAQMD to be consistent with California's State-level plans, policies, and regulations related to GHG. Therefore, the proposed project is also consistent with State-level plans based on its consistency with the threshold of 3,500 MT of CO2e per year, and no mitigation is required. 4-52 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous ❑ ❑ ® ❑ materials? (b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions ❑ ® ❑ ❑ involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter ❑ ❑ ® ❑ mile of an existing or proposed school? (d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section ❑ ❑ ❑ 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public ❑ ❑ ❑ airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in ❑ ❑ ❑ the project area? (g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation ❑ ® ❑ ❑ plan? (h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are ❑ ❑ ❑ adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion: The discussion and analysis provided in this section are based on the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment(Phase 1 ESA) Report, Vermeulen Ranch Center, 32382 Del Obispo Street, City of San Juan Capistrano, California (Phase I ESA; GeoTek, Inc., April 11, 2013) and the Environmental Document Review of the Phase 1 ESA, Spieker Continuing Care Retirement Community, 32382 Del Obispo Street, City of San Juan Capistrano, California (EDR); (Ninyo & Moore; February 4, 2014). Although the above-referenced Phase I reports were prepared for the previously proposed Spieker CCRC project, the analysis and conclusions are tied to the conditions of the project site and surrounding area rather than the project characteristics. Consequently, the analysis and conclusions remain applicable to the proposed project. The Phase I ESA and EDR Search are available at the City of San Juan Capistrano for review and reference. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-53 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Impact Analysis: (a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. Hazardous materials are chemicals that could potentially cause harm during an accidental release or mishap, and are defined as being toxic, corrosive, flammable, reactive, and an irritant or strong sensitizer.20 Hazardous substances include all chemicals regulated under the United States Department of Transportation "hazardous materials" regulations and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) "hazardous waste" regulations. Hazardous wastes require special handling and disposal because of their potential to damage public health and the environment. The probable frequency and severity of consequences from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is affected by the type of substance, the quantity used or managed, and the nature of the activities and operations. Construction. Potentially hazardous materials that could be used during construction activities would include a limited amount of hazardous and flammable substances/oils (e.g., fuels, lubricants, and solvents) typical during heavy equipment operation for site grading and construction. The amount of hazardous chemicals present during construction is limited and would be in compliance with existing government regulations, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the California Code of Regulations (Title 22). The potential for the release of hazardous materials during project construction is low and, even if a release would occur, it would not result in a significant hazard to the public, surrounding land uses, or environment due to the small quantities of these materials associated with construction vehicles. Furthermore, the results of the Phase I ESA and the EDR indicate that it is unlikely that hazardous materials would be encountered during construction. Therefore, impacts with respect to hazardous materials use and storage during construction would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Operation. Project operation associated with residential uses would involve the use and storage of small quantities of potentially hazardous materials (e.g., cleaning solvents, fertilizers, and pesticides) typical of residential uses. For example, landscaping and maintenance activities could include the use of fertilizers and light equipment (e.g., edgers) that may require fuel. These types of activities do not involve the use of a large or substantial amount of hazardous materials. In addition, such materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers' instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. Any associated risk would be adequately reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with these standards and regulations. Further, operation of the proposed project as a residential development would not require the storage, transportation, generation, or disposal of large quantities of hazardous substances. As such, when utilized properly, hazardous materials used and stored on the project site would not result in a significant hazard 20 A "sensitizer" is a chemical that can cause a substantial proportion of people or animals to develop an allergic reaction in normal tissue after repeated exposure to a chemical (U.S. Department of Labor,2017). 4-54 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA to the residents or visitors. Furthermore, the City has adopted a Household Hazardous Waste Program, which helps residents identify potentially hazardous materials in a home, and also includes information on Household Hazardous Waste Collection Centers.2' Therefore, the proposed residential uses would result in a less than significant hazard to the public or the environment associated with the routine transport, use, disposal, or reasonably foreseeable accident conditions related to hazards waste during operation. The Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) is the administering agency for the chemical inventory and business emergency plan regulations for the City. OCFA's disclosure activities are coordinated with the Orange County Health Care Agency. The Health Care Agency is a Certified Unified Program Agency for local implementation of the disclosure program and several other hazardous materials and hazardous waste programs. OCFA's Hazardous Materials Services Section is staffed with technical and administrative personnel who are assigned implementation and management of the disclosure program. All facilities are encouraged to work closely with OCFA in order to eliminate any unnecessary efforts or costs in complying with the disclosure program. The Orange County Waste and Recycling Department manages four hazardous material and hazardous waste collection centers designed to prevent damage to the environment and reduce risk of accidental poisoning by removing household hazardous materials and medicines from the home.22 The closest collection center to the project site is located 3.6 miles east of the site, at 32250 La Pata Avenue (Prima Deshecha Landfill). Because these resources are available to anyone in Orange County, it is reasonable to conclude that the residences would use such programs to properly dispose of household hazardous waste. Therefore, impacts associated with the disposal of hazardous materials and/or the potential release of hazardous materials that could occur with the implementation of the proposed project are considered less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The purpose of the Phase I analysis was to evaluate the project site for potential Recognized Environmental Concerns (RECs) that may be present and/or off-site conditions that may impact the project site. The Phase I analysis prepared included (1) site reconnaissance of the project site and the surrounding area; (2) a review of regulatory agency reports, aerial photographs, and other historic record sources, as well as preparation of an environmental database report; (3) and preparation of a limited soil sampling analysis. An REC can be defined as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, or at a property: due to a release to the environment; under conditions 21 City of San Juan Capistrano. Household Hazardous Waste.Website: http://38.106.4.59/index.aspx?page =121(accessed December 13, 2017). 22 OC Landfills. Household Hazardous Waste.Website: http://www.oclandfills.com/hazardous/(accessed December 26, 2017). P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-5555 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 indicative of a release to the environment; or under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. According to the Phase I ESA, motor oils, gasoline, diesel fuel, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, fertilizers, paints, solvents, and waste motor fluids were observed on the site at the time the nursery was in operation. In addition, the Phase I ESA identified the presence of numerous ASTs located throughout the former nursery operation on the site. The majority of these ASTs contained plant fertilizers and nutrient mixes; however, one AST contained diesel fuel. There were no indications of spills or leaks from any of the ASTs on the site, and all materialS23 observed on the site appeared to be properly contained and secured. The ASTs were removed during the relocation of the commercial nursery from the project site to Ventura County.24 As such, there are currently no ASTs present on the project site. Although no RECs were identified on the site during the site visit, a review of the applicable agency reports, photographs, and historic records conducted as part of the Phase I evaluation identified evidence of RECs and several Historical RECs (HRECs) adjacent to the site. Based on the database (EDR search) conducted for the site, the Phase I ESA determined that the dry cleaning business at the adjacent retail site is listed on the RCRA Generators list due to the presence of a small quantity generator of liquids with halogenated organic compounds. This business has not had any violations and utilizes environmentally friendly chemicals. In addition, a Vapor Encroachment Screen (VES) was conducted at the dry cleaning property in 2009. No hazardous chemical compounds were identified as part of the VES analysis. As such, the Phase I ESA determined that the dry cleaning business does not represent a REC condition to the site. In addition, while the site is not listed on the Historic Underground Storage Tank (UST) database, the adjacent Capistrano Ranch is listed as having five USTs containing gasoline and diesel fuel. These USTs were removed from the property in 2004, and no environmental impacts were documented. As such, the Phase I ESA determined that Capistrano Ranch does not represent an REC condition to the site. Due to the site's historical operation as a commercial nursery, the Phase I ESA conducted a soil sampling analysis to determine if on-site soils had been impacted by use of agricultural chemicals. In February 13, 2013, six samples were obtained from the site at a depth ranging from 1- to 6-inches below the surface. Results of the soil sampling analysis found that measurable amounts of dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE) and dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDT), and nitrate were all below the maximum allowable concentration for the constituent for residential soil in California. 23 Materials observed on the site included motor oils,gasoline, diesel fuel, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, fertilizers, paints,solvents, and waste motor fluids. 24 Per written correspondence between the Applicant and representatives from Armstrong Nursery on January 5, 2017, no permits were required for removal. 4-56 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA Based on the findings of the site reconnaissance survey, a review of applicable regulatory databases, and the soil sampling analysis, the Phase I ESA did not recommend further environmental investigation. Construction. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would include site preparation activities, building construction, paving, and the implementation of ornamental landscaping. In the event that unknown hazardous materials are discovered on site during project construction, the project contractor would be required to comply with a Contingency Plan developed and approved prior to the commencement of grading activities. As stated in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, in the event that construction workers encounter underground tanks, gases, odors, uncontained spills, or other unidentified substances, the Contingency Plan would require the contractor to stop work, cordon off the affected area, and notify the OCFA. The OCFA responder shall determine the next steps regarding possible site evacuation, sampling, and disposal of the substance consistent with local, State, and federal regulations. In addition, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the California Highway Patrol, and local police and fire departments are trained in emergency response procedures for safely responding to accidental spills of hazardous substances on public roads, further reducing potential impacts to a less than significant level. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, potential risks associated with hazards to the public or to the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions regarding the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant. Operation. As stated previously, hazardous substances associated with the proposed residential uses would be limited in both amount and use such that they can be contained (stored or confined within a specific area) without impacting the environment. Project operation would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials (e.g., solvents, cleaning agents, paints, fertilizers, and pesticides)typical of residential uses that, when used correctly and in compliance with existing laws and regulations, would not result in a significant hazard to visitors, residents, or workers in the vicinity of the proposed project. Operation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. No mitigation would be required. Mitigation Measure: HAZ-1: Contingency Plan. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the Director of the County Environmental Health Division, or designee, shall review and approve a contingency plan that addresses the procedures to be followed should on-site unknown hazards or hazardous substances be encountered during demolition and construction activities. The plan shall indicate that if construction workers encounter underground tanks, gases, odors, uncontained spills, or other unidentified substances, the contractor shall stop work, cordon off the affected area, and notify the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). The OCFA responder shall determine the next steps regarding possible site evacuation, sampling, and disposal of the substance consistent with local, State, P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-57 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 and federal regulations. Following approval of the Contingency Plan by the County Environmental Health Division, the Applicant shall submit written notification of the approval to the Director of the City of San Juan Capistrano's Development Service Department, or designee. (c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact. Five schools are located within 0.25 mile of the project limits. These schools are identified below: • Community Presbyterian Preschool (located approximately 575 feet north of the project site) • Heart Christian Academy(located approximately 230 feet northeast of the project site) • Kinoshita Elementary School (located approximately 370 feet south of the project site) • Del Obispo Elementary School (located approximately 1,230 feet southwest of the project site) • Marco Forster Middle School (located approximately 1,150 feet southwest of the project site) Construction. As stated previously, construction activities would involve the routine use of hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, paints, curing compounds, solvents, and sanitizers. Compliance with various federal, State, and local regulations related to hazardous materials use, storage, transportation, and disposal is expected to reduce the risk of a spill or accidental release of hazardous materials to a less than significant level. Construction of the proposed project would also include the use of construction equipment that would generate dust and particulate matter during site preparation activities within 0.25 mile of existing schools. These fugitive dust emissions would occur during construction of the proposed project as a result of demolition, grading, and the exposure of soils to air and wind. However, in order to reduce fugitive dust emissions, the project would be required to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) standard conditions and Rule 403. These required dust suppression techniques would reduce fugitive dust generation and would reduce construction impacts resulting from hazardous emissions within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school to a less than significant level during construction activities. Operation. Although the project site is located within 0.25 mile of several existing schools, operation of the proposed residential uses would not result in the production of hazardous emissions or handling of significant amounts of hazardous materials.Therefore, operation of the proposed residential uses would not emit hazardous emissions or involve handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school during operation and impacts are considered less than significant. No mitigation would be required. 4-58 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA (d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The project site is not included on any hazardous materials site list pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No mitigation would be required. (e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The closest airport to the project site is John Wayne Airport, located approximately 16.52 miles northwest of the project site. Additionally, the Helicopter Outlying Landing Field associated with the United States Marine Corps at Camp Pendleton is located approximately 9 miles southeast of the project site. Therefore, due to the distance of airports from the project site, the proposed project would not cause a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No mitigation would be required. (f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The closest private airport and emergency heliports to the project site are located at and nearby John Wayne Airport, which itself is located 16.52 miles northwest of the project site. Therefore, because there is no private airstrip within the vicinity of the project site, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No mitigation would be required. (g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The City's General Plan Safety Element (2002) identifies and evaluates natural hazards associated with seismic activity, landslides, flooding and fire within the City. The General Plan Safety Element establishes goals for each of the City departments to provide responsible planning aimed at reducing impacts with respect to loss of life, injuries, damage to property and other losses associated with disasters, such as those resulting from seismic activity, flooding, and fires. According to the City's map of evacuation routes, Del Obispo Street as a potential evacuation route in the event of an emergency. Construction. The proposed project does not include any characteristics (e.g., permanent road closure or long-term blocking of road access) that would physically impair or otherwise conflict with the City's Emergency Preparedness Plan; however, the project may require temporary lane closures on Del Obispo Street and Alipaz Street to accommodate utility connections. Temporary lane closures would be implemented consistent with the recommendations of the California Joint Utility Traffic Control Manual. In addition, to ensure adequate emergency access, the P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-59 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 project Applicant would be required to prepare and implement a Traffic Management Plan (TMP), as outlined in Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, which would be subject to the approval of the Director of the City of San Juan Capistrano Public Works and Utilities, or designee. The TMP would require provision of devices to alert traffic (i.e., providing warning signs and lights) and would require that the Orange County Sheriff's Department be notified a minimum of 24 hours in advance of any lane closures or roadway work. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, impacts related to emergency response and evacuation plans associated with construction of the proposed project would be less than significant. Operation. The emergency management plans for the City, in conjunction with the emergency plan for the County, may be activated and directed by a number of individuals within the City or County, including, but not limited to, the City Manager, the Fire Chief, and the Police Chief. Roads that are used as response corridors/evacuation routes usually follow the most direct path to or from various parts of a community, although emergency response vehicles may choose to use a variety of routes to access surrounding areas. Del Obispo Street is identified as a primary evacuation route in the City. Therefore, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable codes and ordinances for emergency vehicle access, which would ensure adequate access to, from, and on site for emergency vehicles. Adherence to these codes and ordinances would ensure that operation of the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. As discussed in Section 4.16, Transportation/Traffic, the proposed project would not result in a significant unavoidable traffic impact to any study area intersections or roadway segments. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in long-term traffic impacts that could physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. In addition, during the operational phase of the proposed project, on-site access would be required to comply with standards established by the City and the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). The size and location of fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants) and fire access routes would be required to conform to City and OCFA standards. The proposed project would provide adequate emergency access to the site via driveways off of Del Obispo Street and Via Positiva. These two driveways would connect to an internal access way that would ensure access for emergency vehicles within the interior of the site. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Operational project impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Mitigation Measure: HAZ-2: Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or construction permits, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan for approval by City of San Juan Capistrano City Engineer, or designee. The Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan shall be implemented during all phases of project construction and shall identify all construction staging areas. The Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan shall also include the name and phone number of a contact person who can be reached 24 hours a day regarding construction traffic 4-60 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA complaints or emergency situations. In addition, the Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan shall take into account and coordinate with other similar plans that are in effect or have been proposed for other projects in the City. The Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan shall include, but not be limited to,the following: • Temporary lane closures shall be implemented consistent with the recommendations of the California Joint Utility Traffic Control Manual (February 2014). • Flag persons in adequate numbers shall be provided to minimize impacts to traffic flow and to ensure safe access into and out of the site. • Flag persons shall be trained to assist in emergency response by restricting or controlling the movement of traffic that could interfere with emergency vehicle access. • All emergency access to the project site and adjacent areas shall be kept clear and unobstructed during all phases of construction. • Safety precautions shall be provided for pedestrians and bicyclists through such measures as alternate routing and protection barriers. • Construction-related deliveries, other than concrete and earthwork-related deliveries, shall be scheduled so as to reduce travel during peak travel periods (i.e., 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday). • If necessary, a California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) transportation permit for use of oversized transport vehicles on Caltrans facilities shall be obtained. • Construction vehicles, including construction personnel vehicles, shall park on the project site and shall not park on public streets. • Construction vehicles shall not stage or queue where they interfere with pedestrian and vehicular traffic or block access to nearby businesses. • If feasible, any traffic lane closures shall be limited to off-peak traffic periods, as approved by the City of San Juan Capistrano Department of Public Works and Utilities. • The Orange County Sheriff's Department (OCSD) shall be notified a minimum of 24 hours in advance of any lane closures or other roadway work. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-61 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 • The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) shall be notified a minimum of 24 hours in advance of any lane closures or other roadway work. (h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area. The project site is bound by educational, public facility, and agri-business uses to the south; multifamily residential uses to the east; single-family residential uses to the west and a retail center to the southwest; and a mobile home park, religious uses, and an age-restricted residential use to the north. The project site is not adjacent to any wildland areas.According to the City's General Plan Safety Element, the project site is not located in an area identified as a Wildland Fire Area that may contain substantial fire risk or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire), the project site is not located in a fire hazard area.25 As a result, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated, and no mitigation would be required. 25 CalFire. Orange County Fire Hazard Severity Zones. October 2011.Website: http://www.fire.ca.gov/ fire_prevention/fhsz_maps/FHSZ/orange/c30_SanJuanCapistrano_vhfhsz.pdf(accessed December 13, 2017). 4-62 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge El ® El E] requirements? 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 (b) 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)? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or (c) area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream El ® El El or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or (d) 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? Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the (e) capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on (g) a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or ❑ ❑ ❑ other flood hazard delineation map? (h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard structures which would ❑ ❑ ❑ impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or (i) death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the ❑ ❑ ❑ failure of a levee or dam? (j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters considering water quality parameters such as temperature, (k) dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical stormwater ❑ ® ❑ ❑ pollutants(e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances,and trash)? (I) Result in significant alternation of receiving water quality during ❑ ® ❑ ❑ or following construction? (m) Could the proposed project result in increased erosion El E] 1:1 downstream? Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased (n) runoff? El ® E] El (0) Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage El ® El E] patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes? Tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the (p) Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? If so, can it result in an ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ increase in any pollutant for which the water body is already impaired? P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-63 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? If so, can it (q) 11 exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions? E] E] E] (r) Have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface ❑ ® E] E]water quality to either marine,fresh,or wetland waters? (s) Have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater 1:1 El El quality? Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or (t) groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of ❑ ® ❑ ❑ beneficial uses? (u) Impact aquatic,wetland,or riparian habitat? ❑ ❑ ❑ ( ) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction or post 1:1 ® El Elv construction? Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle (w) or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, ❑ ❑ ❑ hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? ( ) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the El ® El E]x beneficial uses of the receiving waters? Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or (y) volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? El ® El E] (z) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or El ® El El surrounding areas? Impact Analysis: (a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.The proposed project involves construction of a residential community on the project site. Pollutants of concern during construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Each of these pollutants on its own or in combination with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and sedimentation compared to existing conditions. In addition, chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (e.g., paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete-related waste may be spilled or leaked and have the potential to be transported via stormwater runoff into receiving waters (San Juan Creek and the Pacific Ocean). During construction, the total disturbed soil area would be approximately 35 ac. Because construction of the proposed project would disturb greater than 1 acre of soil, the project is subject to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002, as amended by Orders No. 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ) (Construction General Permit). As specified in Mitigation Measure WQ-1, coverage under the Construction General Permit would be obtained for the proposed project. The Construction General Permit requires preparation of an SWPPP and implementation of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) detailed in the SWPPP during construction activities. 4-64 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA Construction BMPs would include, but not be limited to, Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site; and Good Housekeeping BMPs to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construction debris and waste into receiving waters. Mitigation Measure WQ-1 and incorporation construction BMPs to target pollutants of concern would reduce construction impacts related to Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), water quality standards, and degradation of water quality to less than significant. Potential pollutants of concern from long term operations of residential developments include suspended solids/sediments, nutrients, pathogens (bacteria/virus), pesticides, oil and grease, and trash and debris. The project would comply with the requirements of Title 8, Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) Draining the Watersheds Within the San Diego Region (Order No. 119-2013-0001, NPDES No. CAS010266, as amended by Order No, R9-2015-0001) (South Orange County MS4 Permit). The City Municipal Code and the South Orange County MS4 Permits require preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as specified in Mitigation Measure WQ-2. The WQMP would specify the site design, source control, low impact development, and hydromodification BMPs that would be implemented to capture, treat, and reduce stormwater runoff. Mitigation Measure WQ-2 and incorporation of post-construction BMPs to target pollutants of concern would reduce operation impacts related to WDRs, water quality standards, degradation of water quality, and beneficial uses to less than significant. Mitigation Measures: WQ-1: Construction General Permit. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project Applicant shall obtain coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System No. CAS000002, as amended by Orders No. 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006- DWQ) (Construction General Permit). This shall include submission of Permit Registration Documents (PRDs), including a Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage under the permit to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The project Applicant shall provide the Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) to the City of San Juan Capistrano City Engineer, or designee, to demonstrate proof of coverage under the Construction General Permit. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared and implemented for the proposed project in compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit. The SWPPP shall identify construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented to ensure that the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation is minimized and to control the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff as a result of construction activities. WQ-2: Water Quality Management Plan. In compliance with Title 8, Chapter 14 of the City of San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code and the San Diego Regional Water P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-65 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Quality Control Board National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) Draining the Watersheds Within the San Diego Region (Order No. R9-2013-0001, NPDES No. CAS010266, as amended by Order No, R9-2015-0001) (South Orange County MS4 Permit), the project Applicant shall submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)to the City of Engineer, or designee, for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. Design of the BMPs specified in the WQMP Report shall be based on final design plans and shall be consistent with the requirements of the Model Water Quality Management Plan (Model WQMP) for South Orange County, the Technical Guidance Document for the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Plans, and the South Orange County Hydromodification Plan (HMP). (b) Would the project 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)? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Required City Peer Review of Draft Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation (Ninyo & Moore; February 3, 2014), depth to groundwater is approximately 30 to 40 feet below the ground surface (bgs) on the project site. Because excavation activities would not reach this depth, groundwater dewatering would not be required during construction. Additionally, water would be provided to the project by the City's Utilities Department, and groundwater extraction is not proposed as part of the project. Therefore, no impacts related to depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge during construction would occur and no mitigation would be required. Currently, the project site is undeveloped and consists of pervious surfaces. Development of the project would increase impervious surface area by approximately 15.3 acres, which would decrease on-site infiltration. However, any decrease in infiltration would be minimal in comparison to the size of the San Juan Groundwater Basin, which has a capacity of 41,375 acre feet of water per year.Zb In addition, the project would include BMPs to increase infiltration of stormwater runoff on the project site to reduce impacts related to depletion or interference with groundwater recharge. Furthermore, groundwater extraction would not occur during operation. For these reasons, operational impacts related to depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. 26 Wildermuth Environmental Inc.2015.Analysis of Storage in the San Juan Groundwater Basin (November 18, 2015).Website: http://www.sjbauthority.com/assets/downloads/Fa11%202015%20Storage %20Analysis%20of%20the%2OSan%2OJuan%2OGroundwater%2OBasin.pdf). (accessed February 15, 2017). 4-66 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/05/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA (c) Would the project 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 a substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. During construction activities, soil would be exposed and disturbed, drainage patterns would be temporarily altered during grading and other construction activities, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and siltation compared to existing conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion and siltation could occur at an accelerated rate.As discussed above in Section 4.9 (a) and specified in Mitigation Measure WQ-1, the Construction General Permit requires preparation of a SWPPP to identify construction BMPs to be implemented as part of the proposed project to reduce impacts to water quality during construction, including those impacts associated with soil erosion and siltation. With implementation of the construction BMPs as specified in Mitigation Measure WQ-1, construction impacts related to on- or off-site erosion or siltation would be reduced to less than significant. Currently, the project site is undeveloped and consists of pervious surfaces. Development of the project would increase impervious surface area by approximately 15.3 acres, which would increase stormwater runoff. However, development of the project site would result in either impervious surface areas, which are not prone to erosion or siltation, or landscaping, where erosion and siltation are minimal. The project would comply with the requirements of Title 8, Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code and the South Orange County MS4 Permit, both of which require preparation of a WQMP, as specified in Mitigation Measure WQ-2. The WQMP would specify the site design, source control, low impact development, and hydromodification BMPs that would be implemented to capture, treat, and reduce stormwater runoff. Incorporation of post-construction BMPs would reduce stormwater peak flows in compliance with the County hydromodification requirements. Therefore„ the proposed project would not contribute to downstream erosion or siltation. Finally, the proposed project would not alter the course of a stream or river. As such, operational impacts related to on-site or off-site erosion or siltation would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure WQ-2. (d) Would the project 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? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Currently, the project site is undeveloped and consists of pervious surfaces. Development of the project would increase impervious surface area by approximately 15.3 acres, which would increase stormwater runoff and could potentially result in flooding. As specified in Mitigation Measure WQ-2, the required WQMP would specify the site design, source control, low impact development, and hydromodification BMPs that would be implemented to capture, treat, and reduce stormwater runoff. Incorporation post-construction BMPs would reduce stormwater peak flows in compliance with the County hydromodification requirements. Because the proposed BMPs would reduce stormwater runoff, the project would not exceed the capacity of the downstream storm drain lines or result in off-site flooding. In addition, as specified in Mitigation Measure WQ-3, a P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-67 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Hydrology Report would be prepared for the project which would specify the required sizing of the drainage facilities needed to accommodate stormwater runoff so that on-site flooding would not occur. Finally, the proposed project would not alter the course of a stream or river. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures WQ-2 and WQ-3, impacts related to on- site or off-site flooding would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure: WQ-3: Hydrology Report. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project Applicant shall submit a Hydrology Report to the City Engineer, or designee, for review and approval. Design of the drainage facilities specified in the project Hydrology Report shall be based on final design plans and shall be consistent with the requirements of the Orange County Hydrology Manual. The Hydrology Report shall quantify the pre-development and post-development runoff from the project site and the proposed drainage facilities to accommodate project site runoff. (e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Sections 4.9 (a) and 4.9 (d), above. (f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Section 4.9 (a), above. (g) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06059CO506J (December 3, 2009) and the City's General Plan Safety Element (December 1999), the project site is not located within a 1 percent annual chance (100- year floodplain).2' According to the FEMA FIRM, the project site is located within Zone X, areas determined to be outside the 0.2 percent annual chance (500-year) floodplain.28 Because the project site is outside areas inundated by a 500-year storm, which is a larger storm event than a 100-year storm,the project site is also outside the area inundated by a 100-year storm. Because the project site is not located in a 100-year floodplain, the project would not place housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. Therefore,the proposed project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, and no impacts would occur. No mitigation would be required. (h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 27 A 100-year flood is a storm even that statistically has a 1-percent chance of occurring in any given year. 28 A 500-year flood is a storm even that statistically has a 0.2-percent chance of occurring in any given year. 4-68 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA No Impact. As discussed in Section 4.9 (g), above, the project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. Therefore, the proposed project would not place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flood flows, and no mitigation would be required. (i) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. As discussed previously, the project site is not within a 100-year floodplain. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding during a storm event. The project site is located approximately one- third of a mile east of San Juan Creek and 8 miles downstream of the Trampas Canyon Reservoir. According to the FEMA FIRM No. 06059C0506J (December 3, 2009) and the City's General Plan Safety Element (December 1999), the project site is not located within the inundation area of a levee or dam, including the San Juan Creek levees or Trampas Canyon Dam. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts related to exposure of people or structures to risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding as a result of inundation from failure of a dam or levee. No mitigation would be required. (j) Would the project be subject to inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. Seiching is a phenomenon that occurs when seismic ground shaking induces standing waves (seiches) inside water retention facilities (e.g., reservoirs and lakes). Such waves can cause retention structures to fail and flood downstream properties. There are no water retention facilities in close proximity to the project site. Therefore, the risk associated with possible seiche waves is not considered to be a potentially significant impact of the project, and no mitigation is necessary. Tsunamis are generated ocean wave trains generally caused by tectonic displacement of the sea floor associated with shallow earthquakes, sea floor landslides, rock falls, and exploding volcanic islands. The proposed project is located approximately 2 miles from the ocean shoreline and is located at an elevation of approximately 100 feet above sea level. According to the City's General Plan Safety Element (2002), the project site is not in a tsunami inundation area. The risk associated with tsunamis is therefore not considered a potential hazard or a potentially significant impact, and no mitigation would be required. Mudslides and slumps are described as a shallower type of slope failure usually affecting the upper soil mantle or weathered bedrock underlying natural slopes and triggered by surface or shallow subsurface saturation. The project site is relatively flat, and no existing landslides are present on the property. In addition, it is not anticipated that project grading would result in the creation of any significant slopes. The risk associated with possible mudflows and mudslides is therefore not considered a potential constraint or a potentially significant impact of the project, and no mitigation would be required. (k) Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters considering water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical stormwater P:AJCA17O3\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx aO3/02/18» 4-69 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 pollutants (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, and trash)? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Section 4.9 (a), above. (1) Result in significant alternation of receiving water quality during or following construction? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Section 4.9 (a), above. (m) Could the proposed project result in increased erosion downstream? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Section 4.9 (c), above. (n) Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Sections 4.9 (c) and 4.9 (d), above. (o) Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Sections 4.9 (c) and 4.9 (d), above. (p) Tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? If so, can it result in an increase in any pollutant for which the water body is already impaired? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. According to the RWQCB Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and 303(d) 2014 Integrated Report for the San Diego Region, San Juan Creek, the receiving water for stormwater runoff from the project site is impaired for benthic community effects, dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE), indicator bacteria, nitrogen, dissolved oxygen, phosphorus, selenium, and toxicity. There is an existing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for San Juan Creek for total coliform,fecal coliform, and enterococci bacteria. Pollutants of concern during construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Construction of the proposed project would not contribute to the DDE impairment since these are not pollutants of concern. Construction. During construction activities, chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (such as paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete-related waste may be spilled or leaked and have the potential to contribute to the benthic community effects, dissolved oxygen, or toxicity impairment. Selenium is a naturally occurring element in soil and groundwater in the region. During construction activities, soil erosion could contribute to the selenium impairment if selenium is present on site. As specified in Mitigation Measure WQ-1, the project would comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit. Under the Construction General Permit, the project would be required to prepare a SWPPP and implement construction BMPs detailed in the SWPPP during construction activities to minimize erosion and prevent spills and 4-70 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA target pollutants of concern. The construction BMPs would be designed to retain sediment and other pollutants on site so they would not reach receiving waters. Therefore, with implementation of construction BMPs that minimize erosions and prevent spills, construction of the proposed project would not contribute to the existing toxicity or selenium impairment. As part of the good housekeeping BMPs, construction workers would be provided access to portable toilets. Waste from leaking portable toilets have the potential to contribute to benthic community effects, DDE, indicator bacteria, nitrogen, dissolved oxygen, phosphorus, selenium, or toxicity impairment. Portable toilets would be located in the on-site staging areas and would be contained to prevent pollutants from being washed into San Juan Creek in the event of a leak. In addition, disposal of waste from the portable toilets would be performed by contracted waste haulers who would handle, haul away, and dispose of portable toilet waste in accordance with applicable regulations. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not contribute to the indicator bacteria impairment. Operation. During operation, potential pollutants of concern from residential developments include suspended solids/sediments, nutrients, pathogens (bacteria/virus), pesticides, oil and grease, and trash and debris.The primary pollutants of concern are enterococcus,fecal coliform, and total coliform. DDE is not a pollutant of concern for the project;therefore, project operation would not contribute to the existing impairment. Indicator bacteria would have the potential to be introduced to San Juan Creek from pet waste. It is anticipated that pet waste bag stations would be located in the proposed park to reduce animal waste in runoff. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not contribute to the indicator bacteria impairment. Nitrogen and phosphorus may be present in fertilizers used in landscape maintenance. In addition, pesticides, herbicides, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are used in landscape maintenance. Selenium is naturally occurring and may be present in the suspended solids/ sediments in runoff from the site. As discussed previously, and required in Mitigation Measure WQ-2, site design, source control, low impact development, and hydromodification control BMPs would be incorporated into the design of the proposed project to treat stormwater runoff prior to discharge into the storm drain system. The BMPs would target pollutants of concern from the project site so that runoff from the site would not contribute to the benthic community effects, nitrogen, dissolved oxygen, phosphorus, selenium, and toxicity impairments. For these reasons, implementation of Mitigation Measures WQ-1 and WQ-2, which require implementation of BMPs during construction and operation, would reduce potential impacts related to contribution to receiving water impairments to less than significant levels. (q) Tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? If so, can it exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions? P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-71 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 No Impact. Runoff from the project site is not tributary to a State Water Quality Protection Areas of Special Biological Significance as defined by the SWRCB.29 In addition, runoff from the project site is not tributary to an Environmentally Sensitive Area according to the City General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (December 1999). Therefore, the proposed project would not exacerbate an already existing sensitive condition. No mitigation would be required. (r) Have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water quality to either marine, fresh, or wetland waters? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Section 4.9 (a), above. (s) Have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality? No Impact. Depth to groundwater is approximately 30 to 40 feet bgs. Therefore, based on the shallow depth of excavation for residential uses, groundwater dewatering would not be required during construction. During operation, it is anticipated that any pollutants generated during operation would be removed by BMPs prior to infiltration. Due to the depth to groundwater, it is unlikely that pollutants generated during construction or operation would reach groundwater. In addition, operation of the project does not include groundwater extraction or injection. Therefore, the project does not have the potential to affect groundwater quality, and no mitigation would be required. (t) Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Section 4.9 (a), above. (u) Impact aquatic,wetland, or riparian habitat? No Impact. According to the Farm Biological Resources Assessment (Appendix B) prepared for the proposed project, there is no aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat on the project site. In addition, San Juan Creek downstream of the project site is a trapezoidal channel with concrete sides and limited vegetation. Therefore, the project would not impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat and no mitigation would be required. (v) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction or post construction? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Section 4.9 (a), above. (w) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste 29 State Water Resources Control Board. State Water Quality Protection Areas of Special Biological Significance. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ocean/asbs_areas.shtml (accessed January 2, 2018). 4-72 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? No Impact. The project is a residential development and does not include material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas. Therefore, no impact to water quality from these types of uses would occur. No mitigation would be required. (x) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Section 4.9 (a), above. (y) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Sections 4.9 (c) and 4.9 (d), above. (z) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Sections 4.9 (a) and 4.9 (c), above. P:A1CA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-73 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 4.10 LAND USE/PLANNING. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ (b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal ❑ ❑ ® ❑ program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑ ❑ ® ❑ community conservation plan? Impact Analysis: (a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The project site consists of a vacant, undeveloped site that is comprised of Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 121-182-53 and 121-182-17. The project site is bordered by Via Positiva, educational, agri-business, and public facility uses to the south; Alipaz Street and single- and multi-family residential uses to the east; Del Obispo Street and single-family residential uses to the west; and residential, educational, religious, uses to the north. The project site is located in the City of San Juan Capistrano, within a largely developed area. The proposed Specific Plan would allow for the development of up to 180 single-family residential uses on the currently vacant project site. Vehicular access to the proposed project would be provided by via driveway points off Del Obispo Street and Via Positiva. Improvements proposed as part of the Specific Plan would be restricted to the boundaries of the site. Therefore, construction and implementation of the Specific Plan not result in the physical division of an established community, and no mitigation would be required. (b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact. The main documents regulating land use on the project site are the City of San Juan Capistrano General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The project site is designated Agri-Business on the City's General Plan Land Use Map and zoned as Specific Plan/Precise Plan (SP/PP) on the City's Zoning Map.The proposed project's relationship to these planning documents is described further below. General Plan. The City's General Plan is the principal land use document guiding development within the City. The City's General Plan is a comprehensive plan that establishes goals, objectives, and policies intended to guide growth and development in the City. The General Plan also serves as a blueprint for development throughout the community and is the vehicle 4-74 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA through which the community needs, desires, and aspirations are balanced. The San Juan Capistrano General Plan is the fundamental tool for influencing the quality of life in the City. At the heart of the General Plan is the Land Use Element (LUE), adopted in 1999 and revised in 2002.The LUE establishes land uses and develops a long-term land use vision for these land uses throughout the City. For example, the City's General Plan Land Use Element includes Policy 2.1, which aims to control growth through the implementation of the City's residential growth management program. The City's Residential Growth Management Program was adopted in 1976 and continues to be enforced today. The program limits the number of residential building permits granted each year to 400. The LUE also includes goals and policies for each land use district and executes them through implementation strategies. As noted previously, the project site is currently designated Agri-Business on the City's General Plan. As such, the proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) that would change the general plan land use designation on the site from Agri-Business to SP/PP. Approval of the GPA would include the adoption of the Specific Plan as the guiding land use policy document regulating future development on the site. As part of the Specific Plan, land uses on the site would include single-family residential uses and a community park to serve residents of the proposed residential community. Although the proposed uses are currently inconsistent with the Agri-Business designation on the site, approval of the GPA would result in the project being consistent with the designated land use of SP/PP and consistent with the existing zoning classification of SP/PP for the site. In addition, physical environmental impacts associated with the proposed GPA have been analyzed throughout Section 4.0 of this Draft IS/MND. The City's General Plan Land Use Element also contains goals and policies that are applicable to the proposed project. These applicable goals and policies from the City's General Plan are listed in Table 4.10.A, along with a consistency analysis of the proposed project with each relevant goal and policy. The purpose of this discussion is to provide a guide to the decision-makers' policy interpretation and should be considered preliminary; a final determination of consistency with plans and policies would be made by City decision-makers. As identified through this consistency analysis, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable General Plan policies following approval of the requested GPA, and no mitigation would be required. Approval of the proposed project and the requested GPA, as well as adoption of the Specific Plan, would resolve any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the City's General Plan, and would result in less than significant impacts for which no mitigation would be required. P:AJCA17O3\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx aO3/02/18» 4-75 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Table 4.10.A:General Plan Consistency Analysis Select General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis Land Use Element GOAL 1: Develop a balanced land use pattern Consistent.The project Applicant would be required to pay to ensure that revenue generation matches Development Impact Fees. Funds collected as part of the the City's responsibility for provision and Development Impact Fees would provide the necessary maintenance of public services and facilities. revenues to fund the project's fair share of improvements with respect to public services and utilities. Additionally, residents of the proposed project and their visitors would contribute to an increase in retail sales revenue and related City sales tax receipts at local dining, shopping, and tourist- oriented venues. This increase in sales tax revenue would allow for the City to maintain and improve public services and facilities within the City. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 1 of the Land Use Element. Policy 1.1: Encourage a land use composition Consistent. As previously stated, the proposed project in San Juan Capistrano that provides a would contribute to the project's fair share of public facility balance or surplus between the generation of and utility costs through payment of Development Impact public revenues and the cost of providing Fees. Additionally, property taxes generated as a result of public facilities and services. project implementation would go to the City's General Fund, from which the City utilizes revenue to fund public services and utilities. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy 1.1 of the Land Use Element. Policy 1.2: Encourage commercial, tourist- Consistent. The proposed project would allow for the oriented, and industrial development that is development of a residential community in an area with compatible with existing land uses within the residential uses of varying densities adjacent to and nearby City to improve the generation of sales tax, the project site. Development of residential uses as property tax,and hotel occupancy tax. proposed under the Specific Plan project would result in an increase in City property taxes as compared to existing conditions. Additionally, future residents of the project would contribute to an increase in retail sales revenue and related City sales taxes. Therefore, the project would be consistent with Policy 1.2 of the Land Use Element. GOAL 2: Control and direct future growth Consistent. The proposed project would develop the site within the City to preserve the rural village- with single-family residential uses that would be developed like character of the community. at a maximum density of 5 units per acre and would be a maximum of two stories in height. Residences proposed as part of the project would be consistent with the density and nature of residential uses adjacent to and nearby the site. The project would also include a multi-use trail (i.e., pedestrian, bicycling, and equestrian uses) that would connect Del Obispo Street to the existing Ecology Center off Alipaz Street, which would serve to connect the site via a trail with the existing community. The provision of the multi-use trail would encourage bicycle, equestrian, and pedestrian uses, avoiding transportation by automobile, and serve to preserve a more rural character on the site. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 2 of the Land Use Element. 4-76 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA Table 4.10.A:General Plan Consistency Analysis Select General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis Policy 2.1: Continue controlling growth Consistent.As described further in Section 4.13, Population through the implementation of the City's and Housing, the project-related increase in population residential growth management program. would represent less than 2 percent of the City's existing and projected population through the year 2040. New development facilitated as a result of project approval would be required to comply with the City's Residential Growth Management Program (1976). Specifically, new building permits issued following the approval of TTMs would be reviewed by City staff for consistency with the growth program, which currently limits new residential building permits to 400 per year. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with General Plan Policy 2.1 of the Land Use Element. Policy 2.2: Assure that new development is Consistent. As discussed previously, the project would consistent and compatible with the existing allow for the development of a residential community that character of the City. would be consistent in use and character with surrounding development, including surrounding residential uses. The proposed Specific Plan would also include design guidelines that would ensure consistency in visual character between the proposed project and surrounding development. For example, the proposed residences would be developed in the Classic California Spanish architectural style to ensure consistency with the City's landmark architectural heritage. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with General Plan Policy 2.2 of the Land Use Element. Policy 2.3: Ensure that development Consistent. As previously stated, the project Applicant corresponds to the provision of public would be required to pay Development Impact Fees to fund facilities and services. the project's fair share of public service and utility improvements. Additionally, the project site is adjacent to roadway and utility infrastructure, which would serve to support the project following implementation of the Specific Plan. Please also refer to Section 2.0, Project Description, for further discussion related to infrastructure improvements included as part of the Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with General Plan Policy 2.3 of the Land Use Element. GOAL 3: Distribute additional population Consistent. The project site is located within a valley area within the City based on risk factors. and is not located within a high-risk fire, geologic, or flooding area. Furthermore, implementation of mitigation would serve to reduce potential environmental risks associated with project implementation to a less than significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with General Plan Goal 3 of the Land Use Element. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-77 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Table 4.10.A:General Plan Consistency Analysis Select General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis Policy 3.1:Confine higher density land uses to Consistent. The proposed project would allow for the the valley areas outside of the floodplain. development of single-family residential uses with a medium density. As discussed further in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project site is located within FEMA Flood Zone X, which is an area determined to be outside of the 0.2 percent annual chance (500-year) floodplain. As such, the project would not develop the site with high-density land uses in areas prone to flooding. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 3.1 of the Land Use Element. Policy 3.2: Limit density of development in Consistent. Please refer to the consistency analysis for Goal the hillsides, floodplains, and other high-risk 3 and Policy 3.1. Based on this analysis, the proposed areas. project would be consistent with Policy 3.2 of the Land Use Element. GOAL 4: Preserve major areas of open space Consistent.The project site has previously been considered and natural features. for purchase and permanent retention as open space or agriculture and was twice eliminated from further consideration during the City's evaluation process associated with the passage of general obligation bonds for the purchase of open space. The permanent retention of the site for open space was in conflict with the surrounding development and with the City's goals for orderly and balanced land use development as buildout occurs, including the City's General Plan Land Use Element Policy 7.2, which encourages new development to be compatible with the physical characteristics of its site,surrounding land uses, and available public infrastructure. Furthermore, the project site is not designated or considered open space. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 4 of the Land Use Element. Policy 4.1: Preserve areas of natural hazards, Consistent. As previously stated, the project site is not such as landslides and floodplains, which located in an area that is at risk to substantial natural would jeopardize the public health and hazards with respect floodplains. Furthermore, given the safety. relatively flat elevation of the site, the project is not anticipated to be subjected to natural hazards associated with landslides. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy 4.1 of the Land Use Element. Policy 4.3: Preserve designated ridgelines and Consistent. The City's General Plan does not identify any the immediate adjacent area to maintain the ridgelines on or adjacent to the project site, nor does it open space character of the community. identify any open space resources on the site. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy 4.3 of the Land Use Element. GOAL 7: Enhance and maintain the character Consistent. The proposed Specific Plan includes of neighborhoods. development standards and design guidelines for the Specific Plan area. These development standards and design guidelines are consistent with existing standards and guidelines established in the City's Municipal Code and General Plan. Approval of the Specific Plan would ensure that new development on the site would be cohesive with 4-78 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA Table 4.10.A:General Plan Consistency Analysis Select General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis existing surrounding development. Additionally, the development of single-family residential uses on the site would be consistent with existing residential uses adjacent to and nearby the site. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 7 of the Land Use Element. Policy 7.1: Preserve and enhance the quality Consistent. Please refer to the consistency analysis for Goal of San Juan Capistrano neighborhoods by 7. The proposed project would not introduce buildings or avoiding or abating the intrusion of non- uses that are non-conforming with the neighborhood. conforming buildings and uses. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with General Plan Policy 7.1 of the Land Use Element. Policy 7.2: Ensure that new development is Consistent. The proposed Specific Plan includes compatible with the physical characteristics development standards and design guidelines, which would of its site, surrounding land uses, and ensure that new development on the site would be available public infrastructure. cohesive with existing surrounding development. Additionally, the development of single-family residential uses on the site would be consistent with existing residential uses adjacent to and nearby the site. The project Applicant would be required to pay Development Impact Fees to fund the project's fair share of public service and utility improvements. Additionally, the project site is adjacent to roadway and utility infrastructure, which would serve to support the project following implementation of the Specific Plan. Please also refer to Section 2.0, Project Description, for further discussion related to infrastructure improvements included as part of the Specific Plan.Therefore,the proposed project would be consistent with Policy 7.2 of the Land Use Element. Circulation Element GOAL 1: Provide a system of roadways that Consistent.The proposed Specific Plan includes an internal meets the needs of the community. roadway that would connect driveways off Del Obispo Street and Via Positiva to ensure adequate connectivity between other internal project roadways and the surrounding arterial system. New internal roadways included as part of the Specific Plan would be laid out at the time TTMs are proposed.As discussed further in the Section 4.16, Transportation/Traffic, both construction and implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on the local roadway system, and no mitigation would be required. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 1 of the Circulation Element. Policy 1.4: Improve the San Juan Capistrano Consistent. As discussed further in Section 4.16, circulation system roadways in concert with Transportation/Traffic,the proposed project would result in land development to ensure sufficient levels less than significant impacts with respect to levels of service of service. on the local arterial system. Additionally, the proposed project includes the provision of a signal at the intersection of the project driveway and Del Obispo Street and the implementation of internal roadways and sidewalks that P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-79 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Table 4.10.A:General Plan Consistency Analysis Select General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis would improve the City's circulation system.Therefore,the proposed project would be consistent with Policy 1.4 of the Circulation Element. GOAL 3: Provide an extensive public bicycle, Consistent. Implementation of the proposed project would pedestrian,and equestrian trails network. allow for a network of lighted pedestrian walkways and a multi-use trail that would support pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle users. The proposed project multi-use trail would connect the proposed residential community with local public recreation amenities, including the existing Ecology Center off Alipaz Street. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 3 of the Circulation Element. Policy 3.1: Provide and maintain an extensive Consistent. Refer to the consistency analysis for Goal 3 of trails network that supports bicycles, the Circulation Element. Based on this analysis, the pedestrians, and horses and is coordinated proposed project would be consistent with Policy 3.1 of the with those networks of adjacent jurisdictions. Circulation Element. GOAL 4: Minimize the conflict between the Consistent. The proposed Specific Plan includes a network automobile, commercial vehicles, of pedestrian walkways and a multi-use trail designed to pedestrians, horses,and bicycles. provide safe and convenient access to and between the community's amenities and residences. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 4 of the Circulation Element. Policy 4.2: Provide traffic management Consistent. As discussed further in Section 4.16, improvements within areas where through Transportation/Traffic, construction and implementation of traffic creates public safety problems. the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on the local roadway system, and no mitigation would be required. Additionally, the project would implement a Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan (Mitigation Measure HAZ-2), which would serve to reduce potential traffic conflicts during project construction. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy 4.2 of the Circulation Element. Policy 4.3: Install additional street Consistent. As discussed further in Section 4.16, improvements within areas where necessary construction and implementation of the proposed project to improve vehicular and non-vehicular would result in less than significant impacts on the local safety. roadway system, and no mitigation would be required. Additionally, a Site Analysis prepared for the project determined that the project would provide sufficient length north and south of the main project driveway off Del Obispo. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy 4.3 of the Circulation Element. Safety Element GOAL 1: Reduce the risk to the community Consistent.See the discussions in Sections 4.6,Geology and from hazards related to geologic conditions, Soils; 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; and 4.9, seismic activity, wildfires, structural fires, and Hydrology and Water Quality, for additional discussion flooding. related to these risks. The project would result in less than significant impacts or less than significant impacts with mitigation with respect to geologic, seismic, fire, and flooding hazards. Specifically, implementation of Mitigation 4-80 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA Table 4.10.A:General Plan Consistency Analysis Select General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis Measure GEO-1, which requires compliance with the Geotechnical Report and the most current California Building Code, would reduce potentially significant impacts with respect to geologic conditions and seismic hazards to a less than significant level. The project would also be required to comply with Mitigation Measures WQ-2 and WQ-3, which require preparation of a WQMP and Hydrology Report. Implementation of Mitigation Measures WQ-1 and WQ-2 would identify BMPs and would specify the sizing of drainage facilities needed to accommodate stormwater runoff to reduce potential impacts with respect to flooding.The project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to fires, and no mitigation was determined to be required.Therefore,the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 1 of the Safety Element. Policy 1.1: Reduce the risk of impacts from Consistent. Please refer to the consistency analysis for Goal geologic and seismic hazards by applying 3 Policy 3.1 in the Land Use Element and Goal 1 in the proper development engineering, building Safety Element. In addition, the proposed project would be construction,and retrofitting requirements. required to comply with the project-specific Geotechnical Report and the most current California Building Code. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy 1.1 of the Safety Element. Policy 1.5: All residential projects with more Consistent. The proposed project includes two driveways: than 48 units should be required to provide a one off Del Obispo Street and one off Via Positiva. secondary access to the project site. The Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with secondary access may be designated as Policy 1.5 of the Safety Element. emergency access only. GOAL 2: Protect the community from hazards Consistent. As discussed further in Section 4.3, Air Quality, related to air pollution, nuclear power the proposed project would result in less than significant production, hazardous materials and ground impacts with respect to air pollution.As discussed further in transportation. Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project would not result in significant impacts with respect to hazardous materials and would not impede or interfere with any evacuation routes(including those to be utilized in the event of an emergency associated with the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station undergoing decommissioning, approximately 11 miles south of the site). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 2 of the Safety Element. Policy 2.1: Work with responsible federal, Consistent. As discussed further in Section 4.3, Air Quality, state and county agencies to decrease air the proposed project would result in less than significant pollution emissions occurring within the air impacts with respect to air pollution and would not result in basin to reduce the risk posed by air the exceedance of any air quality standards established by pollution. responsible agencies regulating air quality. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy 2.1 of the Safety Element. Policy 2.3: Cooperate with responsible Consistent.As discussed further in Section 4.8, Hazards and federal, state, and county agencies to Hazardous Materials, the project would not utilize or minimize the risk to the community from the transport substantial quantities of hazardous materials. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-81 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Table 4.10.A:General Plan Consistency Analysis Select General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis use and transportation of hazardous Additionally, activities occurring during construction and materials through the City. operation of the proposed project would comply with applicable local, State, and federal regulations related to the use and transport of hazardous materials. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy 2.3 of the Safety Element. Noise Element GOAL 1: Minimize the effects of noise Consistent. As discussed further in Section 4.12, Noise, the through proper land use planning. proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to noise on adjacent sensitive land uses with implementation of Mitigation Measures N01-1 through N01-3. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 1 of the Noise Element. Policy 1.1: Provide noise control measures Consistent. As discussed further in Section 4.12, Noise, the and sound attenuating construction in areas proposed project would result in less than significant of new construction or rehabilitation. impacts with respect to construction noise with implementation of Mitigation Measure N01-1. Specifically, N01-1 requires that the project Applicant ensure that the greatest distance between noise sources and sensitive receptors during construction activities has been achieved, construction equipment is equipped with properly operating and maintained noise mufflers consistent with manufacturer's standards, construction staging areas are located away from off-site sensitive uses, and stationary construction equipment is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site whenever feasible. Additionally, Mitigation Measure N01-1 requires the construction contractor to use on-site electrical sources to power equipment rather than diesel generators whenever feasible. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy 1.1 of the Noise Element. Policy 2.1: Reduce transportation-related Consistent. As discussed further in Section 4.12, Noise, the noise impacts to sensitive land uses through proposed project would result in less than significant the use of noise control measures. impacts with respect to long-term on- and off-site traffic noise.Therefore,the proposed project would be consistent with Policy 2.1 of the Noise Element. GOAL 3: Minimize non-transportation-related Consistent. As discussed further in Section 4.12, Noise, the noise impacts. proposed residential project would not generate substantial noise and would result in less than significant impacts with respect to on- and off-site traffic noise. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 3 of the Noise Element. Policy 3.2: Incorporate sound-reduction Consistent. As discussed further in Section 4.12, Noise, the design in new construction or rehabilitation proposed project would result in less than significant projects impacted by non-transportation- impacts with respect to noise with implementation of related noise. Mitigation Measure N01-3. Mitigation Measure N01-3 requires the installation of central air conditioning to allow for windows to remain closed and preparation of a final acoustical study to ensure that new residences are 4-82 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA Table 4.10.A:General Plan Consistency Analysis Select General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis constructed to ensure that standard building reductions occur.Therefore,the proposed project would be consistent with Policy 3.2 of the Noise Element. Housing Element GOAL 2:To achieve housing production levels Consistent. The proposed project would allow for the to the maximum extent feasible with development of up to 180 single-family residential units available funding to meet projected needs. that would assist the City in meeting the 2021 RHNA allocation and would add to the City's available housing stock.Therefore,the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 2 of the Housing Element. Policy 2.1: Consistent with the Land Use Consistent. The proposed project would allow for the Element, encourage the construction of a development of a medium-density residential community variety of housing types and sizes of housing on the project site, which would serve to add to the variety throughout the community. of housing types available throughout the City.Additionally, please refer to the consistency analysis for Goal 2 in the Housing Element. Based on this analysis, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy 2.1 of the Housing Element. Conservation and Open Space Element GOAL 2: Protect and preserve important Consistent. As discussed further in Section 4.4, Biological ecological and biological resources. Resources, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to biological resources with adherence to applicable provisions outlined in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA) (Mitigation Measure 610- 1). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 2 of the Conservation and Open Space Element. Policy 2.1: Use proper land use planning to Consistent. As described further in the Farm Biological reduce the impact of urban development on Resources Assessment (February 2018) (Appendix B), the important ecological and biological resources. proposed project would not result in significant unavoidable impacts with respect to sensitive,candidate,or special-status species. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to important ecological and biological resources. Please also refer to the consistency analysis for Goal 2 in the Conservation and Open Space Element. Based on this analysis, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy 2.1 of the Conservation and Open Space Element. GOAL 5: Shape and guide development in Consistent. As discussed further in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, order to achieve efficient growth and the proposed project would allow for the development of maintain community scale and identity. up to 180 single-family residential units on the project site that would accommodate population growth in the City.All residences developed on the site would be developed in a manner that would be consistent with the character and scale of existing development surrounding the site, be constructed in the California Spanish architectural style,and be consistent with the development standards and design guidelines in the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 5 of the Conservation and Open Space Element. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-83 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Table 4.10.A:General Plan Consistency Analysis Select General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis Policy 5.1: Encourage high-quality design in Consistent. As discussed further in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, new development and redevelopment to the proposed project would allow for the development of maintain the low-density character of the up to 180 single-family residential units on the project site City. that would be consistent with the development standards and design guidelines in the proposed Specific Plan. The proposed residences would also be developed in the California Spanish architectural style and would be a maximum of two stories in height, which would be consistent with the visual character and scale of adjacent and nearby development. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Conservation and Open Space Element. GOAL 6: Improve air quality. Consistent. As discussed further in Section 4.3, Air Quality, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to air quality. In addition, the proposed multi-use trail would encourage equestrian uses, bicycling, and walking to adjacent facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 6 of the Conservation and Open Space Element. Policy 6.1: Cooperate with the South Coast Consistent. As discussed further in Section 4.3, Air Quality, Air Quality Management District and the proposed project would result in less than significant Southern California Association of impacts with respect to air quality and emissions. Governments in their efforts to implement Additionally, the proposed project would not result in the regional Air Quality Management Plan. significant impacts with respect to inconsistencies with the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan nor would the project result in exceedances with respect to SCAQMD air pollutant thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy 6.1 of the Conservation and Open Space Element. Policy 6.4: Achieve a greater balance Consistent. As discussed previously, the proposed project between jobs and housing in San Juan would allow for the development of up to 180 single-family Capistrano. residences on the project site. Although this is an increase in the number of housing units, other projects currently on the City's cumulative project list as either approved or under construction include a 38,000 sf fitness club, a 124- room hotel and restaurant, a 102-room hotel and restaurant, and a development that includes 75,100 sf of commercial and 16,000 sf of office uses. These non- residential uses will increase jobs within the City, thereby improving the jobs/housing balance. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with,and not conflict with Policy 6.4 of the Conservation and Open Space Element. GOAL 7: Protect water quality. Consistent. As discussed further in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to water quality with implementation of Mitigation Measures WQ-1 and WQ-2. Mitigation Measure WQ-1 requires implementation of construction Best Management Practices(BMPs),such as 4-84 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA Table 4.10.A:General Plan Consistency Analysis Select General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site, and Good Housekeeping BMPs to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construction debris and waste into receiving waters. Mitigation Measure WQ-2 requires preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan that would specify the site design, source control, low impact development, and hydro modification BMPs that would be implemented to capture, treat, and reduce storm water runoff. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 7 of the Conservation and Open Space Element. Policy 7.1: Encourage the production and use Consistent. As discussed further in Section 2.0, Project of recycled water. Description, the proposed project would include the installation of "purple pipes" to maximum future use of reclaimed water.Therefore,the proposed project would be consistent with Policy 7.1 of the Conservation and Open Space Element. Cultural Resources Element GOAL 1: Preserve and protect historical, Consistent. As discussed further in Section 4.5, Cultural archaeological, and paleontological Resources, the proposed project would result in less than resources. significant impacts with respect to archaeological and paleontological resources with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 though CUL-3, which require archaeological monitoring during ground-disturbing activities, preparation of an archaeological monitoring plan, and preparation of a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan. Implementation of the measures would result in the protection of any unknown archaeological or paleontological resources that may be discovered during construction. Additionally, the project would not result in any impacts with respect to historic resources. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 1 of the Cultural Resources Element. Community Design Element GOAL 1: Encourage and preserve a sense of Consistent. Refer to the consistency analysis for Policy 2.2 place. under the Land Use Element. Based on this analysis, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 1 of the Community Design Element. Policy 1.1: Preserve significant amounts of Consistent. Refer to the consistency analysis for Goal 4 land and important natural features for open under the Land Use Element. Based on this analysis, the space. proposed project would be consistent with Policy 1.1 of the Community Design Element. Policy 1.2: Encourage high-quality and human Consistent. Refer to the consistency analysis for Policy 2.2 scale design in development to maintain the under the Land Use Element. Based on this analysis, the character of the City. proposed project would be consistent with Policy 1.2 of the Community Design Element. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-85 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Table 4.10.A:General Plan Consistency Analysis Select General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis Policy 2.1: Encourage development which Consistent. Refer to the consistency analysis for Policy 2.2 complements the City's traditional, historic under the Land Use Element. The proposed project would character through site design, architecture, be designed in the California Spanish architectural style to and landscaping. complement the City's traditional historic character. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy 2.1 of the Community Design Element. Policy 3.4: Preserve important view sheds. Consistent. As discussed further in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, the proposed project would not result in the obstruction of any important viewsheds. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy 3.4 of the Community Design Element Growth Management Element GOAL 1: Coordinate rational and orderly Consistent. Refer to the consistency analysis for Policy 2.3 growth that assures the economic and under the Land Use Element. Based on this analysis, the efficient provision of public services and proposed project would be consistent with Goal 1 of the infrastructure to new development. Growth Management Element. GOAL 3: Provide for a balance of jobs and Consistent. Refer to the consistency analysis for Policy 6.4 housing through land use planning. under the Conservation and Open Space Element. Based on this analysis,the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 3 of the Growth Management Element. Parks and Recreation Element GOAL 1: Provide, develop, and maintain Consistent.As discussed further in Section 4.15, Recreation, ample park and recreational facilities that the proposed project would include the addition of a park provide a diversity of recreational activities. to serve residents of the Specific Plan area, as well as a multi-use trail that would serve as a recreational trail for use by the residential community and community at large. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 1 of the Parks and Recreation Element. GOAL 2: Develop and expand the existing Consistent.As discussed further in Section 4.15, Recreation, bicycle, hiking, and equestrian trail system the proposed project would a multi-use trail that would be and facilities. available for use by pedestrians, equestrians, and bicyclists. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 2 of the Parks and Recreation Element. Public Services and Utilities Element GOAL 1: Work with the Orange County Consistent. As discussed further in Section 4.14, Public Sheriff's Department to provide a sufficient Services, the proposed project would be served by existing level of law enforcement. OCSD resources and would result in less than significant impacts with respect to increased demands for Police or Sheriff services. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 1 of the Public Services and Utilities Element. GOAL 2: Work with the Orange County Fire Consistent. As discussed further in Section 4.14, Public Authority to provide a sufficient level of fire Services, the proposed project would be served by existing protection. OCFA resources and would result in less than significant impacts with respect to increased demands for fire services. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 2 of the Public Services and Utilities Element. 4-86 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA Table 4.10.A:General Plan Consistency Analysis Select General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis GOAL 3: Work with the San Juan Capistrano Consistent. As discussed further in Section 4.14, Public Unified School District to provide a sufficient Services, the proposed project would be served by existing level of public education. San Juan Capistrano Unified School District resources and would result in less than significant impacts with respect to increased demands for schools. In addition, School Impact Fees would be paid by the project Applicant.The Capistrano Unified School District currently assesses a fee of$3.48 per square feet of new residential development.Therefore,the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 3 of the Public Services and Utilities Element. GOAL 5: Work closely with the Orange Consistent. As discussed further in Section 4.14, Public County Public Library to provide a sufficient Services, the proposed project would be served by existing level of library facilities and services. Orange County Public Library resources and would result in less than significant impacts with respect to increased demands for libraries. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 5 of the Public Services and Utilities Element. GOAL 6: Provide sufficient levels of water and Consistent. As discussed further in Section 4.18, Utilities sewer service. and Service Systems, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to increased demands for water supplies and wastewater treatment facilities. The City's UWMP indicates that there are sufficient water resources to meet full service demands through the year 2040. Specifically, the project-related demand for water would represent an incremental increase in water demand through the year 2040 (1.2 percent of current and projected water supplies through the year 2040. Additionally, wastewater generated as a result of project implementation would represent 0.7 percent of the remaining treatment capacity of the J.B. Latham Wastewater Treatment Plant. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 6 of the Public Services and Utilities Element. GOAL 7: Work effectively with providers of Consistent. As discussed further in Section 4.14, Public natural gas, electricity, telephone, cable Services, the proposed project would be served by existing television and solid waste disposal to provide natural gas, electricity, telephone, cable, and solid waste sufficient levels of these services. facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 7 of the Public Services and Utilities Element. Source:City of San Juan Capistrano General Plan(as adopted). BMPs=Best Management Practices FEMA=Federal Emergency Management Agency OCFA=Orange County Fire Authority OCSD=Orange County Sheriff's Department RHNA=Regional Housing Needs Assessment SCAQMD=South Coast Air Quality Management District TTM=Tentative Tract Map UWMP=Urban Water Management Plan P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-87 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Zoning Ordinance. The City's Zoning Ordinance is the primary implementation tool for its General Plan Land Use Element and the goals and policies contained therein. For this reason, the Zoning Map must be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map. The Land Use Map indicates the general location and extent of future land uses in the City. The Zoning Ordinance, which includes the Zoning Map, contains more detailed information about permitted land uses, building intensities, and required development standards. The existing zoning classification for the project site is SP/PP, despite not being regulated by an approved development plan due to the City Council's overturning of the previously approved Spieker Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) Specific Plan. As such, approval of the proposed Specific Plan would allow for the Specific Plan to serve as the primary document regulating land use on the site and would ensure consistency with the proposed GPA designation of SP/PP for the property. While the SP/PP zoning classification would remain in place following project implementation, the development standards established in The Farm Specific Plan closely align with the development standards for the RS-4000 zoning classification in the City's Municipal Code. For example, the project would permit single-family residential dwelling units at a density of up to eight dwelling units per acre, on lots with a minimum area of 4,000 square feet; the maximum height would be 37.5 feet30 (or the equivalent of two stories); and the maximum floor area ratio would be 0.5 for one-story units and 0.35 for two-story units, consistent with the development standards established for the RS-4000 classification. Therefore, development standards and design guidelines outlined in the Specific Plan would be generally consistent with those outlined in Title 9 of the City's Municipal Code (Land Use Code) with respect to single-family residential uses. Approval of the proposed project and adoption of the Specific Plan would allow for the Specific Plan to effectively function as the zoning document regulating land use on the site. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to zoning inconsistencies, and no mitigation would be required. The proposed project would be consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance, and no mitigation would be required. (c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. As stated in Section 4.5 (f), the project site is located the Central and Coastal Region of the Orange County Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP), but is located in an area identified as "developed" and is outside of the designated habitat reserve. As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, development of the proposed project would not result in the removal of any sensitive habitat 30 Although the Specific Plan establishes a 35 ft height maximum, the Specific Plan would allow height deviations of up to 5 percent, or the equivalent of 37.5 ft. All height deviations would be subject to administrative review and approval. 4-88 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA species identified in the Orange County NCCP/HCP. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to potential conflicts with the goals and policies outlined in the Orange County HCP/NCCP, and no mitigation would be required. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-89 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the ❑ ❑ ❑ state? (b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ specific plan or other land use plan? Impact Analysis: (a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. In 1975, the California Legislature enacted the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act which, among other things, provided guidelines for the classification and designation of mineral lands. Areas are classified on the basis of geologic factors without regard to existing land use and land ownership. The mineral land areas are categorized into the following four Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ): • MRZ-1: An area where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. • MRZ-2: An area where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence. • MRZ-3:An area containing mineral deposits,the significance of which cannot be evaluated. • MRZ-4: An area where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ zone. Of the four categories, lands classified as MRZ-2 are of the greatest importance. Such areas are underlain by demonstrated mineral resources or are located where geologic data indicate that significant measured or indicated resources are present. MRZ-2 areas are designated by the State of California Mining and Geology Board as being "regionally significant." Such designations require that a Lead Agency's land use decisions involving designated areas be made in accordance with its mineral resource management policies and that it consider the importance of the mineral resource to the region or the State as a whole, not just to the Lead Agency's jurisdiction. The project site has been classified by the California Department of Mines and Geology as being located in MRZ-3, indicating that the project site is located in an area containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated.3' Although the California Department 31 California Department of Mines and Geology, Generalized Aggregate Resources Classification Map of Orange County. 1994. 4-90 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA of Mines and Geology classified the site as MRZ-3, there are no known mineral resources or mineral resource extraction activities on the project site. The project would not result in the loss of a known commercially valuable mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State because no known mineral resources are present on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the State, and no mitigation would be required. (b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. As discussed further in Section 4.11 (a), no known valuable mineral resources exist on or near the project site, and no mineral resource extraction activities occur on the site. In addition, the project site is not located within an area known to contain locally important mineral resources and is not mapped in the City's General Plan or other land use maps for mineral resources. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site as delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan as a result of project implementation. No mitigation would be required. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-91 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 4.12 NOISE Less Significant Potentially With Less than Would the project result in: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? (b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ® ❑ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ project? (e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose ❑ ❑ ® ❑ people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area ❑ ❑ ® ❑ to excessive noise levels? Discussion: The following section is based on the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis: The Farm Specific Plan (Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis) (LSA; February 2018; provided in Appendix D of this IS/MND). Technical Background The following provides an overview of the characteristics of sound and the regulatory framework that applies to noise within the vicinity of the project site. Characteristics of Sound. Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, or sleep. Several noise measurement scales exist that are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative intensity of a sound. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB represents a tenfold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. Each 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness; similarly, each 10 dB decrease in sound level is perceived as half as loud. Sound intensity is normally measured through the A-weighted sound level (dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. The A-weighted sound level is the basis for 24-hour sound measurements, which better represent how humans are more sensitive to sound at night. 4-92 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA As noise spreads from a source, it loses energy; therefore, the farther away the noise receiver is from the noise source, the lower the perceived noise level would be. Geometric spreading causes the sound level to attenuate or be reduced, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in the noise level for each doubling of distance from a single point source of noise to the noise-sensitive receptor of concern. Characteristics of Vibration. Vibration refers to ground-borne noise and perceptible motion. Ground-borne vibration is almost exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem outdoors where the motion may be discernible. However, without the effects associated with the shaking of a building, there is less adverse reaction. Vibration energy propagates from a source through intervening soil and rock layers to the foundations of nearby buildings. The vibration then propagates from the foundation throughout the remainder of the structure. Building vibration may be perceived by occupants as motion of building surfaces, the rattling of items on shelves or hanging on walls, or a low-frequency rumbling noise. The rumbling noise is caused by the vibrating walls, floors, and ceilings radiating sound waves. Although ground-borne vibration has the potential to disturb people and damage buildings, it is very rare for typical construction activities to cause even cosmetic building damage; however, it is not uncommon for construction processes (e.g., blasting and pile driving, which are not proposed as part of project) to cause vibration of sufficient amplitudes to damage nearby buildings. Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration exceeds the threshold of perception by 10 VdB or less. This is an order of magnitude below the damage threshold for normal buildings. Typical sources of ground-borne vibration are construction activities (e.g., blasting, pile driving, and operating heavy-duty earthmoving equipment), steel-wheeled trains, and occasional traffic on rough roads. Problems with ground-borne vibration and noise from these sources are usually localized to areas within approximately 100 feet of the vibration source, although there are examples of ground- borne vibration causing interference out to distances greater than 200 feet (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2006). When roadways are smooth,vibration from traffic, even heavy trucks, is rarely perceptible. For most projects, it is assumed that the roadway surface will be smooth enough that ground-borne vibration from street traffic will not exceed the impact criteria; however, construction of the Project could result in ground-borne vibration that could be perceptible and annoying. Ground-borne noise is not likely to be a problem because noise arriving via the normal airborne path usually will be greater than ground-borne noise. Ground-borne vibration has the potential to disturb people as well as damage buildings. Although it is very rare for ground-borne vibration to cause even cosmetic building damage, it is not uncommon for construction processes such as blasting and pile driving to cause vibration of sufficient amplitudes to damage nearby buildings (FTA 2006). Ground-borne vibration is usually measured in terms of vibration velocity, either the root-mean-square (RMS) velocity or peak particle velocity (PPV). RMS is best for characterizing human response to building vibration, and PPV is used to characterize the potential for damage. Factors that influence ground-borne vibration and noise include the following: • Vibration Source: Vehicle suspension, wheel types and condition, track/roadway surface, track support system, speed,transit structure, and depth of vibration source P:AJCA17O3\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx aO3/02/18» 4-93 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 • Vibration Path: Soil type, rock layers, soil layering, depth to water table, and frost depth • Vibration Receiver: Foundation type, building construction, and acoustical absorption Among the factors listed above, there are significant differences in the vibration characteristics when the source is underground compared to at the ground surface. In addition, soil conditions are known to have a strong influence on the levels of ground-borne vibration. Among the most important factors are the stiffness and internal damping of the soil and the depth to bedrock. Applicable Noise Standards. There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound. The equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the total sound energy of time-varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant rating scales for human communities in the State of California are the Leq, the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), and the day-night average level (Ldn) based on A-weighted decibels. CNEL is the time-varying noise over a 24-hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noise occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and a 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale, but without the adjustment for events occurring during the evening relaxation hours. CNEL and Ldn are within 1 dBA of each other and are normally interchangeable. The noise adjustments are added to noise events occurring during the more sensitive hours. Other noise rating scales of importance when assessing the annoyance factor include the maximum instantaneous noise level (1-max), which is the highest exponential time-averaged sound level that occurs during a stated time period. The noise environments discussed in this analysis for short-term noise impacts are specified in terms of maximum levels denoted by Lmax, which reflects peak operating conditions and addresses the annoying aspects of intermittent noise. It is often used together with another noise scale or noise standards in terms of percentile noise levels in noise ordinances for enforcement purposes. For example, the L1D noise level represents the noise level exceeded 10 percent of the time during a stated period. The L50 noise level represents the median noise level (i.e., half the time the noise level exceeds this level, and half the time it is less than this level). The L90 noise level represents the noise level exceeded 90 percent of the time and is considered the background noise level during a monitoring period. For a relatively constant noise source,the Leq and L50 are approximately the same. Noise impacts can be described in three categories. The first is audible impacts that refer to increases in noise levels noticeable to humans. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3.0 dB or greater because this level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments. The second category, potentially audible, refers to a change in the noise level between 1.0 and 3.0 dB. This range of noise levels has been found to be noticeable only in laboratory environments. The last category is changes in noise levels of less than 1.0 dB, which are inaudible to the human ear. Only audible changes in existing ambient or background noise levels (a change of 3.0 dB or greater) are considered potentially significant. 4-94 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA The applicable noise standards governing the project site are the criteria in the City of San Juan Capistrano's Noise Element of the General Plan (Noise Element) and Section 9-3.531 of the City's Municipal Code. General Plan. California Government Code Section 65302(8) requires that a noise element be included in the General Plan of each county and city in the State. The Noise Element (1999) of the City of San Juan Capistrano General Plan is intended to identify sources of noise and provide objectives and policies that ensure that noise from various sources does not create an unacceptable noise environment. Overall, the City's Noise Element describes the noise environment (including noise sources) in the City, addresses noise mitigation regulations, strategies, and programs, as well as delineating federal, State, and City jurisdiction relative to rail, automotive, aircraft, and nuisance noise. The City's noise standards are correlated with land use categories in order to maintain identified ambient noise levels and to limit, mitigate, or eliminate intrusive noise that exceeds the ambient noise levels within a specified zone. The City uses the community noise compatibility guidelines established by the State Department of Health Services as a tool for use in assessing the compatibility of various land use types with a range of noise levels. These guidelines are set forth in the City's General Plan Noise Element in terms of the CNEL. As detailed in Table N-2 in City's General Plan Noise Element, a noise exposure of no more than 65 dBA CNEL is considered the most desirable target for the exterior of noise-sensitive land uses or sensitive receptors (e.g., homes, schools, churches, libraries, parks and playgrounds). A noise exposure of up to no more than 45 dBA CNEL is considered the most desirable target for the interior of noise-sensitive land uses or sensitive receptors. Based on this guidance, a typical exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL will be used to assess potential traffic noise impacts within this analysis. Municipal Code. Section 9-3.531, Noise Standards (residential and non-residential), provides noise standards for non-transportation sources to be used as the base of measurement for determining noise violations affecting uses within the residential, public, and institutional and commercial districts. Table 4.12.A provides the exterior noise levels standards applicable for residential, public and institutional districts, which would include the project site. In the event the existing ambient noise level exceeds the applicable noise limit categories, based on time duration of the potential impact, the existing ambient noise level shall be the new noise level standard for the same time duration. Table 4.12.13 provides the interior noise level standards for residential uses during nighttime hours. Section 9-3.531 (d), Special Provisions, of the City's Municipal Code specifies that construction activities that occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Saturday, shall be exempted from these provisions. No construction shall be permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays and federal holidays. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-95 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Table 4.12.A: Exterior Noise Standards for Residential, Public, and Institutional Districts' Daytime Evening Nighttime (7:00 a.m.to (7:00 p.m.to (10:00 p.m.to Duration of Activity 7:00 p.m.) 10:00 p.m.) 7:00 a.m.) More than 30 minutes in an hour,(dBA LS0) 65 55 45 More than 15 minutes and less than 30 minutes,dBA(BBA L25) 70 60 50 More than 5 minutes and less than 15 minutes,dBA(dBA L8) 75 65 55 More than 1 minutes and less than 5 minutes,dBA(dBA L2) 80 70 60 Up to 1 minute or Maximum Level,dBA Lmax 85 75 65 Source:Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis(February 2018). ' Each of the noise levels provided in this table shall be reduced by five (5)dBA for impacts of simple tone noises or noise consisting of speech or music dBA=A-weighted decibels Lxx=Average noise level over XX%of an hour Table 4.12.6: Interior Noise Standards for Residential Uses' Nighttime Duration of Activity (10:00 p.m.to 7:00 a.m.) More than 5 minutes in an hour,dBA(dBA L8) 45 More than 1 minutes and less than 5 minutes,dBA(dBA L2) 50 Up to 1 minute or Maximum Level,dBA Lmax 55 Source:Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis(February2018). ' Each of the noise levels provided in this table shall be reduced by five (5) dBA for impacts of simple tone noises or noise consisting of speech or music dBA=A-weighted decibels Lxx=Average noise level over XX%of an hour Given that the Municipal Code exempts construction activities and that no standard criteria for assessing construction noise impacts is provided, for the purposes of determining the significance of the noise increase experienced at noise-sensitive uses surrounding the project, the guidelines within the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006) are used in this analysis for construction noise impact identification. The general assessment criteria for construction noise identifies a 1-hour noise level of 90 dBA Leq for residential uses during daytime hours and a 1-hour noise level of 100 dBA Leq for commercial and industrial uses. This provides reasonable criteria for assessing construction noise impacts based on the potential for adverse community reaction when the noise criteria are exceeded. Applicable Vibration Standards Section 9-2.401, Nuisances, of the City's Municipal Code specifies that the generation of vibration or a duration and intensity so as to be excessive, disturbing, or objectionable to persons of ordinary sensibility located offsite, shall not be permitted. However, because the City's Municipal Code does not include standard criteria for assessing vibration impacts, vibration standards included in the FTA 4-96 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA Manual are used in this analysis for ground-borne vibration impacts, as shown in Table 4.12.C. The criteria account for variation in project types as well as the frequency of events, which differ widely among projects. It is logical that when there will be fewer events per day, it should take higher vibration levels to evoke the same community response. This is accounted for in the criteria by distinguishing between projects with frequent and infrequent events, in which the term "frequent events" is defined as more than 70 events per day. Table 4.12.C: Ground-Borne Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise Impact Criteria for General Assessment Ground-Borne Vibration Impact Levels Ground-Borne Noise Impact (VdB re 1 vin/sec) Levels(dB re 20µ13a) Frequent Occasional Infrequent Frequent Occasional Infrequent Land Use Category Events' Events2 Events3 Events' Eventsz Events3 Category 1:Buildings where vibration would interfere with 65 VdB4 65 VdB4 65 Vd134 N/A' N/A' N/A' interior operations. Category 2:Residences and buildings where people 72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 38 dBA 43 dBA normally sleep. Category 3:Institutional land uses with primarily daytime 75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB 40 dBA 43 dBA 48 dBA use. Source:Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis(February 2018). 1 Frequent events are defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day.Most rapid transit projects fall into this category. z Occasional events are defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day.Most commuter trunk lines have this many operations. 3 Infrequent events are defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day.This category includes most commuter rail branch lines. 4 This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment,such as optical microscopes. Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels.Ensuring lower vibration levels in a building often requires special design of the HVAC systems and stiffened floors. 5 Vibration-sensitive equipment is generally not sensitive to ground-borne noise. [tin/sec=micro-inches per second FTA=Federal Transit Administration µPa=micro-Pascals HVAC =heating,ventilation,and air-conditioning dB=decibels N/A=not applicable dBA=A-weighted decibels VdB=vibration velocity decibels The criteria for environmental impact from ground-borne vibration and noise are based on the maximum levels for a single event. Table 4.12.D lists the potential vibration damage criteria associated with construction activities, as suggested in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment(FTA 2006). P:AJCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-97 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Table 4.12.D: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria PPV Building Category (inch/sec) Approximate Lv(VdB)1 Reinforced concrete,steel,or timber(no plaster) 0.50 102 Engineered concrete and masonry(no plaster) 0.30 98 Nonengineered timber and masonry buildings 0.20 94 Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 Source:Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis(February 2018). 1 RMS vibration velocity in decibels(VdB)re 1 micro-inch/second. inch/sec=inches per second RMS=root-mean-square Lv=velocity in decibels VdB=vibration velocity in decibels PPV=peak particle velocity FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 90 VdB (equivalent to 0.12 in/sec in PPV) (FTA 2006) is considered safe for buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage, and would not result in any construction vibration damage. Therefore, in order to be conservative, the 90 VdB threshold will be used for the nearest structures within the mobile home park located to the north of the project site. Existing Noise Environment The primary existing noise sources in the project area are transportation facilities, including Del Obispo Street and Alipaz Street. In addition, operational noise from adjacent uses (e.g., garden center and school playground) and periodic aircraft operations are audible on the project site. In order to assess the existing noise conditions in the area, noise measurements were conducted at the project site. Two long-term 24-hour measurements were taken from January 10, 2018, to January 12, 2018. Additionally, two short-term noise level measurements were taken near the northern and southern property lines of the project site. The location of the noise measurements are shown on Figure 4.12.1 and the results are summarized in Table 4.12.E. Vehicular Traffic Noise. In addition to the existing noise level measurements, the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77-108) was used to identify traffic-related noise impacts from the roadway segments in the project vicinity. Existing traffic volumes in the Traffic Impact Analysis (LSA 2018) prepared for the proposed project were used to assess the existing traffic noise impacts. A typical vehicle mix for Southern California was also used. 4-98 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» `,'-'�\'•r'� � C f'*� �~ �, ^ Orr '�.,;�J' ♦ '.r' �.T=`i,M1'f r :� � �r r 1 � +1 PROJECT SITE � '��' •�.,�s� - i ■. J '•• �.y�i��_,.... � -' •,fir� _•;:. �° � ,�rj. • '�. ti �. ��+r "' •� .+re• Mfr' � 7e �. LSA LEGEND FIGURE 4.12.1 —•— Project Boundary Monitoring Locations N 0 150 300 The Farm Specific Plan FEET SOURCE:Google Earth Noise Monitoring Locations I:\JCA1703\G\Noise Monitoring Locations.cdr(1/26/2018) THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 This page intentionally left blank 4-100 P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx((03/02/18)) INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA Table 4.12.E: Existing Noise Level Measurements Daytime Evening Nighttime Average Noise Noise Noise Daily Noise Location Levelsl Levels2 Levels3 Levels Primary Noise Number Location Description (dBA Leq) (dBA Leq) (dBA Leq) (dBA CNEL) Sources Traffic on Del Obispo Near Armstrong Garden Street,aircraft, LT-1 Centers,32382 Del Obispo 54.6-61.9 57.6-60.5 55.0-61.0 64.4 garden center Street (occasional),school playground(faint) School playground, Near Kinoshita traffic on Del Obispo LT-2 Elementary School,2 Via 50.2-59.4 50.9-56.2 46.5-57.9 59.6 Street and Alipaz Positiva Street,school intercom,aircraft Western Property Line,50 ST-14 feet from Del Obispo 55.4-62.7 58.4-61.3 55.9-61.8 65.2 Traffic on Del Obispo Street,Slightly North ofStreet Via Pimienta Intersection Traffic on Alipaz ST-24 Northeastern corner of 56.4-63.7 59.4-62.3 56.9-62.8 66.2 Street,lawn Project Site equipment from apartment complex Source:Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis(February 2018) ' Daytime Noise Levels=noise levels during the hours of 7:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m. Z Evening Noise Levels=noise levels during the hours of 7:00 p.m.to 10:00 p.m. 3 Nighttime Noise Levels=noise levels during the hours of 10:00 p.m.to 7:00 a.m. 4 Hourly noise levels were calculated based on a 15-minute short-term measurement and then adjusting it to the pattern of the nearest long-term measurement dBA=A-weighted decibels ft=feet 1-5=Interstate 5 Leq=equivalent continuous sound level P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» 4-101 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Table 4.12.E provides the traffic noise levels along the roadways in the study area under existing conditions. These noise levels represent the worst-case scenario, which assumes that no shielding is provided between the traffic and where the noise contours are drawn. Table 4.12.F: Existing Traffic Noise Levels Centerline to Centerline to Centerline to CNEL(dBA)50 Feet 70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL from Centerline of Roadway Segment ADT (ft) (ft) (ft) Outermost Lane Ortega Hwy from 1-5 NB Ramps to 1-5 SB 40,800 75 134 274 67.5 Ramps Ortega Hwy from 1-5 SB Ramps to Del 36,900 <50 78 152 64.2 Obispo Ortega Hwy from Del Obispo to EI 11,700 <50 <50 71 60.3 Camino Real Ortega Hwy from EI Camino Real to 7,100 <50 <50 <50 58.2 Camino Capistrano Del Obispo St from Ortega to Camino 28,100 <50 101 212 67.2 Capistrano Del Obispo St from Camino Capistrano 33,400 62 115 239 67.2 to Paseo Adelanto Del Obispo St from Paseo Adelanto to 31,500 <50 111 230 67.0 Alipaz Del Obispo St from Aguacate to Calle 16,500 <50 71 149 65.3 Aspero Del Obispo St from Calle Aspero to 16,100 <50 86 182 66.6 Project Driveway Del Obispo St from Project Driveway to 15,500 <50 84 177 66.4 Via Vermeulen Del Obispo St from Via Vermeulen to 16,700 <50 89 187 66.3 Camino Del Avion Alipaz St from Del Obispo to Via Positiva 10,600 <50 66 138 64.8 Alipaz St from Via Positiva to Camino Del 7,200 <50 <50 106 63.6 Avion Via Positiva from Alipaz to Project 2,400 <50 <50 <50 54.5 Driveway Via Positiva from Project Driveway to 1,900 <50 <50 <50 53.5 Camino Del Avion Camino Capistrano from Ortega to Del 14,600 <50 <50 81 61.8 Obispo Source:Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis(February 2018) Note:Traffic noise within 50 ft of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site-specific information. dBA=A-weighted decibels ft=foot/feet ADT=average daily traffic CNEL=Community Noise Equivalent Level 4-102 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA Sensitive Land Uses in the Project Vicinity. Certain land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others. Examples of these include residential areas, educational facilities, hospitals, childcare facilities, and senior housing. The project site is surrounded primarily by residential development with the nearest residential uses immediately adjacent to the north and west. The areas adjacent to the project site include the following uses: • Northeast: Religious (Church) and mobile home residential development • East: Multifamily residential uses • South: Elementary school, sports park and agricultural uses • West: Commercial and single-family uses The nearest sensitive residential uses are within the mobile home development adjacent to the northeast property line of the project site. Aircraft Noise. Based on a review of the John Wayne Airport (JWA) Noise Contour Maps (2016), noise impacts related to aircraft operations from JWA (i.e., a commercial airport located approximately 17 miles northwest of the project site) may contribute to the aircraft noise in the project area. However, the project site is not in a flight pattern area (i.e., takeoff or landing) for any airports;therefore,JWA aircraft noise is from private planes or high altitude overflight. Impact Analysis: (a) Would the project result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts. Project construction would result in short-term noise and vibration impacts on the adjacent sensitive land uses identified above. Maximum construction noise impacts would be short-term, generally intermittent depending on the construction phase, and variable depending on receiver distance from the active construction zone. The duration of impacts generally would be from one day to several days depending on the phase of construction. The level and types of impacts that would occur during construction are described below. Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction of the proposed project. The first type of short-term construction noise would result from transport of construction equipment and materials to the project site and construction worker commutes. These transportation activities would incrementally raise noise levels on access roads leading to the site. It is expected that larger trucks used in equipment delivery would generate higher noise impacts than trucks associated with worker commutes. The single-event noise from equipment trucks passing at a distance of 50 feet from a sensitive noise receptor would reach a maximum level of 84 dBA Lmax. However, the pieces of heavy equipment for grading and construction activities would be moved on site just one time and would remain on site for the duration of each construction phase. This one-time trip, when heavy construction equipment is moved on P:AJCA17O3\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx aO3/02/18» 4-103 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 and off site, would not add to the daily traffic noise in the project vicinity. The total number of daily vehicle trips would be minimal when compared to existing traffic volumes on the affected streets, and the long-term noise level change associated with these trips would not be perceptible. Therefore, equipment transport noise and construction-related worker commute impacts would be short term and would not result in a significant off-site noise impact. The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving on the project site. Construction is undertaken in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment, and consequently its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the project site. Therefore, the noise levels vary as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table G lists the maximum noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments for typical construction equipment based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 to 2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 to 4 minutes at lower power settings. Table 4.12.G:Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Equipment Description Acoustical Usage Factor(%) Maximum Noise Level(Lmax)at 50 Feet Backhoes 40 80 Compactor(ground) 20 80 Compressor 40 80 Cranes 16 85 Dozers 40 85 Dump Trucks 40 84 Excavators 40 85 Flat Bed Trucks 40 84 Forklift 20 85 Front-end Loaders 40 80 Graders 40 85 Impact Pile Drivers2 20 95 Jackhammers 20 85 Pick-up Truck 40 55 Pneumatic Tools 50 85 Pumps 50 77 Rock Drills 20 85 Rollers 20 85 Scrapers 40 85 Tractors 40 84 Welder 40 73 Source:Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis(February 2018) Note:Noise levels reported in this table are rounded to the nearest whole number. Maximum noise levels were developed based on Spec 721.560 from the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) program to be consistent with the City of Boston's Noise Code for the"Big Dig"project. Z Pile driving activities are not considered typical and are not proposed as part of the project. I-_=maximum instantaneous sound level 4-104 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA Typical noise levels range up to 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet during the noisiest construction phases. The site preparation phase,which includes excavation and grading of the site,tends to generate the highest noise levels because earthmoving equipment is the noisiest construction equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery (e.g., backfillers, bulldozers, draglines, and front loaders) and compacting equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings. Based on the information in Table 4.12.G, the maximum noise level generated by each grader on the proposed project site is assumed to be 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from the scraper. Each tractor would generate 84 dBA Lmax at 50 feet.The combination of this equipment,taking into account the usage factor of each piece of equipment, would result in a combined noise level of 81 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet from the construction area. Table 4.12.1-1 shows the uses that surround the project site, their distance from construction activities and noise levels expected during construction when activities occur at the nearest edge of construction. These noise level projections do not take into account intervening topography or barriers. Table 4.12.1-11: Potential Construction Noise Impacts Receptor(Location) Distance(feet) Nosie Level(dBA Leq) Del Obispo Terrace Senior Living(Northeast) 245 67 Mariners Church/Heart Christian Academy(Northeast) 125 73 Rancho Alipaz Mobile Home Development(Northeast) 20 89 Valle Pacifica Condominiums(East) 130 73 The Ecology Center(South) 1,000 55 Kinoshita Elementary School(Southwest) 250 67 Armstrong Garden Centers(West) 25 87 Single-Family Homes—Via Angelica(West) 400 63 Source:Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis(February 2018). dBA Leq=average A-weighted hourly noise level It is expected that noise levels during construction at the nearest residences would approach 89 dBA Leq and noise levels would approach 73 dBA Leq at the nearest educational uses. Although construction-related noise impacts would remain below the 90 dBA Leq 1-hour construction noise level criteria as established by the FTA, due to the proximity of these sensitive uses to the project site, the proposed project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure NOI-1. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 outlines best management practices to be implemented on site, such as equipping construction equipment with properly operating noise mufflers and locating construction staging areas away from off-site sensitive uses. In addition, the proposed project will be required to comply with the construction hours specified in the City's Noise Ordinance, which states that construction activities are allowed between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday P:AJCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-105 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 through Friday and from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Saturday. No construction shall be permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays and federal holidays. Although project construction noise has the potential to be higher than ambient noise in the project vicinity at times, it would cease to occur once project construction is completed. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would reduce potentially significant noise impacts during project construction to a less than significant level. Long-Term Off-Site Traffic Noise Impacts. The FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77-108) was used to evaluate traffic-related noise conditions in the vicinity of the project site. This model requires various parameters, including traffic volumes, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute typical equivalent noise levels during daytime, evening, and nighttime hours. The resultant noise levels are weighted and summed over 24-hour periods to determine the CNEL values. The existing and future traffic volumes along the roadways analyzed in the study area were obtained from the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project (LSA, February 2018). Tables 4.12.1 and 4.12.J list the existing and future traffic noise levels for roadway segments in the project vicinity. These noise levels represent worst-case scenarios, which assume that no shielding is provided between the traffic and the location where the noise contours are drawn. Tables 4.12.1 through 4.12.J show that project-related traffic would have mostly small (0.9 dBA or less) noise level increases along roadway segments in the project vicinity for the existing and future buildout year (Year 2040) scenarios. All roadway segments would have less than perceptible traffic noise level increases under both the Existing Plus Project and Buildout (Year 2022) scenarios. Since this range of traffic noise level increases in the outdoor environment would not be perceptible to the human ear and because it occurs gradually over a period of time, no significant off-site traffic noise impacts from project-related traffic would occur. Therefore, off-site traffic noise impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Long-Term On-Site Traffic Noise Impacts. The proposed on-site residential uses would be exposed to traffic noise impacts primarily from Del Obispo Street and Alipaz Street, both located adjacent to the project site, as well as minor noise impacts from other surrounding properties and streets. Although CEQA does not generally require an analysis of the effects of the environment on the project,the following analysis is provided to disclose noise levels that would be experienced by future residents. Based on the noise levels presented in Table 4.12.K, the 65 dBA CNEL contour from Del Obispo Street extends 94 feet from the roadway centerline and the 65 dBA CNEL contour from Alipaz Street extends 76 feet from the roadway centerline. These distances extend the 65 dBA CNEL contour into the project site. Although the specific lot locations have yet to be designed, the project Applicant would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure NOI-2, which requires installation of noise barriers, in the event that residential backyards are located within the 65 dBA CNEL contours. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would reduce on site traffic noise impacts to a less than significant level. 4-106 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA Table 4.12.1: Existing Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Project Existing Without Project(Baseline) Existing With Project Increase over CNEL(dBA) CNEL(dBA) Baseline CNEL Centerline Centerline Centerline 50 feet from Centerline Centerline Centerline 50 feet from (dBA)50 feet to 70 dBA to 65 dBA to 60 dBA Centerline of to 70 dBA to 65 dBA to 60 dBA Centerline of from Centerline CNEL CNEL CNEL Outermost Change CNEL CNEL CNEL Outermost of Outermost Roadway Segment ADT (ft) (ft) (ft) Lane ADT in ADT (ft) (ft) (ft) Lane Lane Ortega Hwy from 1-5 NB Ramps to 1-5 SB Ramps 40,775 75 134 273 67.5 41,115 340 76 135 275 67.5 0.0 Ortega Hwy from 1-5 SB Ramps to Del Obispo 36,849 <50 78 152 64.2 37,410 561 <50 78 154 64.2 0.0 Ortega Hwy from Del Obispo to EI Camino Real 11,701 <50 <50 71 60.3 11,701 1 0 <50 <50 1 71 60.3 0.0 Ortega Hwy from EI Camino Real to Camino Capistrano 7,085 <50 <50 <50 58.2 7,085 0 <50 <50 <50 58.2 0.0 Del Obispo St from Ortega to Camino Capistrano 28,068 <50 101 212 67.2 28,629 561 <50 102 215 67.3 0.1 Del Obispo St from Camino Capistrano to Paseo Adelanto 33,343 62 115 238 67.2 33,904 561 63 116 241 67.3 0.1 Del Obispo St from Paseo Adelanto to Alipaz 31,436 <50 111 229 66.9 32,150 714 <50 113 233 67.0 0.1 Del Obispo St from Aguacate to Calle Aspero 16,417 <50 71 148 65.3 16,842 425 <50 72 151 65.4 0.1 Del Obispo St from Calle Aspero to Project Driveway 16,015 <50 86 181 66.6 16,508 493 <50 87 185 66.7 0.1 Del Obispo St from Project Driveway to Via Vermeulen 15,491 <50 84 177 66.4 16,001 510 <50 85 181 66.6 0.2 Del Obispo St from Via Vermeulen to Camino Del Avion 16,644 <50 89 186 66.3 17,154 510 <50 91 190 66.5 0.2 Alipaz St from Del Obispo to Via Positiva 10,598 <50 66 138 64.8 11,091 493 <50 68 142 65.0 0.2 Alipaz St from Via Positiva to Camino Del Avion 7,151 <50 <50 106 63.6 7,151 0 <50 <50 106 63.6 0.0 Via Positiva from Alipaz to Project Driveway 2,342 <50 <50 <50 54.4 2,835 493 <50 <50 <50 55.3 0.9 Via Positiva from Project Driveway to Camino Del Avion 1,810 <50 <50 <50 53.3 2,014 204 <50 <50 <50 53.8 0.5 Camino Capistrano from Ortega to Del Obispo 14,508 <50 <50 81 61.8 14,576 68 <50 <50 81 61.8 0.0 Source:Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis(February 2018) Note:Traffic noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site-specific information. ADT=average daily traffic 1-5=Interstate 5 CNEL=Community Noise Equivalent Level NB=northbound dBA=A-weighted decibels SB=southbound ft=foot/feet P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» 4-107 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Table 4.12.1: Buildout Year Traffic Noise Levels Without and With Project Buildout Year Without Project Buildout Year With Project Increase over CNEL(dBA) CNEL(dBA) Baseline CNEL Centerline Centerline Centerline 50 feet from Centerline Centerline Centerline 50 feet from (dBA)50 feet to 70 dBA to 65 dBA to 60 dBA Centerline of to 70 dBA to 65 dBA to 60 dBA Centerline of from Centerline CNEL CNEL CNEL Outermost Change in CNEL CNEL CNEL Outermost of Outermost Roadway Segment ADT (ft) (ft) (ft) Lane ADT ADT (ft) (ft) (ft) Lane Lane Ortega Hwy from 1-5 NB Ramps to 1-5 SB Ramps 48,700 81 149 307 68.3 49,040 340 81 149 308 68.3 0.0 Ortega Hwy from 1-5 SB Ramps to Del Obispo 43,048 <50 84 168 64.8 43,609 561 <50 85 169 64.9 0.1 Ortega Hwy from Del Obispo to EI Camino Real 15,196 <50 <50 84 61.5 15,196 0 <50 <50 84 1 61.5 0.0 Ortega Hwy from EI Camino Real to Camino 8,963 <50 <50 61 59.2 8,963 0 <50 <50 61 59.2 0.0 Capistrano Del Obispo St from Ortega to Camino 30,973 <50 107 226 67.6 31,534 561 <50 108 229 67.7 0.1 Capistrano Del Obispo St from Camino Capistrano to Paseo 38,133 66 125 260 67.8 38,694 561 67 126 263 67.8 0.0 Adelanto Del Obispo St from Paseo Adelanto to Alipaz 35,775 64 120 250 67.5 36,489 714 65 122 253 67.6 0.1 Del Obispo St from Aguacate to Calle Aspero 18,866 <50 77 163 65.9 19,291 425 <50 78 165 66.0 0.1 Del Obispo St from Calle Aspero to Project 18,140 <50 93 197 67.1 18,633 493 <50 94 200 67.2 0.1 Driveway Del Obispo St from Project Driveway to Via 17,427 <50 90 191 67.0 17,936 509 <50 92 195 67.1 0.1 Vermeulen Del Obispo St from Via Vermeulen to Camino 18,580 <50 95 200 66.8 19,089 509 <50 97 204 66.9 0.1 Del Avion Alipaz St from Del Obispo to Via Positiva 12,799 <50 74 156 65.6 13,291 492 <50 76 160 65.8 0.2 Alipaz St from Via Positiva to Camino Del Avion 7,979 <50 54 114 64.1 7,979 0 <50 54 114 64.1 0.0 Via Positiva from Alipaz to Project Driveway 2,401 1 <50 1 <50 1 <50 1 54.5 1 2,894 1 493 1 <50 1 <50 1 <50 1 55.3 1 0.8 Via Positiva from Project Driveway to Camino 1,855 <50 <50 <50 53.4 2,059 204 <50 <50 <50 53.9 0.5 Del Avion Camino Capistrano from Ortega to Del Obispo 16,743 <50 <50 88 62.4 16,811 68 <50 <50 89 62.4 0.0 Source:Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis(February 2018) Note:Traffic noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline should be evaluated with site-specific information. ADT=average daily traffic 1-5=Interstate 5 CNEL=Community Noise Equivalent Level NB=northbound dBA=A-weighted decibels SB=southbound ft=foot/feet 4-108 P:\1CA1703\CELLA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx((03/02/18)) INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA Long-Term On-Site Stationary Noise Impacts. Long-term noise measurements taken for the proposed project indicated that hourly noise level impacts from the existing commercial uses adjacent southwest of the project site, which are open during daytime hours, would approach 62 dBA Leq.This hourly noise level would not exceed the City's exterior noise level standard of 65 dBA Leq for residential uses during daytime hours.Therefore, no on-site stationary noise impacts would occur, and no mitigation would be required. Long-Term On-Site Interior Noise Impacts. Based on the EPA's Protective Noise Levels (EPA 1978),interior noise levels are expected to be reduced by 12 dBA from exterior noise levels with windows and doors open and with standard building construction; a reduction of 25 dBA can be expected with windows closed and standard dual-pane windows. Although all future residential units on-site be located outside the 70 dBA CNEL contours, which fall within the right-of-way of the adjacent roadways, the project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure N0I- 3. Specifically, Mitigation Measure N0I-3 requires preparation of a final acoustical memorandum to confirm air conditioning is installed in future residences so that windows can remain closed for prolonged periods of time, and that standard building reductions are achieved. Implementation of standard building construction consisting of wall construction with a minimum rating of STC-46, standard dual-pane windows, and central air conditioning so that windows can remain closed (as required in Mitigation Measure N0I-3), would ensure that all residences would experience noise levels less than 45 dBA CNEL. Therefore, long-term on-site interior noise impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-3. Mitigation Measures: NOI-1: Construction Noise Practices. Prior to issuance of building permits, the City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Director, or designee, shall verify that grading and construction plans include the following requirements: • Construction activities occurring as part of the project shall be subject to the limitations and requirements of the City Municipal Code, which states that construction activities shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, and from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Saturdays. No outdoor noise-generating construction activity is allowed on Sundays or on federal holidays. • Ensure that the greatest distance between noise sources and sensitive receptors during construction activities has been achieved. • During all project area excavation and on-site grading, the project contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards. • The project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project area whenever feasible. P:AJCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» 4-109 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 • Construction staging areas shall be located as far away from sensitive receptors as possible during all phases of construction. • The construction contractor shall use on-site electrical sources to power equipment rather than diesel generators whenever feasible. N0I-2: Noise Barriers. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Director, or designee, shall ensure that project plans include perimeter noise barrier walls for residential outdoor areas (including private backyards) within 94 feet Del Obispo Street and 76 feet of Alipaz Street. N0I-3: Final Acoustical Memorandum. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Applicant shall submit a final acoustical memorandum for review and approval by the City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Director, or designee, to confirm that central air conditioning is incorporated into project plans and that standard building noise reductions shall be achieved. The memorandum shall calculate the exterior-to-interior noise reduction which will account for the specific window and glass door sizes and types to confirm interior noise level standard are less than 45 A-weighted decibels (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). (b) Would the project result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. Construction. Ground-borne noise and vibration from construction activity would be mostly low to moderate. While there is currently limited information regarding vibration source levels, to provide a comparison of vibration levels expected for a project of this size, a small bulldozer would generate approximately 58 VdB of ground-borne vibration when measured at 25 feet, based on the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006). As shown in Table 4.12.C, it would take a minimum of 90 VdB (or 0.12 in/sec PPV) to cause any potential building damage to structures extremely susceptible to vibration damage. The closest structures to the project site are the mobile homes to the northeast. These structures are within 25 feet of the project construction area limits. Utilizing information from the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 20016), the operation of typical construction equipment would generate ground-borne vibration levels of 61 VdB; however, those levels would not exceed the 90 VdB guideline that is considered safe for fragile buildings. Additionally, this level of ground-borne vibration is well below the threshold of distinctly perceptible, which is approximately 72 VdB for frequent events at uses where people sleep. Therefore, ground-borne vibration generated by the proposed project would not result in any vibration damage and impacts and would not exceed the FTA vibration threshold for human annoyance at the nearest sensitive use. Impacts associated with construction vibration would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. 4-110 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA Operation. Because the rubber tires and suspension systems of buses and other on-road vehicles provide vibration isolation and reduce noise, it is unusual for on-road vehicles to cause ground-borne noise or vibration. When on-road vehicles cause such effects as the rattling of windows, the source is almost always airborne noise. Most problems with on-road vehicle- related noise and vibration can be directly related to a pothole, bump, expansion joint, or other discontinuity in the road surface. Smoothing the bump or filling the pothole will usually solve the problem. The proposed project would have roads with smooth pavement and would not result in significant ground-borne noise or vibration impacts from vehicular traffic. Therefore, long-term ground-borne noise and vibration impacts from vehicular traffic generated by the project would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (c) Would the project cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than Significant Impact. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels would occur if the project would cause noise levels to increase by 3 dBA or more. As discussed in Section 4.12 (a) and as illustrated in Tables 4.12.h and 4.12.1, neither the long-term traffic nor stationary noise sources would cause an increase in ambient noise levels of more than 3 dBA at sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, impacts related to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (d) Would the project cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section 4.12 (a), implementation of the proposed project would include construction activities that would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project site vicinity above levels existing without the project, but would no longer occur once construction is completed. Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity are as close as 20 feet from proposed construction areas. Compliance with the hours specified in the City's Municipal Code regarding construction activities, as well as implementation of Mitigation Measure 1\10I-1, would reduce construction noise impacts on adjacent noise-sensitive land uses. Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure 1\10I-1, above. (e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less than Significant Impact.The project is approximately 17 miles north of John Wayne Airport (SNA). Due to the distance of the airport from the project site, noise-related impacts due to airport activities would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-111 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 (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? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The closest private airport and emergency heliports to the project site are located at or nearby John Wayne Airport, which itself is located 17 miles from the project site. Therefore, because there is no private airstrip within the vicinity of the project site, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No mitigation would be required. 4-112 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses)or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ❑ ❑ ❑ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Impact Analysis: (a) Would the project 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)? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction. Construction of the proposed project would provide short-term construction- related jobs over a period of 2.5 years. Many of the construction jobs would be temporary or seasonal and would be specific to the variety of construction activities. The workforce would include a variety of craftspeople, such as cement finishers, ironworkers, welders, carpenters, electricians, painters, and laborers. Generally, construction workers are only at a job site for the timeframe in which their specific skills are needed to complete that phase of construction. Although the proposed project would increase the number of employees at the project site during construction activities, it is expected that local and regional construction workers would be available to serve the proposed project's construction needs. Project-related construction workers would not be expected to relocate their household's place of residence as a consequence of working on the proposed project; therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact associated with inducing substantial population growth or demand for housing through increased construction employment, and no mitigation would be required. Operation. The Specific Plan would allow for the development of up to 180 single-family residential units on the site, which may slightly increase the residential population in the City. According to the California Department of Finance City/Population and Housing Estimates (January 2017), the average number of persons per dwelling unit in the City is 3.09 persons per unit. Based on the City's average occupancy rate of 3.09 persons per unit, the proposed project would introduce a maximum of approximately 557 persons32 into the project area. The addition 32 180 dwelling units* 3.09 persons=556.2 P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-113 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 of 557 new residents would be approximately 1.6 percent of the 2010 population of 34,593,33 1.5 percent of the 2016 population of 36,006,34 and 1.4 percent of the projected 2040 population of 39,500.35 Therefore, the increase in population resulting from the proposed project is not considered significant because it only consists of a small portion of the total population of the City and does not represent a substantial increase in population. In addition, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment Allocation Plan (RHNA), mandated by the California State Housing Element law, to be included as part of the process of updating local housing elements of the General Plan, has quantified a range of housing needs by income groups for each jurisdiction during specific planning periods. According to the City's 2014-2021 General Plan Housing Element, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has established an RHNA goal for the City to develop 638 new housing units by the year 2021. Of these 638 units, 147 would be set aside for Extremely Low/Very Low Income groups, 104 units for Low Income Groups, 120 for Moderate Income Groups, and 267 for Above Moderate Groups. The proposed project would allow for the development of 180 new market-rate housing units on the project site, which would help to meet the City's current housing needs and RHNA goal. Additionally, the project site is bordered on all sides by educational, religious, agri-business, public facility, retail, and residential uses. The project does not propose to expand any surrounding utility infrastructure in the project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth through the extension of roads or other infrastructure. Therefore, potential impacts related to substantial inducement of population growth, either directly or indirectly, would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. As previously stated, the Specific Plan would allow for the development of the currently vacant project site with up to 180 single-family residential units. Therefore, the project would not result in a loss of housing nor require or necessitate the development of replacement housing elsewhere. No mitigation would be required. 33 United States Census Bureau. DP-1 Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics:2010. Website: https:Hfactfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF (accessed December 13, 2017). 34 United States Census Bureau. D1305 ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates.: 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.Website: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/ jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF(accessed December 13,2017). 35 Southern California Association of Governments,2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, Demographics and Growth Forecast,Table 11 Jurisdictional Forecast.April 2016. http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS_Demogra phicsGrowthForecast.pdf(accessed December 13, 2017). 4-114 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA (c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Refer to Section 4.13 (b). Project implementation would not displace any existing housing or persons, and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No people would be displaced as a result of project implementation, and no mitigation would be required. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-1155 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire Protection? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ii) Police Protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ iii) Schools? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ iv) Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ v) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Impact Analysis: (a) (i). Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or 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 fire protection? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Fire protection services would be provided to the proposed project by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). OCFA is a Joint Powers Authority responsible for reducing loss of life and property due to fire, medical, and environmental emergencies. The OCFA is a regional fire service agency that serves 23 cities in Orange County (County) and all unincorporated areas in the County. The OCFA protects over 1,680,000 residents from its 71 fire stations located throughout the County.36 In addition, OCFA Reserve Firefighters operate 10 stations throughout the County. The City is located in Division III, which includes Battalions 6 and 7, and serves the Cities of San Juan Capistrano, Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente, and Dana Point, and the communities of Coto de Caza, Las Flores, and Ladera Ranch.37 Fire Station No. 7 is the only OCFA station located in the City. Located at 31865 Del Obispo Street, San Juan Capistrano (approximately 1.2 miles east of the project site), Fire Station No. 7 would be the first to the project site in the event of an emergency, and would be the "first-in" station. Station No. 7 is staffed by three captains, three engineers, nine firefighters, and reserve firefighters. 36 Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). About Us. Website: http://www.ocfa.org/aboutus/Overview/ (accessed December 19, 2017). 37 OCFA. Operations Division 6. Website: http://www.ocfa.org/aboutus/Departments/OperationsDirectory/ Division3.aspx(accessed December 19,2017). 4-116 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA "Second call" stations are fire stations that support the "first-in" station. Fire Station No. 49 would be designated as the "second call" station to support Fire Station No. 7. Fire Station No. 49 is located at 31461 Golden Lantern Street, Laguna Niguel, approximately 3 miles northwest of the project site. Station No.49 is staffed by three captains, three engineers, and six firefighters. The OCFA's goals for emergency response are to respond to 80 percent of emergency calls within 7 minutes and 20 seconds, from the receipt of the call to arriving at the scene of the call, and to respond to 80 percent of calls for paramedics within 10 minutes, from receipt of the call to arriving on the scene of the call. The project site is not located within a High Fire Hazard Zone according to the Fire Hazards Area Map in the City's General Plan Public Safety Element (2002), nor is the site located within a Special Fire Protection Area or Fire Hazard Severity Zone on the Statewide Cal Fire Map for the Los Angeles Region.38 Construction. As discussed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, temporary lane closures could restrict access for emergency vehicles during project construction. Therefore, Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, which requires that a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) be prepared for the proposed project, is required to ensure that emergency vehicles would be able to navigate through streets adjacent to the project site that may experience congestion due to construction activities. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, potential impacts related to fire protection services during project construction would be less than significant. Operation. The proposed project would allow for the development of a residential community on the site, which would increase the number of on-site residents and visitors. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable building code requirements requiring fire protection devices, such as sprinklers, alarms per the California Fire Code (CFC) (Municipal Code Section 8-10.01 [Adoption of the 2016 California Fire Code]), adequately spaced fire hydrants, and fire access lanes. As required by Standard Condition PSU-1, prior to the issuance of building permits, approval of the final plans (including all fire prevention and suppression systems) by the OCFA is required. As part of this approval, the project Applicant must demonstrate that the OCFA requirement for fire hydrant flow can be met with at least a 20 pound per square inch (psi) residual on the project site. As such, Standard Condition PSU-2 requires the Applicant to perform a fire hydrant flow test on the existing water system in the vicinity of the proposed project in order to verify available flow and pressure in the existing system. Compliance with Standard Conditions PSU-1 and PSU-2 would ensure that adequate fire flow pressures are provided to the proposed project. In the event that the fire hydrant flow test indicates that infrastructure improvements are required to meet the required fire flow for the project, the Applicant would be required to pay the appropriate share of any required improvements. Improvements may include connections to the existing City-owned water lines in Del Obispo Street and Via Positiva. New utility 38 CalFire. Orange County Fire Hazard Severity Zones. October 2011. Website: http://www.fire.ca.gov/ fire_prevention/fhsz_maps/FHSZ/orange/c30_SanJuanCapistrano_vhfhsz.pdf (accessed December 13, 2017). P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-117 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 connections to existing utilities in Del Obispo Street and Via Positiva would be similar to typical repair operations at existing facilities. During any required improvements on these roadways, the project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires implementation of a Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan to reduce potential traffic impacts associated with temporary lane closures on roadways within the project vicinity during infrastructure improvements and utility connections. Adherence to applicable codes would decrease the demand for fire services and ensure that there is adequate emergency access on site.As discussed in Section 4.16,Transportation/Traffic, the proposed project would not result in a significant unavoidable impact to any study area intersections or roadway segments. As such, traffic from the proposed project would not contribute to or result in a substantial increase in response times for fire or emergency vehicles. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not trigger the need for new or altered fire protection facilities, and no mitigation would be required. As stated above, the proposed project would be designed to comply with all Fire Department access requirements and California Fire Code requirements, would not impair emergency response vehicles or increase response times, and would not substantially increase calls for service, thereby triggering the need for new or altered facilities. No mitigation would be required. Mitigation Measures: Please refer to Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. In addition, refer to Standard Conditions PSU-1 and PSU-2, below. Standard Conditions: PSU-1: Secured Fire Protection Agreement. Prior to the approval of any Tentative Tract Map (TTM), the Applicant shall submit a Secured Fire Protection Agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) to the City of San Juan Capistrano's (City) Development Services Director, or designee. This Agreement shall specify the Applicant's pro-rata fair share funding and payment thereof for capital improvements necessary to establish adequate fire protection facilities and equipment, and/or personnel. PSU-2: Fire Hydrant Flow Test. Prior to the approval of any TTM, the Applicant shall perform a fire hydrant flow test on the existing water system in the vicinity of the proposed project in order to demonstrate that the OCFA requirement for fire hydrant flow can be met with at least a 20 pound per square inch (psi) residual on the project site. The fire flow results shall be incorporated into the hydraulic modeling of the existing water system plus the proposed project's on-site public water system. The hydraulic modeling shall be performed in accordance with the guidelines and standards of the City's Water Utilities Department and shall be submitted for approval to the Director of the City's Water Utilities Department, or designee. 4-118 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA The Applicant shall pay the proposed project's appropriate share of any improvements required to provide the necessary increase of flow and pressure to the water system so that the fire flow requirements will be met. (a) (ii). Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or 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 police protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The City contracts with the Orange County Sheriff's Department (OCSD) for police protection services. OCSD provides 24-hour contract law enforcement services to the City. The OCSD Police Services Station, located at 32506 Paseo Adelanto in San Juan Capistrano, approximately 1.3 miles east of the project site, also serves the City. OCSD's Aliso Viejo Station, located at 11 Journey in Aliso Viejo, approximately 9 miles northwest of the project site, serves the City. OCSD embraces the concept of Community-Oriented Policing, which encompasses the active participation of local government, civic and business leaders, residents, schools, churches, and other public and private agencies. In total, 28 OCSD personnel are assigned to the City, including one lieutenant, four sergeants, two investigators, and 21 sheriff's deputies.39 The City's staffing level is based on response times and crime rates. At the present time, OCSD maintains a staffing ratio of approximately one sworn officer for every 1,300 residents in the City.40 The City's staffing levels are based on response times and crime rates in the City. Emergency calls receive the quickest response, with alarm calls and non-emergency calls having longer response times. Response times for the City for both Priority 1 (i.e., red light/siren) and Priority 2 (i.e., urgent, no lights/siren) are 3.47 minutes and 6.76 minutes, respectively. OCSD services include staffing for calls for service, patrol, traffic enforcement, investigations, and specialized enforcement activities (e.g., Red Light Camera system duty). Sherriff services, including homicide, sex, and economic crime investigations, are also supplied to the City. OCSD also maintains mutual aid agreements with surrounding contracted Sherriff's cities, which supply manpower and resources during emergency events. Police protection services are expanded in the City consistent with community needs. The ongoing-operations of OCSD in the City are primarily funded from the City's General Fund, which receives revenue from property taxes, transit taxes, and other sources. The City utilizes part of this revenue to increase police staffing on an as needed basis. Construction. Construction of the proposed project is not expected to have any adverse impacts on existing police protection services. Therefore, impacts related to the provision of police 39 City of San Juan Capistrano. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study for the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints Meetinghouse Project.September 2017. 40 28 officers/36,006 (2016 population)=approximately 1 officer per 1,300 persons. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-119 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 protection for the construction of the proposed project would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Operation. As previously stated in Section 4.13, Population and Housing, the proposed project would increase the City's population up to 557 residents. When considered with the existing population, the project-related population increase would have a less than significant impact on OCSD's ratio of one police officer for every 1,300 residents. Additional property tax revenue generated by implementation of the proposed project would also contribute to the City's General Fund, which could be allocated to fund additional police services. Therefore, the increase in population associated with the proposed project would be minimal compared to the number of police officers currently employed by the City, and would not trigger the need for new or physically altered police facilities. Although the project would incrementally contribute to the demand to additional police protection services, impacts to police services would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (a) (iii). Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or 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 schools? Less Than Significant Impact. The provision of education and school facilities in the City is the responsibility of the Capistrano Unified School District (CUSD). The CUSD currently serves approximately 54,000 students in grades kindergarten through 12.41 The CUSD's boundaries encompass all or part of the Cities of San Clemente, Dana Point, San Juan Capistrano, Laguna Niguel, Aliso Viejo, Mission Viejo and Rancho Santa Margarita, and the communities of Las Flores, Coto de Caza, Dove Canyon, Ladera Ranch, Sendero/Rancho Mission Viejo, and Wagon Wheel. Construction. Overall, short-term construction activities would not impact enrollment related to public schools and are not expected to have any adverse impacts on the existing CUSD operation because traffic due to construction would not result in significant unavoidable impacts to study area intersections or roadway segments.42 Therefore, there would be no project construction impacts related to public schools, and no mitigation would be required. Operation. The CUSD operates 63 campuses; however, the closest elementary, middle, and high schools to the project site are Kinoshita Elementary and Del Obispo Elementary (abuts the southern boundary of the site), Marco Forster Middle (abuts the southern boundary of the site), and San Juan Hills High School (3.16 miles northeast of the site).The current student capacity for the schools nearest to the project site is shown in Table 4.14.A, Current School Capacities and Enrollment. 41 Capistrano Unified School District. District Facts.Website: http://capousd.ca.schoolloop.com/cros/ page_view?d=x&piid=&vpid=1232963501986(accessed December 21,2017). 42 Construction workers are anticipated to arrive on the site prior to 7:00 a.m. and would depart from the site between 3:30 and 6:00 p.m. 4-120 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA Table 4.14.A: Current School Capacities and Enrollment Current Current School Grade Enrollment Capacity Under Capacity Del Obispo Elementary School K-5 368 576 208 Kinoshita Elementary School K-5 590 805 215 Marco Forster Middle School 6-8 1,383 1,547 164 San Juan Hills High School 9-12 2,559 3,265 706 Sources: Written correspondence with Capistrano Unified School District, Korin Lawing, Facilities Planning Technician, January 5,2018. K=kindergarten CUSD student generation rates for single-family residential units were used to analyze the estimated students generated as a result of project implementation. Based on these generation factors, it is assumed that the 180 single-family units proposed would generate approximately 60 elementary school children, 17 middle school children, and 27 high school students. (see Table 4.14.13, Projected School Enrollment). Table 4.14.8: Projected School Enrollment Grade Levels Student Generation Factor Projected Enrollment Elementary School 0.33 students/unit 60 students Middle School 0.09 students/unit 17 students High School 0.15 students/unit 27 students Total 104 students Source: City of Laguna Niguel. 2017. SunPointe Residential Project. Draft Environmental Impact Report.April 2017.Website: http://www.cityoflaguna niguel.org/DocumentCenter/View/12686(accessed December 21,2017). Note:The projected Enrollment is based on the proposed project size of 180 detached residential units. The increase in students projected as a result of project implementation would incrementally increase the demand for school facilities. However, the project-related increase in school children would not result in the need for new or expanded school facilities given the current capacities at schools serving the project area (refer to Table 4.14.A, above). Furthermore, pursuant to California Education Code Section 17620(a)(1), the governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the boundaries of the district for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. The project Applicant would be required to pay such fees to reduce any impacts of new residential development on school services as provided in Section 65995 of the California Government Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65996, a project's impact on school facilities is fully mitigated through payment of the requisite school facility development fees current at the time a building permit is issued.The current Development Impact Fee for residential projects within the CUSD's jurisdictional boundaries is $3.48 per square foot.43 Therefore, with payment of the required fees, potential impacts to school services and facilities associated with implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. 43 Written correspondence with Capistrano Unified School District, Korin Lawing, Facilities Planning Technician,on January 5, 2018. P:AJCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-121 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 (a) (iv). Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or 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 parks? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction. Construction of the proposed project includes the creation of the proposed park and multi-use trail on the project site. The analysis of adverse physical effects of the park and trail have been incorporated into the analysis in the other sections of this IS/MND. As detailed throughout this IS/MND, construction of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts. Additionally, construction activities associated with the project would not impact nearby recreational facilities, such as the Marco Forster Athletic Fields and Sports Park. Access to these recreational facilities during project construction would be maintained throughout the construction period, and the use of these facilities is not anticipated to increase as a result of construction activities on the site. For the reasons stated above, construction of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to parks, and no mitigation would be required. Operation. As discussed in Section 4.15, Recreation, the City maintains approximately 193 acres of parks and recreational uses. Currently, the City provides 5.63 acres of park space per 1,000 residents. The closest park and recreational facilities to the project site are the Sports Park and Marco Forster Athletic Fields, which are located directly south of the project site. It is anticipated that residents on the site would utilize these facilities, along with other facilities throughout the City, for active recreational activities.44 Although it is possible that residents might use City parks for passive recreational activities, it is likely that the 0.5-acre neighborhood park and multi-use trail included as part of the project would meet the project-related demand for parks and passive recreational facilities. Additionally,the use of other parks in the City by on- site residents would not increase to a level that would result in the need for new or physically altered facilities. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to the provision of park space, and no mitigation would be required. (a) (v). Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or 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 other facilities? 44 "Active recreation" includes activities that require significant infrastructure for the purposes of active sports or organized events. Active recreation usually involves specialized parkland development and management,which may restrict general use of the parkland or facility. "Passive recreation" includes low-intensity recreational activities in open space areas of parks. Passive recreation also allows for the preservation of natural habitat and usually involves a low level of development,such as picnic areas, benches, and trails 4-122 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA Less Than Significant Impact. The Orange County Public Library (OCPL) system provides library services to the County, including the City, and includes 33 branches as well as an outlet in the Orangewood Children's Home. Some of the OCPL system branches are operated within the jurisdiction of the County's 33 cities, and some of the branches are operated within the County's unincorporated areas.45 The only OCPL system branch in the City is the San Juan Capistrano Regional Library is located at 31495 EI Camino Real, across the street from the Basilica Mission. The San Juan Capistrano Regional Library consists of a 12,000-square-foot building that holds over 45,789 volumes, CDs, and videos, and provides 23 public computers and 3 additional resource/catalogue computers. Construction. Short-term construction activities are not expected to have any adverse impacts on the existing OCPL system because there are no nearby libraries that would be impacted by construction activities. Therefore, impacts related to the provision of public libraries from construction of the proposed project would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Operation. Demand for library services is typically determined based on the size of the resident population. The Public Services & Utilities Element (1999) of the City's General Plan determines the adequacy of library services within the City according to a ratio of the resident population to the total library floor area and collection size, using the standards of 0.2 square foot of library space per capita and 1.5 books per capita. As discussed further in Section 4.13, Population and Housing, the increase in population associated with up to 180 residential units would be approximately 557 persons. Using this standard and the estimated future population 36,563 (2016 population of 36,006 persons + 557 persons), the San Juan Capistrano Regional Library would need to be 7,313 square feet in size with 54,845 books. Although the San Juan Capistrano Regional Library exceeds the standard for size with a 12,000-square-foot facility, the library would need an additional 9,056 books to meet the projected demand for library books. It should be noted that the San Juan Capistrano Library reduced the total amount of hardcopy library materials from 80,000 to 45,789 between 2014 and 2017 in an effort to eliminate outdated materials and replace select volumes with electronic copies. Due to the accessibility of online materials via the 23 public computers at the library, the replacement of the hardcopy materials with electronic copies is not considered a loss of library volumes. Furthermore, authorized by Government Code Section 66001(e), the Orange County Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 13- 062 with respect to the Development Fee program for Branch Libraries, stating that those facilities have been constructed and the fee program is no longer needed. As such, the proposed project's increase in demand on library services is incremental and would not necessitate the need for expanded library facilities, the development of which could cause a physical adverse environmental impact with respect to libraries. Therefore, the project would have less than significant impacts related to public libraries, and no mitigation would be required. 45 Orange County Public Libraries. About OCPL. Website: http://ocpl.org/services/about (accessed December 21, 2017). P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-123 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 4.15 RECREATION. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might ❑ ❑ ® ❑ have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Impact Analysis: (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? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of San Juan Capistrano (City) currently maintains approximately 193 acres of parks and recreational uses throughout the City.46 According to the Parks and Recreation Element of the City's General Plan (2002), the City has an established standard of 5 acres of park space per 1,000 residents. For comparison, the National Park standard is 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.4' The proposed project would include a 0.5 acre park for use by the proposed residential community and a multi-purpose trail. Section 9.4-159, Parkland, of the City's Municipal Code was adopted to implement the provisions of the Quimby Act (State of California Planning and Zoning Law, Section 66477), which allows the legislative body of a city to require the dedication of land for park facilities and/or the payment of in lieu fees for park and recreational purposes as a condition to the approval for a final tract map or parcel map for certain subdivisions. The proposed project would increase the City's population by approximately 557 residents and would be subject to the dedication of land for park facilities and/or the payment of in-lieu fees for park and recreational purposes. Section 9.4-159, Parkland, states that the subdivider shall dedicate land or pay a fee in lieu of, or a combination of both, as a condition of approval for the purpose of providing parks and recreation facilities. The City will require the Applicant to pay fees as identified in Standard Condition REC-1. Therefore, with the provision of the 0.5 acre of on-site park and the payment of in-lieu park fees, impacts to recreation requirements would be less than significant. The proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreation facilities such that substantial deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated. No mitigation would be required. 46 City of San Juan Capistrano. Parks and Recreation Element. May 7, 2002. 47 This national standard established by the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) dates to 1983 and only includes traditional parklands. The NRPA has recently suggested a broader-based definition of Parks and Open Space and has subsequently revised its standard to approximately 10 acres per 1,000 residents, but suggests that each city look critically at its own resources and needs and open space definitions in establishing a local standard. 4-124 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA Mitigation Measure: No mitigation would be required; however,the project would be required to comply with Standard Condition REC-1, as outlined below. Standard Condition REC-1: Dedication Fees. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the project Applicant shall provide proof to the Director of the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) Development Services Department, or designee, that payment of park fees to the City has been made in accordance with Section 9.4-159, Parkland, of the City's Municipal Code, and the Development Agreement between the City and the project Applicant. (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? Less Than Significant Impact. As previously stated, the project includes approval of a Specific Plan that would allow for the development of up to 180 single-family residential units, a 0.5 acre park, and a multi-use trail on the project site. Construction of the proposed project includes the creation of the proposed park and multi-use trail, therefore, analysis of adverse physical effects of the park and trail have been incorporated into the analysis in the other sections of this IS/MND. Impacts related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities included in the proposed project would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. The increase in population associated with the proposed 180-unit project would be approximately 557 residents. Based on the City's parkland requirement of 5 acres per 1,000 residents, the proposed project would increase the demand for parkland in the City by 2.8 acres (or the equivalent of 2.3 acres following implementation of the proposed 0.5-acre on-site park). As previously mentioned, the Applicant is required by the City to pay in-lieu park fees (Refer to Standard Condition REC-1). The proposed project does not involve the construction or expansion of recreational facilities beyond the 0.5 acre park and multi-use trail. Construction of additional, or expansion of existing recreational facilities, is not necessary to maintain adequate recreation facilities for the community, and thus recreation impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. P:AJCA17O3\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx aO3/02/18» 4-125 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordnance, 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? (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 and highways? (c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial safety risks? (d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e. g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses ❑ ❑ ® ❑ (e.g.,farm equipment)? (e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ (f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise ❑ ❑ ® ❑ decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Discussion: This section analyzes the transportation and traffic impacts that may result due to development of the proposed project. The discussion and analysis provided in this section is based on the Traffic Impact Analysis for The Farm Specific Plan, San Juan Capistrano, California (TIA) (LSA, February 2018) (provided in Appendix E of this IS/MND). The TIA was prepared consistent with the objectives and requirements of the City's Administrative Policy No. 310, the City's General Plan Circulation Element and Growth Management Element (December 1999), the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) (November 2015), and applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including disclosure of project impacts in both existing and cumulative horizon years. The TIA examined the following four scenarios: 1. Existing Conditions 2. Existing Plus Project 3. Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative (2022, corresponding to the project opening year) 4. Year 2040 Buildout (corresponding to buildout of the City of San Juan Capistrano [City] General Plan, including the project) Based on input from the City Traffic Engineer, the TIA evaluated the following 20 intersections and 16 roadway segments: 4-126 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA Intersections 1. Interstate 5 (1-5) northbound ramps/Ortega Highway (State Route 74 [SR-74]) (CMP Monitoring Location) 2. 1-5 southbound ramps/Ortega Highway(CMP Monitoring Location) 3. Del Obispo Street/Ortega Highway 4. EI Camino Real/Ortega Highway 5. Camino Capistrano/Ortega Highway 6. Camino Capistrano/Verdugo Street 7. Camino Capistrano/Forster Street 8. Camino Capistrano/Del Obispo Street 9. Paseo Adelanto/Del Obispo Street 10. Alipaz Street/Del Obispo Street 11. Via Belardes-Paseo Carolina/Del Obispo Street 12. Aguacate Road/Del Obispo Street 13. Del Obispo Street/Calle Aspero 14. Del Obispo Street/Via Pimienta-Project Driveway 15. Del Obispo Street/Via Vermeulen 16. Del Obispo Street/Camino Del Avion 17. Alipaz Street/Via Positiva 18. Alipaz Street/Camino Del Avion 19. Project Driveway/Via Positiva 20. Via Positiva/Camino Del Avion Roadway Segments 1. Ortega Highway between 1-5 northbound ramps and 1-5 southbound ramps (CMP Monitoring Location) 2. Ortega Highway between 1-5 southbound ramps and Del Obispo Street 3. Ortega Highway between Del Obispo Street and EI Camino Real 4. Ortega Highway between EI Camino Real and Camino Capistrano 5. Del Obispo Street between Ortega Highway and Camino Capistrano 6. Del Obispo Street between Camino Capistrano and Paseo Adelanto 7. Del Obispo Street between Paseo Adelanto and Alipaz Street 8. Del Obispo Street between Aguacate Road and Calle Aspero 9. Del Obispo Street between Calle Aspero and the Project Driveway 10. Del Obispo Street between the Project Driveway and Via Vermeulen 11. Del Obispo Street between Via Vermeulen and Camino Del Avion 12. Alipaz Street between Del Obispo Street and Via Positiva 13. Alipaz Street between Via Positiva and Camino Del Avion 14. Via Positiva between Alipaz Street and the Project Driveway 15. Via Positiva between the Project Driveway and Camino Del Avion 16. Camino Capistrano between Ortega Highway and Del Obispo Street P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-127 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Intersection Level of Service Methodologies Per the City's Administrative Policy No. 310, intersections were evaluated using both the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) and Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies. The ICU methodology for signalized intersections compares the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios of conflicting turn movements at an intersection, sums up these critical conflicting v/c ratios for each intersection approach, and determines the overall ICU. The ICU calculations assume a lane capacity of 1,700 vehicles per hour (vph) and a clearance interval (or loss time) of 0.05. The resulting ICU is expressed in terms of level of service (LOS), where LOS A represents free-flow activity and LOS F represents overcapacity operation. The relationship between LOS and the ICU value (i.e.,v/c ratio) is as follows: Level of Service Volume-to-Capacity (ICU Methodology) A :50.60 B >0.60 and:_0.70 C >0.70 and:_0.80 D >0.80 and:_0.90 E >0.90 and:_1.00 F >1.00 ICU=Intersection Capacity Utilization In addition to the ICU methodology of calculating intersection LOS, the HCM methodology was used. The HCM intersection methodology presents LOS in terms of delay (in seconds per vehicle). The resulting delay is expressed in terms of LOS, as in the ICU methodology. The relationship between LOS and the delay (at signalized and unsignalized intersections) is shown below: Signalized Intersection Delay Unsignalized Intersection Delay Level of Service (seconds)per Vehicle (seconds)per Vehicle (HCM Methodology) (HCM Methodology) A 510.0 510.0 B >10.0 and 520.0 >10.0 and 515.0 C >20.0 and 535.0 >15.0 and 525.0 D >35.0 and:_55.0 >25.0 and:_35.0 E >55.0 and:_80.0 >35.0 and:_50.0 F >80.0 >50.0 HCM=Highway Capacity Manual The study area intersection LOS analysis was conducted for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. LSA obtained a.m. and p.m. peak-hour signal timing data from the City for the study area intersections. The City requires an HCM operational analysis of study area intersections designated as "hot spots" using the Synchro computer software package. Intersections designated as hot spots are closely spaced and experience high volumes during the peak hours. Based on discussion with City staff, the peak 15-minute volumes in the a.m. and p.m. peak-hour periods are multiplied by 4 to represent the peak-hour volumes at the hot spot intersections. This analysis is conducted to evaluate the impacts 4-128 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA of the proposed project on the signal operations of these locations. In addition to the hot spot locations along Del Obispo Street, LSA utilized Synchro (version 10) for the HCM analysis of all other study area intersections. Roadway Segment Level of Service Methodology Roadway segment v/c ratios were determined using the daily capacities contained in the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Guidance for Administration of the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). Facility types were taken from the City's General Plan and the MPAH.The following table illustrates daily capacities for roadways in the study area: Facility Type Number of Lanes Capacity Major 8 75,000 Major 6 56,300 Primary 4(Divided) 37,500 Secondary 4(Undivided) 25,000 Limited Secondary 2(Divided) 20,000 Local Arterial 2(Undivided) 12,500 Threshold of Significance The City considers LOS D as the upper limit of satisfactory operations for intersections and roadway segments. However, as indicated in the City's General Plan Circulation Element, the following intersections and roadway segments are identified as hot spot locations (i.e., School hot spot, Operations hot spot, and Space Constrained hot spot)where LOS E is considered satisfactory. Hot Spot Intersections 1. 1-5 northbound ramps/Ortega Highway(SR-74) 2. 1-5 southbound ramps/Ortega Highway 3. Del Obispo Street/Ortega Highway 5. Camino Capistrano/Del Obispo Street 9. Paseo Adelanto/Del Obispo Street 10. Alipaz Street/Del Obispo Street 20. Via Positiva/Camino Del Avion Hot Spot Roadway Segments 1. Ortega Highway between 1-5 northbound ramps and 1-5 southbound ramps 2. Ortega Highway between 1-5 southbound ramps and Del Obispo Street 5. Del Obispo Street between Ortega Highway and Camino Capistrano 6. Del Obispo Street between Camino Capistrano and Paseo Adelanto 7. Del Obispo Street between Paseo Adelanto and Alipaz Street P:AJCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-129 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Based on the City's Administration Policy No. 310, a project impact occurs at a hot-spot intersection (or roadway segment) when the project's increase in ICU (or v/c ratio) is 0.01 or greater and the resulting LOS is F. A project impact also occurs at a hot-spot intersection when the project's increase in delay is 1.0 second or greater and the resulting LOS is F. A cumulative impact occurs at a hot spot intersection (or roadway segment) when the project's increase in ICU (or v/c) between existing baseline and existing plus project conditions is 0.01 or greater and the existing plus project LOS is A, B, C, D, or E, and the existing plus project plus cumulative LOS is F. A cumulative impact also occurs at a hot spot intersection when the project's increase in delay between existing baseline and existing plus project conditions is 1.0 second or greater and the existing plus project LOS is A, B, C, D, or E, and the existing plus project plus cumulative LOS is F. A buildout impact is the same as the cumulative criteria above for hot spot and non-hot spot locations. Existing Circulation System Key roadways in the vicinity of the proposed project are as follows: • Del Obispo Street: Del Obispo Street is a divided roadway that provides direct access to the project site. It is four-lane divided roadway between Ortega Highway and Aguacate Road and between Via Vermeulen and Pacific Coast Highway in Dana Point48, but it has three lanes (two northbound lanes and one southbound lane ) between Aguacate Road and Via Vermeulen. In 2017, the City approved the Del Obispo Street Widening project that is currently under construction and would result in four lanes (two lanes in each direction) between Aguacate Road and Via Vermeulen. Therefore, this widening project has been taken into consideration in the Existing plus Project (and Existing plus Construction), Existing plus Project plus Cumulative, and Year 2040 Buildout scenarios. Although Del Obispo Street is designated as a Secondary Arterial in the City's Circulation Element, it functions as a six-lane facility between Camino Capistrano and Alipaz Street due to the dual left-turn lanes at the signalized intersections of Camino Capistrano, Paseo Adelanto, and Alipaz. It is designated as a hot spot between Camino Capistrano and Alipaz Street. The speed limit along Del Obispo Street is 40 miles per hour (mph) along the project frontage. The speed limit is 35 mph between Ortega Highway and Calle Aspero, and it is 45 mph south of Camino Del Avion. Curbside parking is permitted on portions of the north and south sides between Alipaz Street and Aguacate Road, but not in the project vicinity. • Alipaz Street: Alipaz Street north-south roadway that extends from just north of Del Obispo Street to just south of Camino Del Avion. Alipaz Street is designated as a Secondary Arterial in the City's Circulation Element; however, it is constructed as a Primary Arterial (four-lane divided roadway). The future extension of Alipaz Street north to Oso Road and Camino Capistrano is 49 SB 18 (Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004) requires cities and counties to contact and consult with California Native American tribes prior to amending or adopting any general plan or specific plan, or designating land as open space. 4-130 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA included as a long-range (buildout) improvement in the Circulation Element and in the Capistrano Circulation Fee Program. The speed limit is 40 mph between Del Obispo Street and Camino Del Avion. Curbside parking is permitted on both sides of Alipaz Street in select locations, including north of the project site. • Via Positiva: Via Positiva is an undivided two-lane local street that provides direct access to the project site. It extends from Camino Del Avion to Alipaz Street. The speed limit is 25 mph. Curbside parking is not permitted on either side of Via Positiva. • Camino Capistrano: Camino Capistrano is a divided two-lane, north-south roadway located east of the project site. It extends south from Laguna Niguel,through the City,to its terminus in Dana Point. Camino Capistrano is designated as a Secondary Arterial north of Del Obispo Street and a Primary Arterial south of Del Obispo Street in the City's Circulation Element. The speed limits along Camino Capistrano north and south of Del Obispo Street are 25 mph and 35 mph, respectively. Curbside parking is permitted on both sides of this roadway in select locations. • Ortega Highway (SR-74): Ortega Highway extends east from Camino Capistrano to Interstate 215 in Perris. Ortega Highway is designated as a Primary Arterial east of the 1-5 southbound ramps and a Secondary Arterial west of the 1-5 southbound ramps to Camino Capistrano. Between the 1-5 northbound and southbound ramps, Ortega Highway functions as an eight-lane facility due to the dual left-turn lanes at the signalized 1-5 southbound ramp/Ortega Highway intersection. Between the 1-5 southbound ramps and Del Obispo Street, Ortega Highway is built as a six-lane facility. It is designated as a hot spot between 1-5 and Del Obispo Street. The speed limit along Ortega Highway is 25 mph between Camino Capistrano and 1-5 and 40-45 mph east of 1-5. Curbside parking is permitted on both sides of this roadway in select locations. • Camino Del Avion: Camino Del Avion is an east-west roadway south of the project site. It extends east from Dana Point to Alipaz Street. Camino Del Avion is designated as a Secondary Arterial in the City's Circulation Element; however it is constructed as a Primary Arterial (four- lane divided roadway). The speed limit along this roadway is 40 mph. Curbside parking is permitted on both sides of Camino Del Avion in select locations. All other study area roadways (i.e., Verdugo Street, Forster Street, Via Belardes—Paseo Carolina, Aguacate Road, Calle Aspero, and Via Vermeulen) are local or commuter streets. Existing Traffic Volumes and LOS Analysis Existing traffic volumes were collected over 3 consecutive days (Tuesday through Thursday, when schools were in session) in November 2017, consistent with Administrative Policy 310. All study area intersections and roadway segments, including the designated School, Operations, and Space Constrained hot spot intersections and roadways, currently operate at a satisfactory LOS. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-131 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Impact Analysis: (a) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordnance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction Impacts. The duration of construction will last up to approximately 2.75 years and would generate short-term construction related vehicle trips. Typical construction hours are 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. consistent with the City's Municipal Code (Section 8-2.04). Each worker will arrive between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. (outside of the a.m. peak hour). Approximately 60 percent of the workers will leave between 3:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. (outside the p.m. peak hour) and the remaining 40 percent will leave after 4:00 p.m. (during the p.m. peak hour). To present a conservative, worst-case analysis, all workers are assumed to drive themselves to/from the project site (no carpool or alternative transportation). Truck trips will occur throughout the day (between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.). Because operation of the project (133 trips) would generate 127 more a.m. peak-hour trips than project construction (6 trips), the construction analysis focuses on p.m. peak-hour conditions only. The typical operation of 180 single-family homes (179 trips) is anticipated to generate 70 more p.m. peak hour trips than construction activity (109 trips). However, a construction analysis of the p.m. peak hour was conducted because the construction activity (106 outbound trips) in the p.m. peak hour is anticipated to generate 39 more outbound trips than the typical operation (67 outbound trips). Tables 4.16.A and 4.16.13 summarize the results of the existing plus construction traffic LOS analysis for the study area intersections using the ICU and HCM methodologies, respectively. As shown, all study area intersections are anticipated to operate at satisfactory LOS E or better based on the ICU and HCM methodologies. Existing plus construction traffic roadway segment average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, v/c ratios, and LOS are presented in Table 4.16.C. As this table indicates, all study area roadway segments are anticipated to operate at satisfactory LOS with construction traffic. Based on the results of the construction analysis, no construction-related traffic impacts would occur at any study area intersection or roadway segment, and no mitigation would be required. 4-132 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA Table 4.16.A: Existing Plus Construction Traffic Intersection Level of Service Summary(ICU) 1 2 3 Existing Plus Peak Existing Construction Construction Impactz Intersection Control Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Yes/No 1 1-5 NB Ramps/Ortega Highway' Signal PM 0.683 B 0.684 B 0.001 No 2 1-5 SB Ramps/Ortega Highway' Signal PM 0.653 B 0.664 B 0.011 No 3 Del Obispo Street/Ortega Highway' Signal PM 0.508 A 0.509 A 0.001 No 4 EI Camino Real/Ortega Highway Signal PM 0.404 A 0.404 A 0.000 No 5 Camino Capistrano/Ortega Highway Signal PM 0.482 A 0.482 A 0.000 No 6 Camino Capistrano/Verdugo Street Signal PM 0.508 A 0.508 A 0.000 No 7 Camino Capistrano/Forster Street OWSC PM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8 Camino Capistrano/Del Obispo Street' Signal PM 0.622 B 0.623 B 0.001 No 9 Paseo Adelanto/Del Obispo Street' Signal PM 0.541 A 0.541 A 0.000 No 10 Alipaz Street/Del Obispo Street' Signal PM 0.431 A 0.447 A 0.016 No 11 Via Belardes-Paseo Carolina/Del Obispo Street Signal PM 0.322 A 0.338 A 0.016 No 12 Aguacate Road/Del Obispo Street Signal PM 0.461 A 0.461 A 0.000 No 13 Del Obispo Street/Calle Aspero Signal PM 0.464 A 0.465 A 0.001 No 14 Del Obispo Street/Project Driveway Signa 13 PM N/A N/A 0.458 A 0.458 No 15 Del Obispo Street/Via Vermeulen Signal PM 0.246 A 0.246 A 0.000 No 16 Del Obispo Street/Camino Del Avion Signal PM 0.599 A 0.599 A 0.000 No 17 Alipaz Street/Via Positiva Signal PM 0.292 A 0.324 A 0.032 No 18 Alipaz Street/Camino Del Avion AWSC PM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 19 Project Driveway/Via Positiva OWSC PM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 20 Via Positiva/Camino Del Avion Signal PM 0.214 A 0.214 A 0.000 No 1 Intersection is considered a"Hot Spot"location(LOS E is acceptable). Z A significant construction impact occurs when the delay in(2)minus the delay in(1)is 1.0 seconds or greater,and the LOS in(2)is E or F. 3 Implementation of Signal(Project Design Feature)at Del Obispo Street/Via Pimienta-Project Driveway with the project AWSC=all-way stop control N/A=not applicable(future intersection and/or evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology) ICU=Intersection Capacity Utilization OWSC=one-way stop control 1-5=Interstate 5 NB=northbound LOS=level of service SB=southbound P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» 4-133 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Table 4.16.6: Existing Plus Construction Traffic Intersection Level of Service Summary(HCM) 1 2 3 Existing Plus Existing Construction Construction Impactz Intersection Control Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Yes/No 1 1-5 NB Ramps/Ortega Highway' Signal PM 30.0 C 30.1 C 0.1 No 2 1-5 SB Ramps/Ortega Highway' Signal PM 30.1 C 30.5 C 0.4 No 3 Del Obispo Street/Ortega Highway' Signal PM 13.4 B 13.2 B -0.2 No 4 EI Camino Real/Ortega Highway Signal PM 6.0 A 6.0 A 0.0 No 5 Camino Capistrano/Ortega Highway Signal PM 19.5 B 19.5 B 0.0 No 6 Camino Capistrano/Verdugo Street Signal PM 11.6 B 11.6 B 0.0 No 7 Camino Capistrano/Forster Street OWSC PM 20.2 C 20.2 C 0.0 No Camino Capistrano/Del Obispo 8 Street' Signal PM 34.1 C 34.7 C 0.6 No 9 Paseo Adelanto/Del Obispo Street' Signal PM 15.5 B 15.7 B 0.2 No 10 Alipaz Street/Del Obispo Street' Signal PM 19.1 B 19.6 B 0.5 No Via Belardes-Paseo Carolina/Del 11 Obispo Street Signal PM 8.6 A 8.5 A -0.1 No 12 Aguacate Road/Del Obispo Street Signal PM 9.0 A 9.1 A 0.1 No 13 Del Obispo Street/Calle Aspero Signal PM 11.8 B 11.7 B -0.1 No 14 Del Obispo Street/Project Driveway Signa 13 PM 17.0 C 7.2 A -9.8 No 15 Del Obispo Street/Via Vermeulen Signal PM 3.6 A 3.6 A 0.0 No 16 Del Obispo Street/Camino Del Avion Signal PM 27.1 C 27.1 C 0.0 No 17 Alipaz Street/Via Positiva Signal PM 10.0 B 10.8 B 0.8 No 18 Alipaz Street/Camino Del Avion AWSC PM 12.0 B 12.0 B 0.0 No 19 Project Driveway/Via Positiva OWSC PM N/A N/A 10.6 B N/A No 20 Via Positiva/Camino Del Avion Signal PM 4.3 A 4.3 A 0.0 No ' Intersection is considered a"Hot Spot"location(LOS E is acceptable). 2 A significant construction impact occurs when the dela In 2 minus the dela In 1 Is 1.0 seconds or greater,and the LOS in 2 Is E or F. g P Y� ( ) Y� ( )� g ( )� 3 Implementation of Signal(Project Design Feature)at Del Obispo Street/Via Pimienta-Project Driveway with the project AWSC=all-way stop control N/A=not applicable(future intersection and/or evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology) ICU=Intersection Capacity OWSC=one-way stop control Utilization NB=northbound 1-5=Interstate 5 SB=southbound LOS=level of service 4-134 P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA Table 4.16.C: Existing Plus Construction Traffic Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary 1 2 3 No.of LOS E Existing Const. Existing Plus Const. Construction Impact Roadway Segment Lanes Capacity ADT WC LOS ADT ADT V/C LOS A V/C Yes/No 1-5 NB Ramps to 1-5 SB Ramps' 8D 75,000 40,775 0.54 A 283 41,058 0.55 A 0.01 No Ortega Hwy I-5 SB Ramps to Del Obispo' 6D 56,300 36,849 0.65 B 566 37,415 0.66 B 0.01 No Del Obispo to EI Camino Real 4D 37,500 7,085 0.19 A 0 7,085 0.19 A 0.00 No EI Camino Real to Camino Capistrano 4D 37,500 28,068 0.75 C 566 28,634 0.76 C 0.01 No Ortega to Camino Capistrano' 4D 37,500 28,068 0.75 C 566 28,634 0.76 C 0.01 No Camino Capistrano to Paseo Adelanto' 6D 56,300 33,343 1 0.59 A 566 33,909 1 0.60 A 0.01 No Paseo Adelanto to Alipaz' 6D 56,300 31,436 0.56 A 566 32,002 0.57 A 0.01 No Del Obispo St Aguacate to Calle Aspero 4D 37,500 16,417 0.44 A 283 16,700 0.45 A 0.01 No Calle Aspero to Project Driveway 4D 37,500 16,015 0.43 A 283 16,298 0.43 A 0.00 No Project Driveway to Via Vermeulen 4D 37,500 15,491 0.41 A 0 15,491 0.41 A 0.00 No Via Vermeulen to Camino Del Avion 4D 37,500 1 16,644 0.44 A 0 16,644 1 0.44 A 0.00 No Alipaz St Del Obispo to Via Positiva 4D 37,500 10,598 0.28 A 283 10,881 0.29 A 0.01 No Via Positiva to Camino Del Avion 3D 25,000 7,151 0.29 A 0 7,151 0.29 A 0.00 No Via Positiva Alipaz to Project Driveway 21J 12,500 2,342 0.19 A 283 2,625 0.21 A 0.02 No Project Driveway to Camino Del Avion 21J 12,500 1,810 0.14 A 0 1,810 0.14 A 0.00 No Camino Ortega to Del Obispo 2D 20,000 14,508 0.73 C 0 14,508 0.73 C 0.00 No Capistrano Note:For No.of Lanes,D=divided,and U=undivided 1 Segment is considered a"Hot Spot"location(LOS E is acceptable). Z A significant construction impact occurs when the V/C in(2)minus the V/C in(1)is 0.01 or greater,and the LOS in(2)is E or F. ADT=average daily trips NB=northbound 1-5=Interstate 5 SB=southbound LOS=level of service P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» 4-135 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Operational Impacts. The proposed project would allow for the future construction of up to 180 single-family detached homes. Based on the trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 101h Edition (2017) for Land Use Code 210 (Single-Family Detached Housing), the proposed project has the potential to generate approximately 1,699 ADT, including 133 trips (34 inbound and 99 outbound) in the a.m. peak hour and 179 trips (112 inbound and 67 outbound) in the p.m. peak hour. As previously stated, operational traffic impacts were analyzed with respect to the following four scenarios: Existing Conditions, Existing Plus Project, Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative (year 2022, corresponding to the project opening year), and Year 2040 Buildout (corresponding to buildout of the City of San Juan Capistrano [City] General Plan, including the project). Existing Plus Project Tables 4.16.1) and 4.16.E summarize the peak hour LOS results for the Existing Plus Project analysis using the ICU and HCM methodologies, respectively. As shown in Tables 4.16.1) and 4.16.E, all study area intersections (including the designated School, Operations, and Space Constrained hot-spot intersections) are anticipated to operate at satisfactory LOS, and no mitigation would be required. Table 4.16.F summarizes the results of the Existing Plus Project roadway segment ADT volumes, v/c ratios, and LOS. As shown in Table 4.16.F, all study area roadway segments (including the designated School, Operations, and Space Constrained hot-spot roadways) are anticipated to operate at satisfactory LOS with the project. Therefore, a significant project impact would not occur at any study area roadway segment, and no mitigation would be required. Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative(2022) An analysis of opening year (2022 cumulative traffic conditions includes a 0.5 percent per year growth rate added to the existing 2017 traffic counts (a total 2.5 percent total growth). This condition also included the project trips and manually assigned trips generated by approved/pending (cumulative projects). Tables 4.16.G and 4.16.H summarize the results of the Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative peak-hour LOS analysis for the study area intersections using the ICU and HCM methodologies, respectively. As shown in Tables 4.16.G and 4.16.1-1, all study area intersections (including the designated School, Operations, and Space Constrained hot-spot intersections) are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS. Therefore, a significant project or cumulative impact would not occur at any study area intersection based on the ICU and HCM methodologies, and no mitigation would be required. Table 4.16.1 summarizes the Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative roadway segment ADT volumes, v/c ratios, and LOS. As Tables 4.16.1 indicates, all study area roadway segments (including the designated School, Operations, and Space Constrained hot-spot roadways) are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS. Therefore, a significant project or cumulative impact would not occur at any study area roadway segment, and no mitigation would be required. 4-136 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA Table 4.16.D: Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Summary(ICU) 1 2 3 Peak Existing Existing Plus Project Project Impactz Intersection Control Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Yes/No 1 I-5 NB Ramps/Ortega Highways Signal AM 0.769 C 0.770 C 0.001 No PM 0.683 B 0.685 B 0.002 No 2 I-5 56 Ramps/Ortega Highways Signal AM 0.658 B 0.664 B 0.006 No PM 0.653 B 0.657 B 0.004 No 3 Del Obispo Street/Ortega Highways Signal AM 0.521 A 0.524 A 0.003 No PM 0.508 A 0.519 A 0.011 No 4 EI Camino Real/Ortega Highway Signal AM 0.453 A 0.453 A 0.000 No PM 0.404 A 0.404 A 0.000 No 5 Camino Capistrano/Ortega Highway Signal AM 0.509 A 0.512 A 0.003 No PM 0.482 A 0.484 A 0.002 No AM 0.444 A 0.444 A 0.000 No 6 Camino Capistrano/Verdugo Street Signal PM 0.508 A 0.510 A 0.002 No AM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 7 Camino Capistrano/Forster Street OWSC PM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8 Camino Capistrano/Del Obispo Streets Signal AM 0.639 B 0.644 B 0.005 No PM 0.622 B 0.636 B 0.014 No 9 Paseo Adelanto/Del Obispo Streets Signal AM 0.568 A 0.581 A 0.013 No PM 0.541 A 0.556 A 0.015 No AM 0.507 A 0.521 A 0.014 No 10 Alipaz Street/Del Obispo Street' Signal PM 0.431 A 0.444 A 0.013 No 11 Via Belardes-Paseo Carolina/Del Obispo AM 0.369 A 0.371 A 0.002 No Streets Signal PM 0.322 A 0.331 A 0.009 No 12 Aguacate Road/Del Obispo Street Signal AM 0.505 A 0.511 A 0.006 No PM 0.461 A 0.478 A 0.017 No 13 Del Obispo Street/Calle Aspero Signal AM 0.526 A 0.532 A 0.006 No PM 0.464 A 0.482 A 0.018 No Del Obispo Street/Via Pimienta-Project AM N/A N/A 0.511 A 0.511 No 14 Driveway Signal PM N/A N/A 0.438 A 0.438 No 15 Del Obispo Street/Via Vermeulen Signal AM 0.261 A 0.270 A 0.009 No PM 0.246 A 0.252 A 0.006 No 16 Del Obispo Street/Camino Del Avion Signal AM 0.728 C 0.741 C 0.013 No PM 0.599 A 0.610 B 0.011 No 17 Alipaz Street/Via Positiva Signal AM 0.383 A 0.400 A 0.017 No PM 0.292 A 0.304 A 0.012 No 18 Alipaz Street/Camino Del Avion AWSC AM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 19 Future intersection OWSC AM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Project Driveway/Via Positiva PM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 20 Via Positiva/Camino Del Avion' Signal AM 0.501 A 0.510 A 0.009 No PM 0.214 A 0.228 A 0.014 No 1 Intersection is considered a"Hot Spot"location(LOS E is acceptable). Z A significant project impact occurs when the ICU in(2)minus the ICU in(1)is 0.01 or greater,and the LOS in(2)is E or F. 3 Implementation of Signal(Project Design Feature)at Del Obispo Street/Via Pimienta-Project Driveway with the project N/A=not applicable(future intersection and/or evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology) AWSC=all-way stop control OWSC=one-way stop control 1-5=Interstate 5 NB=northbound ICU=Intersection Capacity Utilization SB=southbound LOS=level of service P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» 4-137 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Table 4.16.E: Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Summary(HCM) 1 2 3 Existing Plus Peak Existing Project Project Impact2 Intersection Control Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Yes/No 1 I-S NB Ramps/Ortega Highways Signal AM 50.3 D 50.4 D 0.1 No PM 30.0 C 30.1 C 0.1 No 2 15 56 Ramps/Ortega Highways Signal AM 34.5 C 34.9 C 0.4 NoPM 30.1 C 30.6 C 0.5 No 3 Del Obispo Street/Ortega Highways Signal AM 13.8 B 13.8 B 0.0 NoPM 13.4 B 13.4 B 0.0 No 4 EI Camino Real/Ortega Highway Signal AM 7.2 A 7.2 A 0.0 No PM 6.0 A 6.0 A 0.0 No 5 Camino Capistrano/Ortega Highway Signal AM 22.8 C 22.7 C -0.1 NoPM 19.5 B 19.5 B 0.0 No 6 Camino Capistrano/Verdugo Street Signal AM 8.5 A 8.4 A -0.1 No PM 11.6 B 11.7 B 0.1 No 7 Camino Capistrano/Forster Street OWSC AM 17.8 C 17.8 C 0.0 No PM 20.2 C 20.2 C 0.0 No Camino Capistrano/Del Obispo AM 28.1 C 28.7 C 0.6 No 8 Streets Signal PM 34.1 C 36.2 1 D 2.1 No 9 Paseo Adelanto/Del Obispo Streets Signal AM 13.6 B 14.1 B 0.5 No PM 15.5 B 15.6 B 0.1 No 10 Alipaz Street/Del Obispo Streets AM 23.0 C 23.2 C 0.2 No Signal PM 19.1 B 19.1 B 0.0 No Via Belardes-Paseo Carolina/Del AM 8.7 A 8.7 C 0.0 No 11 Obispo Streets Signal PM 8.6 A 8.7 A 0.1 No 12 Aguacate Road/Del Obispo Street Signal AM 26.4 C 26.7 C 0.3 No PM 9.0 A 9.4 A 0.4 No 13 Del Obispo Street/Calle Aspero Signal AM 12.7 B 12.8 B 0.1 NoPM 11.8 B 12.2 B 0.4 No Del Obispo Street/Via Pimienta 3 AM 19.5 C 7.3 A -12.2 No 14 project Driveway Signal PM 17.0 C 7.5 A -9.5 No 15 Del Obispo Street/Via Vermeulen Signal AM 2.5 A 2.5 A 0.0 No PM 3.6 A 3.6 A 0.0 No 16 Del Obispo Street/Camino Del Avion Signal AM 42.9 D 45.7 D 2.8 NoPM 27.1 C 28.1 C 1.0 No 17 Alipaz Street/Via Positiva Signal AM 11.8 B 12.3 B 0.5 No PM 10.0 B 10.3 B 0.3 No 18 Alipaz Street/Camino Del Avion AWSC AM 12.3 B 12.3 B 0.0 No PM 12.0 B 12.0 B 0.0 No 19 Future Intersection OWSC AM N/A N/A 12.6 B 12.6 No Project Driveway/Via Positiva PM N/A N/A 10.3 B 10.3 No 20 Via Positiva/Camino Del Avion' Signal AM 7.8 A 8.1 A 0.3 NoPM 4.3 A 4.4 A 0.1 No 1 Intersection is considered a"Hot Spot"location(LOS E is acceptable). Z A significant project impact occurs when the delay in(2)minus the delay in(1)is 1.0 seconds or greater,and the LOS in(2)is E or F. 3 Implementation of Signal(Project Design Feature)at Del Obispo Street/Via Pimienta-Project Driveway with the project AWSC=all-way stop control N/A=not applicable(future intersection) HCM=Highway Capacity Manual.Delay is reported in seconds. OWSC=one-way stop control 1-5=Interstate 5 NB=northbound LOS=level of service SB=southbound 4-138 P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx((03/02/18)) INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FEBRUARY2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA Table 4.16.F: Existing Plus Project Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary 1 2 3 Existing Existing Plus Project Project Impact No.of LOS E Project Yes/ Roadway Segment Lanes Capacity ADT V/C LOS ADT ADT V/C LOS A WC No 1-5 NB Ramps to 1-5 SB Ramps' 8D 75,000 40,775 0.54 A 340 41,115 0.55 A 0.01 No 1-5 SB Ramps to Del Obispo 6D 56,300 36,849 0.65 B 561 37,410 0.66 B 0.01 No Ortega Hwy Del Obispo to EI Camino Real 4D 37,500 11,701 0.31 A 0 11,701 0.31 A 0.00 No EI Camino Real to Camino Capistrano 4D 37,500 7,085 0.19 A 0 7,085 0.19 A 0.00 No Ortega to Camino Capistrano' 4D 37,500 28,068 0.75 C 561 28,629 0.76 C 0.01 No Camino Capistrano to Paseo Adelanto' 6D 56,300 33,343 0.59 A 561 33,904 0.60 A 0.01 No Paseo Adelanto to Alipaz 6D 56,300 31,436 0.56 A 714 32,150 0.57 A 0.01 No Del Obispo St Aguacate to Calle Aspero 4D 37,500 16,417 0.44 A 425 16,842 0.45 A 0.01 No Calle Aspero to Project Driveway 4D 37,500 16,015 0.43 A 493 16,508 0.44 A 0.01 No Project Driveway to Via Vermeulen 4D 37,500 15,491 0.41 A 510 16,001 0.43 A 0.02 No Via Vermeulen to Camino Del 4D 37,500 16,644 0.44 A 510 17,154 0.46 A 0.02 No Avion Alipaz St Del Obispo to Via Positiva 4D 37,500 10,598 0.28 A 493 11,091 0.30 A 0.02 No Via Positiva to Camino Del Avion 3D 25,000 7,151 0.29 A 0 7,151 0.29 A 0.00 No Alipaz to Project Driveway 2U 12,500 2,342 0.19 A 493 2,835 0.23 A 0.04 No Via Positiva Project Driveway to Camino Del 2U 12,500 1,810 0.14 A 204 2,014 0.16 A 0.02 No Avion Camino Ortega to Del Obispo 2D 20,000 14,508 0.73 C 68 14,576 0.73 C 0.00 No Capistrano Note:For No.of Lanes,D=divided,and U=undivided 1 Segment is considered a"Hot Spot"location(LOS E is acceptable). Z A significant project impact occurs when the V/C in(2)minus the V/C in(1)is 0.01 or greater,and the LOS in(2)is E or F. ADT=average daily trips NB=northbound 1-5=Interstate 5 SB=southbound LOS=level of service V/C=volume-to-capacity ratio P:AJCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-139 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Table 4.16.G: Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative Intersection Level of Service Summary(ICU) 1 2 3 4 Existing Plus Ex.Plus Proj. Cumulative Peak Existing Project Plus Cumul. Impact2 Intersection Control Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS A ICU Yes/No 1 1-5 NB Ramps/Ortega Highway' Signal AM 0.769 C 0.770 C 0.845 D 0.001 No PM 0.683 B 0.685 B 0.747 C 0.002 No 2 1-5 SB Ramps/Ortega Highway' Signal AM 0.658 B 0.664 B 0.724 C 0.006 No PM 0.653 B 0.657 B 0.721 C 0.004 No 3 Del Obispo Street/Ortega Highway' Signal AM 0.521 A 0.524 A 0.594 A 0.003 No PM 0.508 A 0.519 A 0.586 A 0.011 No 4 EI Camino Real/Ortega Highway Signal AM 0.453 A 0.453 A 0.538 A 0.000 No PM 0.404 A 0.404 A 0.474 A 0.000 No 5 Camino Capistrano/Ortega Highway Signal AM 0.509 A 0.512 A 0.754 C 0.003 No PM 0.482 A 0.484 A 0.562 A 0.002 No 6 Camino Capistrano/Verdugo Street Signal AM 0.444 A 0.444 A 0.527 A 0.000 No PM 0.508 A 0.510 A 0.566 A 0.002 No 7 Camino Capistrano/Forster Street OWSC AM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8 Camino Capistrano/Del Obispo Street' Signal AM 0.639 B 0.644 B 0.745 C 0.005 No PM 0.622 B 0.636 B 0.711 C 0.014 No 9 Paseo Adelanto/Del Obispo Street' Signal AM 0.568 A 0.581 A 0.657 B 0.013 No PM 0.541 A 0.556 A 0.672 B 0.015 No 10 Alipaz Street/Del Obispo Street' Signal AM 0.507 A 0.521 A 0.588 A 0.014 No PM 0.431 A 0.444 A 0.491 A 0.013 No Via Belardes-Paseo Carolina/ AM 0.369 A 0.371 A 0.415 A 0.002 No 11 Del Obispo Street' Signal PM 0.322 A 0.331 A 0.364 A 0.009 No 12 Aguacate Road/Del Obispo Street Signal AM 0.505 A 0.511 A 0.581 A 0.006 No PM 0.461 A 0.478 A 0.537 A 0.017 No 13 Del Obispo Street/Calle Aspero Signal AM 0.526 A 0.532 A 0.605 B 0.006 No PM 0.464 A 0.482 A 0.535 A 0.018 No Del Obispo Street/Via Pimienta-Project 3 AM N/A N/A 0.511 A 0.579 A 0.511 No 14 Driveway Signal PM N/A N/A 0.438 A 0.482 A 0.438 No 15 Del Obispo Street/Via Vermeulen Signal AM 0.261 A 0.270 A 0.302 A 0.009 No PM 0.246 A 0.252 A 0.273 A 0.006 No 16 Del Obispo Street/Camino Del Avion Signal AM 0.728 C 0.741 C 0.786 C 0.013 No 4-140 P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA Table 4.16.G: Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative Intersection Level of Service Summary(ICU) 1 2 3 4 Existing Plus Ex.Plus Proj. Cumulative Peak Existing Project Plus Cumul. Impact2 Intersection Control Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS A ICU Yes/No PM 0.599 A 0.610 B 0.642 B 0.011 No AM 0.383 A 0.400 A 0.417 A 0.017 No 17 Alipaz Street/Via Positiva Signal PM 0.292 A 0.304 A 0.319 A 0.012 No 18 Alipaz Street/Camino Del Avion AWSC AM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Future Intersection OWSC AM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 19 Project Driveway/Via Positiva PM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 20 Via Positiva/Camino Del Avionl Signal AM 0.501 A 0.510 A 0.523 A 0.009 No PM 0.214 A 0.228 A 0.234 A 0.014 No 1 Intersection is considered a"Hot Spot"location(LOS E is acceptable). Z A cumulative impact occurs when the ICU in(2)minus the ICU in(1)is 0.01 or greater,and the LOS in(3)is E or F. 3 Implementation of Signal(Project Design Feature)at Del Obispo Street/Via Pimienta-Project Driveway with the project AWSC=all-way stop control 1-5=Interstate 5 ICU=Intersection Capacity Utilization LOS=level of service N/A=not applicable(future intersection and/or evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology) OWSC=one-way stop control NB=northbound SB=southbound P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» 4-141 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Table 4.16.H: Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative Intersection Level of Service Summary(HCM) 1 2 3 4 Existing Plus Ex.Plus Proj. Cumulative Existing Project Plus Cumul. Impact2 Peak a Intersection Control Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Yes/No 1 1-5 NB Ramps/Ortega Highwayl Signal AM 50.3 D 50.4 D 55.8 E 0.1 No PM 30.0 C 30.1 C 37.3 D 0.1 No 2 1-5 SB Ramps/Ortega Highway' Signal AM 34.5 C 34.9 C 40.5 D 0.4 No PM 30.1 C 30.6 C 39.1 D 0.5 No 3 Del Obispo Street/Ortega Highway' Signal AM 13.8 B 13.8 B 14.2 B 0.0 No PM 13.4 B 13.4 B 15.4 B 0.0 No 4 EI Camino Real/Ortega Highway Signal AM 7.2 A 7.2 A 17.5 B 0.0 No PM 6.0 A 6.0 A 12.5 B 0.0 No AM 22.8 C 22.7 C 42.6 D -0.1 No 5 Camino Capistrano/Ortega Highway Signal PM 19.5 B 19.5 B 25.5 C 0.0 No AM 8.5 A 8.4 A 5.5 A -0.1 No 6 Camino Capistrano/Verdugo Street Signal PM 11.6 B 11.7 B 10.5 B 0.1 No AM 17.8 C 17.8 C 23.2 C 0.0 No 7 Camino Capistrano/Forster Street OWSC PM 20.2 C 20.2 C 24.2 C 0.0 No 8 Camino Capistrano/Del Obispo Street' Signal AM 28.1 C 28.7 C 39.2 D 0.6 No PM 34.1 C 36.2 D 36.8 D 2.1 No 9 Paseo Adelanto/Del Obispo Street' Signal AM 13.6 B 14.1 B 19.5 B 0.5 No PM 15.5 B 15.6 B 22.5 C 0.1 No 10 Alipaz Street/Del Obispo Street' Signal AM 23.0 C 23.2 C 24.4 C 0.2 No PM 19.1 B 19.1 B 20.2 C 0.0 No 11 Via Belardes Paseo Carolina/Del Obispo Street' AM 8.7 A 8.7 C 12.2 B 0.0 No Signal PM 8.6 A 8.7 A 9.9 B 0.1 No 12 Aguacate Road/Del Obispo Street Signal AM 26.4 C 26.7 C 28.5 C 0.3 NoPM 9.0 A 9.4 A 10.7 B 0.4 No 13 Del Obispo Street/Calle Aspero Signal AM 12.7 B 12.8 B 13.8 B 0.1 NoPM 11.8 B 12.2 B 12.7 B 0.4 No 14 Del Obispo Street/Via Pimienta-Project Driveway Signa 13 AM 19.5 C 7.3 A 7.3 A -12.2 No PM 17.0 C 7.5 A 7.5 A -9.5 No 15 Del Obispo Street/Via Vermeulen Signal AM 2.5 A 2.5 A 2.7 A 0.0 NoPM 3.6 A 3.6 A 3.7 A 0.0 No 16 Del Obispo Street/Camino Del Avion Signal AM 42.9 D 45.7 D 52.6 D 2.8 No PM 27.1 C 28.1 C 33.6 D 1.0 No 4-142 P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA Table 4.16.H: Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative Intersection Level of Service Summary(HCM) 1 2 3 4 Existing Plus Ex.Plus Proj. Cumulative Existing Project Plus Cumul. Impact2 Peak A Intersection Control Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Yes/No 17 Alipaz Street/Via Positiva Signal AM 11.8 B 12.3 B 12.5 B 0.5 No PM 10.0 B 10.3 B 10.3 B 0.3 No 18 Alipaz Street/Camino Del Avion AWSC AM 12.3 B 12.3 B 13.2 B 0.0 No PM 12.0 B 12.0 B 12.7 B 0.0 No Future Intersection OWSC AM N/A N/A 12.6 B 12.7 B 12.6 No 19 Project Driveway/Via Positiva PM N/A N/A 10.3 B 10.4 B 10.3 No 20 Via Positiva/Camino Del Avionl Signal AM 7.8 A 8.1 A 8.2 A 0.3 No PM 4.3 A 4.4 A 4.4 A 0.1 No 1 Intersection is considered a"Hot Spot"location(LOS E is acceptable). Z A cumulative impact occurs when the delay in(2)minus the delay in(1)is 1.0 seconds or greater,and the LOS in(3)is E or F. 3 Implementation of Signal(Project Design Feature)at Del Obispo Street/Via Pimienta-Project Driveway with the project AWSC=all-way stop control HCM=Highway Capacity Manual.Delay is reported in seconds. 1-5=Interstate 5 LOS=level of service N/A=not applicable(future intersection) OWSC=one-way stop control NB=northbound SB=southbound P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» 4-143 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Table 4.16.1: Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary 1 2 3 4 Cumulative Existing Existing Plus Project Ex.+Proj.+Cumul. Impact2 No.of LOS E Project 0 Yes/ Roadway Segment Lanes Capacity ADT V/C LOS ADT ADT WC LOS ADT V/C LOS V/C No 1-5 NB Ramps to 1-5 SB Ramps' 8D 75,000 40,775 0.54 A 340 41,115 0.55 A 46,855 0.62 B 0.01 No Ortega Hwy I-5 SB Ramps to Del Obispo' 5D 56,300 36,849 0.65 B 561 37,410 0.66 B 43,609 0.77 C 0.01 No Del Obispo to EI Camino Real 4D 37,500 11,701 0.31 A 0 11,701 0.31 A 15,196 0.41 A 0.00 No EI Camino Real to Camino Capistrano 4D 37,500 7,085 0.19 A 0 7,085 0.19 A 8,963 0.24 A 0.00 No Ortega to Camino Capistrano' 4D 37,500 28,068 0.75 C 561 28,629 0.76 C 31,534 0.84 D 0.01 No Camino Capistrano to Paseo Adelanto' 6D 56,300 33,343 0.59 A 561 33,904 0.60 A 38,694 0.69 B 0.01 No Paseo Adelanto to Alipaz' 6D 56,300 31,436 1 0.56 A 1 714 32,150 1 0.57 A 36,489 0.65 B 0.01 1 No Del Obispo St Aguacate to Calle Aspero 4D 37,500 16,417 0.44 A 425 16,842 0.45 A 19,291 0.51 A 0.01 No Calle Aspero to Project Driveway 4D 37,500 16,015 0.43 A 493 16,508 0.44 A 18,505 0.49 A 0.01 No Project Driveway to Via Vermeulen 4D 37,500 15,491 0.41 A 510 16,001 0.43 A 17,935 0.48 A 0.02 No Via Vermeulen to Camino Del 4D 37,500 16,644 0.44 A 510 17,154 0.46 A 19,069 0.51 A 0.02 No Avion Del Obispo to Via Positiva 4D 37,500 10,598 1 0.28 A 1 493 11,091 1 0.30 A 12,371 0.33 A 0.02 No Alipaz St Via Positiva to Camino Del Avion 3D 25,000 7,151 0.29 A 0 7,151 0.29 A 7,979 0.32 A 0.00 No Alipaz to Project Driveway 21J 12,500 2,342 0.19 A 493 2,835 0.23 A 2,894 0.23 A 0.04 No Via Positiva Project Driveway to Camino Del Avion 21J 12,500 1,810 0.14 A 204 2,014 0.16 A 2,059 0.16 A 0.02 No Camino 2D 20,000 14,508 0.73 C 68 14,576 0.73 C 16,811 0.84 D 0.00 No Capistrano I Ortega to Del Obispo Note:For No.of Lanes,D=divided,and U=undivided ' Segment is considered a"Hot Spot"location(LOS E is acceptable). Z A cumulative impact occurs when the V/C in(2)minus the V/C in(1)is 0.01 or greater,and the LOS in(3)is E or F. ADT=average daily trips NB=northbound 1-5=Interstate 5 SB=southbound LOS=level of service V/C=volume-to-capacity ratio 4-144 P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA Year 2040 Buildout Tables 4.16.J and 4.16.K summarize the results of the Buildout peak-hour LOS analysis for the study area intersections using the ICU and HCM methodologies, respectively. As shown in 4.16.J and 4.16.K, all study area intersections (including the designated School, Operations, and Space Constrained hot-spot intersections) are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS. Therefore, a significant project or buildout impact would not occur at any study area intersection based on the ICU and HCM methodologies, and no mitigation would be required. Buildout roadway segment ADT volumes, v/c ratios, and LOS are presented in Table 4.161. As this table indicates, all study area roadway segments (including the designated School, Operations, and Space Constrained hot-spot roadways) are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS. Therefore, a significant project or buildout impact would not occur at any study area roadway segment, and no mitigation would be required. Conclusion. Based on the results of the traffic analysis, construction and implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts to the surrounding roadway system.The evaluation of the study area intersection and roadway segment LOS shows that the addition of project traffic would result in less than significant impacts in the Existing Plus Project, Cumulative (Year 2022), and Buildout (2040) conditions. No mitigation would be required. (b) Would the project 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 and highways? Less Than Significant Impact. The analysis completed in the TIA (February 2018) is consistent with the requirements and procedures outlined in the 2015 Orange County Congestion Management Program (Orange County Transportation Authority [OCTA]; November 2015). Appendix B-2 of the 2015 CMP provides criteria for projects not requiring additional analysis of traffic impacts to CMP-monitored facilities. According to the criteria, projects generating fewer than 2,400 daily trips are below the threshold for a CMP analysis. The reason given is that below this threshold, project traffic could not trigger a significant impact, which is defined as using 3 percent or more of existing capacity. The closest CMP-monitored facilities to the project site are the intersection of 1-5 southbound ramps/Ortega Highway and the roadway segment of Ortega Highway between 1-5 northbound ramps and 1-5 southbound ramps. The proposed project is estimated to add 1,699 daily trips to the surrounding circulation system, which is less than the 2,400 daily trips given as the threshold for a CMP analysis. However, as discussed under Section 4.16 (a), the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on that intersection and roadway segment under the Existing Plus Project, Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative (Year 2022), and Year 2040 Buildout scenarios.Therefore,the proposed P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-145 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Table 4.16.J: Buildout Intersection Level of Service Summary(ICU) 1 2 3 4 Existing Plus Existing Project Buildout Buildout Impact2 Peak o Intersection Control Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Yes/No 1 AM 0.769 C 0.770 C 0.845 D 0.001 No 1 I-5 NB Ramps/Ortega Highway Signal PM 0.683 B 0.685 B 0.747 C 0.002 No 1 AM 0.658 B 0.664 B 0.743 C 0.006 No 2 I-5 SB Ramps/Ortega Highway Signal PM 0.653 B 0.657 B 0.770 C 0.004 No 1 AM 0.521 A 0.524 A 0.594 A 0.003 No 3 Del Obispo Street/Ortega Highway Signal PM 0.508 A 0.519 A 0.589 A 0.011 No 4 EI Camino Real/Ortega Highway Signal AM 0.453 A 0.453 A 0.547 A 0.000 NoPM 0.404 A 0.404 A 0.481 A 0.000 No 5 Camino Capistrano/Ortega Highway Signal AM 0.509 A 0.512 A 0.752 C 0.003 No PM 0.482 A 0.484 A 0.561 A 0.002 No 6 Camino Capistrano/Verdugo Street Signal AM 0.444 A 0.444 A 0.527 A 0.000 No PM 0.508 A 0.510 A 0.565 A 0.002 No 7 Camino Capistrano/Forster Street OWSC AM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 AM 0.639 B 0.644 B 0.761 C 0.005 No 8 Camino Capistrano/Del Obispo Street Signal PM 0.622 B 0.636 B 0.719 C 0.014 No 1 AM 0.568 A 0.581 A 0.657 B 0.013 No 9 Paseo Adelanto/Del Obispo Street Signal PM 0.541 A 0.556 A 0.672 B 0.015 No 1 AM 0.507 A 0.521 A 0.594 A 0.014 No 10 Alipaz Street/Del Obispo Street Signal PM 0.431 A 0.444 A 0.542 A 0.013 No 11 Via Belardes-Paseo Carolina/Del Obispo Street' AM 0.369 A 0.371 A 0.429 A 0.002 No Signal PM 0.322 A 0.331 A 0.379 A 0.009 No 12 Aguacate Road/Del Obispo Street Signal AM 0.505 A 0.511 A 0.582 A 0.006 No PM 0.461 A 0.478 A 0.539 A 0.017 No AM 0.526 A 0.532 A 0.614 B 0.006 No 13 Del Obispo Street/Calle Aspero Signal PM 0.464 A 0.482 A 0.560 A 0.018 No 14 Del Obispo Street/Via Pimienta-Project Driveway Signa 13 AM N/A N/A 0.511 A 0.584 A 0.511 No PM N/A N/A 0.438 A 0.524 A 0.438 No 15 Del Obispo Street/Via Vermeulen Signal AM 0.261 A 0.270 A 0.302 A 0.009 NoPM 0.246 A 0.252 A 0.289 A 0.006 No 4-146 P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA Table 4.16.J: Buildout Intersection Level of Service Summary(ICU) 1 2 3 4 Existing Plus Existing Project Buildout Buildout Impact2 Peak o Intersection Control Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Yes/No 16 Del Obispo Street/Camino Del Avion Signal AM 0.728 C 0.741 C 0.791 C 0.013 No PM 0.599 A 0.610 B 0.669 B 0.011 No AM 0.383 A 0.400 A 0.417 A 0.017 No 17 Alipaz Street/Via Positiva Signal PM 0.292 A 0.304 A 0.319 A 0.012 No 18 Alipaz Street/Camino Del Avion AWSC AM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Future Intersection OWSC AM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 19 Project Driveway/Via Positiva PM N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 AM 0.501 A 0.510 A 0.523 A 0.009 No 20 Via Positiva/Camino Del Avion Signal PM 0.214 A 0.228 A 0.234 A 0.014 No 'Intersection is considered a"Hot Spot"location(LOS E is acceptable). 2 buildout impact occurs when the ICU in(1)minus the ICU in(2)is 0.01 or greater,and the LOS in(3)is E or F. 3Implementation of Signal(Project Design Feature)at Del Obispo Street/Via Pimienta-Project Driveway with the project AWSC=all-way stop control ICU=Intersection Capacity Utilization 1-5=Interstate 5 LOS=level of service N/A=not applicable(future intersection and/or evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology) OWSC=one-way stop control NB=northbound SB=southbound P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» 4-147 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Table 4.16.K: Buildout Intersection Level of Service Summary(HCM) 1 2 3 4 Existing Plus Buildout Existing Project Buildout Impact2 Peak Intersection Control Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Yes/No 1 1-5 NB Ramps/Ortega Highway' Signal AM 50.3 D 50.4 D 63.2 E 0.1 No PM 30.0 C 30.1 C 36.9 D 0.1 No 2 1-5 SB Ramps/Ortega Highway' Signal AM 34.5 C 34.9 C 45.5 D 0.4 No PM 30.1 C 30.6 C 38.3 D 0.5 No 3 Del Obispo Street/Ortega Highway' Signal AM 13.8 B 13.8 B 14.0 B 0.0 No PM 13.4 B 13.4 B 15.4 B 0.0 No 4 EI Camino Real/Ortega Highway Signal AM 7.2 A 7.2 A 17.4 B 0.0 No PM 6.0 A 6.0 A 12.5 B 0.0 No 5 Camino Capistrano/Ortega Highway Signal AM 22.8 C 22.7 C 44.8 D -0.1 No PM 19.5 B 19.5 B 25.3 C 0.0 No AM 8.5 A 8.4 A 6.1 A -0.1 No 6 Camino Capistrano/Verdugo Street Signal PM 11.6 B 11.7 B 10.6 B 0.1 No AM 17.8 C 17.8 C 23.6 C 0.0 No 7 Camino Capistrano/Forster Street OWSC PM 20.2 C 20.2 C 24.4 C 0.0 No 8 Camino Capistrano/Del Obispo Street' Signal AM 28.1 C 28.7 C 42.0 D 0.6 No PM 34.1 C 36.2 D 37.5 D 2.1 No 9 Paseo Adelanto/Del Obispo Street' Signal AM 13.6 B 14.1 B 18.5 B 0.5 No PM 15.5 B 15.6 B 22.3 C 0.1 No 10 Alipaz Street/Del Obispo Street' Signal AM 23.0 C 23.2 C 26.4 C 0.2 No PM 19.1 B 19.1 B 24.3 C 0.0 No 11 Via Belardes Paseo Carolina/Del Obispo Street' AM 8.7 A 8.7 C 13.1 B 0.0 No Signal PM 8.6 A 8.7 A 13.1 B 0.1 No 12 Aguacate Road/Del Obispo Street Signal AM 26.4 C 26.7 C 28.6 C 0.3 No PM 9.0 A 9.4 A 10.8 B 0.4 No 13 Del Obispo Street/Calle Aspero Signal AM 12.7 B 12.8 B 15.1 B 0.1 No PM 11.8 B 12.2 B 13.6 B 0.4 No 14 Del Obispo Street/Via Pimienta-Project Driveway Signal s AM 19.5 C 7.3 A 7.6 A -12.2 NoPM 17.0 C 7.5 A 7.8 A -9.5 No 15 Del Obispo Street/Via Vermeulen Signal AM 2.5 A 2.5 A 2.7 A 0.0 No PM 3.6 A 3.6 A 3.7 A 0.0 No 16 Del Obispo Street/Camino Del Avion Signal AM 42.9 D 45.7 D 53.4 D 2.8 No 4-148 P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA Table 4.16.K: Buildout Intersection Level of Service Summary(HCM) 1 2 3 4 Existing Plus Buildout Existing Project Buildout Impact2 Peak o Intersection Control Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Yes/No PM 27.1 C 28.1 C 35.7 D 1.0 No 17 Alipaz Street/Via Positiva Signal AM 11.8 B 12.3 B 12.5 B 0.5 No PM 10.0 B 10.3 B 10.3 B 0.3 No AM 12.3 B 12.3 B 13.2 B 0.0 No 18 Alipaz Street/Camino Del Avion AWSC PM 12.0 B 12.0 B 12.7 B 0.0 No Future Intersection AWSC AM N/A N/A 12.6 B 12.7 B N/A No 19 Project Driveway/Via Positiva PM N/A N/A 10.3 B 10.4 B N/A No 20 Via Positiva/Camino Del Avion' Signal AM 7.8 A 8.1 A 8.2 A 0.3 No PM 4.3 A 4.4 A 4.4 A 0.1 No 'Intersection is considered a"Hot Spot"location(LOS E is acceptable). 2 buildout impact occurs when the delay in(2)minus the delay in(1)is 1.0 seconds or greater,and the LOS in(3)is E or F. 3Implementation of Signal(Project Design Feature)at Del Obispo Street/Via Pimienta-Project Driveway with the project AWSC=all-way stop control HCM=Highway Capacity Manual.Delay is reported in seconds. 1-5=Interstate 5 LOS=level of service N/A=not applicable(future intersection) OWSC=one-way stop control NB=northbound SB=southbound P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» 4-149 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Table 4.161: Buildout Roadway Segment Level of Service Summary 1 2 3 4 No.of LOSE Existing project Existing Plus Project Buildout Buildout IrrI Roadway Segment Lanes Capacity ADT V/C LOS ADT ADT I V/C LOS ADT WC LOS A WC Yes/No 1-5 NB Ramps to 1-5 SB Ramps' 8D 75,000 40,775 0.54 A 340 41,115 0.55 A 49,040 0.65 B 0.01 No 1-5 SB Ramps to Del Obispo' 6D 56,300 36,849 0.65 B 561 37,410 0.66 B 43,609 0.77 C 0.01 No Ortega Hwy Del Obispo to EI Camino Real p 4D 37,500 11,701 0.31 A 0 11,701 0.31 A 15,196 0.41 A 0.00 No EI Camino Real to Camino Capistrano 4D 37,500 7,085 0.19 A 0 7,085 0.19 A 8,963 0.24 A 0.00 No Ortega to Camino Capistrano' 4D 37,500 28,068 0.75 C 561 28,629 0.76 C 31,534 0.84 D 0.01 No Camino Capistrano to Paseo Adelanto' 6D 56,300 33,343 0.59 A 561 33,904 0.60 A 38,694 0.69 B 0.01 No Paseo Adelanto to Alipaz' 6D 56,300 31,436 0.56 A 714 32,150 0.57 A 36,489 0.65 B 0.01 No Del Obispo St Aguacate to Calle Aspero 4D 37,500 16,417 0.44 A 425 16,842 0.45 A 19,291 0.51 A 0.01 No Calle Aspero to Project Driveway 4D 37,500 16,015 0.43 A 493 16,508 0.44 A 18,633 0.50 A 0.01 No Project Driveway to Via Vermeulen 4D 37,500 15,491 0.41 A 510 16,001 0.43 A 17,936 0.48 A 0.02 No Via Vermeulen to Camino Del 4D 37,500 16,644 0.44 A 510 17,154 0.46 A 19,089 0.51 A 0.02 No Avion Del Obispo to Via Positiva 4D 37,500 10,598 0.28 A 493 11,091 0.30 A 13,291 0.35 A 0.02 No Alipaz St Via Positiva to Camino Del Avion 3D 25,000 7,151 0.29 1 A 0 7,151 0.29 1 A 7,979 0.32 A 0.00 No Alipaz to Project Driveway 2U 12,500 2,342 0.19 A 493 2,835 0.23 A 2,894 0.23 A 0.04 No Via Positiva Project Driveway to Camino Del 21L) 12,500 1,810 0.14 A 204 2,014 0.16 A 2,059 0.16 A 0.02 No Avion Camino Ortega to Del Obispo 2D 20,000 14,508 0.73 C 68 14,576 0.73 C 16,811 0.84 D 0.00 No Capistrano Note:For No.of Lanes,D=divided,and U=undivided ' Segment is considered a"Hot Spot"location(LOS E is acceptable). 2 A buildout impact occurs when the WC in(2)minus the V/C in(1)is 0.01 or greater,and the LOS in(3)is E or F. ADT=average daily trips NB=northbound 1-5=Interstate 5 SB=southbound LOS=level of service V/C=volume-to-capacity ratio 4-150 P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA project would result in less than significant traffic impacts on the CMP Highway and Roadway System and would not conflict with the applicable Orange County CMP. No mitigation is required. (c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The closest airport to the project site is John Wayne Airport, located approximately 16.52 miles northwest of the project site. Additionally, the Helicopter Outlying Landing Field associated with the United States Marine Corps at Camp Pendleton is located approximately 9 miles southeast of the project site. Based on these distances from the project site, the proposed project would not affect aviation traffic levels or otherwise result in substantial aviation-related safety risks. (d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. Vehicular traffic to and from the project site would utilize the existing network of regional and local roadways that serve the project site. Access to the project site would be provided via two new full-access driveways on Del Obispo Street and Via Positiva. As a project design feature, a traffic signal will be installed at the new four-leg intersection of Del Obispo Street/Via Pimienta—Project Driveway.The Via Positiva project driveway will be stop- controlled (with uncontrolled movements along Via Positiva). The signalized Del Obispo Street driveway will have two outbound lanes for drivers to exit (i.e., a left-turn lane and a shared through/right-turn lane). The secondary Via Positiva driveway will have a single outbound lane (i.e., shared left-turn/right-turn lane). The proposed signal at the Del Obispo Street/Via Pimienta- Project Driveway will have a left-turn pocket to allow southbound traffic to make safe left turns into the site.The traffic signal will also be coordinated with the existing traffic signals at Calle Aspero and Via Vermeulen. A left-turn pocket is not required at the Via Positiva driveway as Via Positiva is a low-volume local street. Based on the results of the traffic analysis prepared for the project, all project driveways are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS D or better For Existing Plus Project, Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative, and Buildout conditions during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. A sight distance analysis was conducted along Del Obispo Street at the proposed location of the main project driveway (which is aligned with Via Pimienta) to ensure driver visibility and safety. In the project vicinity, the Del Obispo Street speed limit is 40 mph. According to the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUCTD), the stopping sight distance for a roadway with the speed limit of 40 mph is 305 feet. Based on a field survey, there are no existing sight distance obstructions at the proposed Del Obispo Street project driveway. The sight distances at the project driveway exceed 800 feet looking to the north (right) and 600 feet looking to the south (left). Therefore, the project driveway would meet the minimum sight distance requirements specified in the CAMUTCD, and no mitigation would be required. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-151 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any impacts related to hazards associated with a design feature, and no mitigation would be required. (e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Construction. Temporary lane closures during construction activities could restrict access for emergency vehicles. Therefore, Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, which requires that a Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan (TMP) be prepared for the proposed project, would be required to ensure that emergency vehicles would be able to navigate through streets adjacent to the project site in the event there is congestion due to construction activities. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 also requires that all emergency access to the project site and adjacent areas be kept clear and unobstructed during all phases of construction. Traffic management personnel (flag persons) required as part of the TMP would be trained to assist in emergency response by restricting or controlling the movement of traffic that could interfere with emergency vehicle access. If a partial street closure (i.e., lane closure) is required, notice would be provided to the Orange County Sheriff's Department and flag persons would be used to facilitate the traffic flow until construction is complete. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, potential impacts related to emergency access during project construction would be less than significant. Operation. As part of the project approval, emergency access to/from the site would be required to meet all applicable City codes and standards. As such, project site plans illustrating emergency vehicle access would be subject to review by the City Fire and Police Departments (i.e., Orange County Fire Authority and Orange County Sheriff's Department) for compliance with fire and emergency access standards and requirements. Subject to review and approval of plans relative to adequate vehicular access, the development plans would not restrict or preclude access for emergency vehicles. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Thus, operational impacts related to emergency access would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measure: Refer to Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, provided in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. (f) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. As stated previously, pedestrian access to the project site would be provided via existing sidewalks along Alipaz Street, Via Positiva, and Del Obispo Street. Bicycle access to the project site would be available via Class II bike lanes on both sides of Del Obispo Street (located west of the project site) and Alipaz Street (located east of the project site). The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) currently operates bus Route 91 along Del Obispo Street in the vicinity of the project site. Additionally, a bus stop associated with Route 91 is located approximately 450 feet north of the project site on Del Obispo Street. The project site is also within walking distances to the San Juan Capistrano Train Depot (0.81 mile to 4-152 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA the northeast), Amtrak's Pacific Surfliner (0.81 mile to the northeast), and Metrolink's Inland Empire-Orange County and Orange County Lines (OCTA Route 91 runs along the western boundary of the site, and Metrolink's Inland Empire-Orange County and Orange County Lines are located 0.5 mile east of the project site and 0.8 mile northeast of the project site). Construction and implementation of the proposed project would not affect existing transit service (i.e., bus stops or routes), or conflict with adopted programs, plans, or policies regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise degrade the performance or safety of such facilities. Traffic could increase during construction, but would be temporary, as stated in Section 4.16 (a). During operation, traffic would be similar to current conditions and transportation facilities would continue to perform as they do currently. Impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-153 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 4.17 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the Significant Mitigation Significant No significance of a tribal cultural resource,defined in Public Resources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Code section 21074 as either a site,feature,place,cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: (a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical ❑ ® ❑ ❑ resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k) (b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set ❑ ® ❑ ❑ forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.11 the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. (a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? OR (b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The following responses address the thresholds in Sections 4.17 (a) and 4.17 (b). Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014 (i.e., Assembly Bill [AB] 52), requires that Lead Agencies evaluate a project's potential to impact "tribal cultural resources." Such resources include "[s]ites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources." AB 52 also gives Lead Agencies the discretion to determine, supported by substantial evidence, whether a resource qualifies as a "tribal cultural resource." Also per AB 52 (specifically Public Resources Code [PRC] 21080.3.1), Native American consultation is required upon request by a California Native American tribe that has previously requested that the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) provide it with notice of such projects. 4-154 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA The City currently maintains the following list of Tribal Councils that have requested formal notification of proposed projects pursuant to AB 52: • Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation, Joyce Perry, Tribal Manager. Requested to be added to the City's list of Tribal Councils on August 15, 2015. • Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, Michael Mirelez, Cultural Resource Coordinator. Requested to be added to the City's list of Tribal Councils on May 12, 2015. • Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Resource Director. Requested to be added to the City's list of Tribal Councils on June 12, 2015. The City also maintains a list of tribal councils based on a list of councils and corresponding Native American representatives provided to the City by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on December 27, 2017. This includes the following Native American representatives to be contacted for Senate Bill (SB) 18 consultation:49 • Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians—Kizh Nation,Andrew Salas, Chairperson • Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Anthony Morales, Chairperson • Gabrieleno-Tongva Tribe, Charles Alvarez, Chairperson • Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation,Joyce Perry,Tribal Manager • Gabrieleno-Tongva Tribe, Linda Candelaria • Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation, Matias Belardes, Chairperson • Gabrieleno/Tongva Nation,Sandonne Goad, Chairperson • Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, Sonia Johnston,Tribal Chairperson • Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation,Teresa Romero, Chairwoman The City sent letters for the purposes of SB 18 and AB 52 consultation to all of the people listed above on January 3, 2018. One response was received from Andrew Salas, Chairman of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation in response to the City's letters. In an email dated January 11, 2018, Mr. Salas informed the City that the project site is not within his Tribal territory and asked that the City contact Christopher Granado of the Juaneno Tribe. Mr. Granado reached out to the City and forwarded a letter (which had been sent to the City Manager on April 19, 2017) offering Native American monitoring services to the City. Mr. Granado expressed a desire to participate in the selection process for hiring monitors for the project site. Attempts at follow-up communication in the form of phone calls and emails were made on January 31, 2018, and February 8, 2018, to the remaining people who had not responded to the letters, asking them to respond if they have concerns. On February 8, 2018, the City received an email requesting consultation from Joyce Perry, Tribal Manager of Juaneno Band of Mission 49 SB 18 (Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004) requires cities and counties to contact and consult with California Native American tribes prior to amending or adopting any general plan or specific plan, or designating land as open space. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-155 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Indians Acjachemen Nation. Ms. Perry suggested the City contact her to conduct in person consultation. The City subsequently met with Ms. Perry, who was joined by Matias Belardes, on Wednesday, February 21, 2018. At this meeting, Ms. Perry and Mr. Belardes asked if a Phase I report had been prepared on the site and requested the Cultural Resources section of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was prepared as part of a previously proposed project on the site. The tribal representatives also asked to have input on the Archaeological Monitoring Plan and Accidental Discovery Plan (Mitigation Measure CUL-2) for the proposed project. In response to these inquiries, the City sent the Cultural Resources section and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) from the previous EIR, as well as the Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources sections of this Draft IS/MND. Ms. Perry and Mr. Belardes indicated that they had no further questions, but expressed a desire to review the monitoring plan (as required by Mitigation Measure TRC-1) and requested that the City continue to involve them in the planning process. As discussed in Section 4.5 (a), the project site does not contain any known "historical resources" as defined by the CEQA. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines or PRC 5020.1(k). As discussed in Section 4.5 (b), there is potential for subsurface archaeological deposits below the ground surface on the project site. Consequently, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 requires that an archaeological monitor be on site during ground-disturbing activities to monitor for buried prehistoric or historic material. However, because no cultural resources were identified on the site, monitors would not be required on a full-time basis, but would spot check ground- disturbing activities to ensure that no cultural resources are impacted during construction activities. Additionally,the project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure CUL-2, which outlines procedures for recovering any significant or unique archaeological resources and for preparation of a report that documents the monitoring and any recovery at the site. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would reduce any potential impacts to previously undiscovered archaeological resources to a less than significant level. As noted above, Joyce Perry, Tribal Manager of Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation, requested consultation on February 8, 2018. Additionally, Chris Granado, of the Juaneno Tribe, sent a letter to the City expressing a desire to participate in the selection process for hiring monitors for the project site. No evidence that the proposed project would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource (defined in PRC Section 21074 as either a site,feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) was presented by either party. However, the City agreed to require Native American monitoring during ground-disturbing activities in native soils (estimated to be as deep as 15 feet below ground surface [bgs]). Because there is no evidence of tribal cultural resources on the site, monitors would not be required on a full-time basis and would be present to spot check 4-156 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA construction activities, consistent with the requirements in Mitigation Measure CUL-2. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 requires the presence of a Native American monitor during ground- disturbing activities, as requested during the consultation processes conducted for the project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would reduce any potential impacts to previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level. Therefore, on this basis and as a result of the City's consultation efforts,the City has concluded that, with implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1, potential impacts related to unknown buried tribal cultural resources would also be reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure: TCR-1 Tribal Cultural Resources: Monitoring Procedures. Prior to commencement of any ground-disturbing activities, the project Applicant shall present evidence to the Director of the City of San Juan Capistrano Community Department, or designee, that a qualified Native American monitor has been retained to provide Native American monitoring services during ground-disturbing activities in native soils. Because no known resources have been identified on the site, monitors are not required on a full-time basis, but shall spot check ground- disturbing activities in compliance with the monitoring procedures outlined in the Monitoring Plan (which itself is required as part of Mitigation Measure CUL- 2) to ensure that no resources are impacted during construction. The Native American monitor shall be selected by the project Applicant from the list of certified Native American monitors maintained by Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation. The Native American monitor shall be present at the pre-grading conference to establish procedures for tribal cultural resource surveillance. Those procedures shall include provisions for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of resources deemed by the Native American monitor to be tribal cultural resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074. These procedures shall be reviewed and approved by the City of San Juan Capistrano Community Department Director, or designee, prior to commencement of any surface disturbance on the project site. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-1557 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 4.18 UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Regional Water Quality Control Board? (b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment or collection facilities or expansion of ❑ ® ❑ ❑ existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ expanded entitlements needed? (e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has ❑ ❑ ® ❑ adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (f) Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to ❑ ❑ ® ❑ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations ❑ ❑ ® ❑ related to solid wastes. Impact Analysis: (a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less Than Significant Impact. Although the proposed project is a residential project and not subject to the wastewater treatment requirements of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the following discussion is provided to disclose potential wastewater impacts associated with the proposed project. Local governments and water districts are responsible for complying with federal regulations, both for wastewater plant operation and the collection systems (e.g., sanitary sewers)that convey wastewater to the wastewater treatment facility. Proper operation and maintenance is critical for sewage collection and treatment because impacts from these processes can degrade water resources and affect human health. For these reasons, publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) receive Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) to ensure that such wastewater facilities operate in compliance with the water quality regulations set forth by the State. WDRs, issued by the State, establish effluent limits on the kinds and quantities of pollutants that POTWs can discharge. These permits also contain pollutant monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting requirements. Each POTW that intends to discharge into the nation's waters must obtain a WDR prior to initiating its discharge. 4-158 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA Implementation of the proposed project would allow for the development of up to 180 residential units on the currently vacant project site. Wastewater from the residential uses would be directed to the City's local sewers, which tie into trunk sewers operated by the South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA). SOCWA is a Joint Powers Authority with 10 member agencies, consisting of local retail water agencies and cities and their residents. SOCWA operates three treatment plants and two ocean outfalls.50 SOCWA's three primary treatment facilities can treat upwards of 26 million gallons of wastewater per day. Historically, approximately half of this wastewater is treated for recycled water use, while the other half is treated and discharged through the two ocean outfalls.51 Wastewater entering the SOCWA trunk sewer lines from the City is delivered to the J.B. Latham Regional Treatment Plant (J.B. Latham Plant) for collection, treatment, and disposal. This facility is responsible for the treatment and disposal of wastewater. Because the reclamation plant is considered POTWs, operational discharge flows treated at the plant would be required to comply with applicable WDRs issued by the San Diego RWQCB. Compliance with conditions or permit requirements established by the San Diego RWQCB WDRs would ensure that wastewater discharges from the project site and treated by the wastewater treatment facility system would not exceed applicable San Diego RWQCB wastewater treatment requirements. In addition, as discussed in Section 4.18 (b), the proposed project is anticipated to generate an additional 46,200 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater (0.05 million gallons per day [mgd]), which is approximately 0.7 percent of the available daily treatment capacity at the SOCWA J.B. Latham Plant. Wastewater generated from the proposed project would be typical of residential wastewater flows in the City. Therefore, the increased wastewater flows from the proposed project can be accommodated within the existing design capacity of the existing wastewater treatment facilities and would not result in the wastewater treatment facilities exceeding the wastewater treatment requirements established by the San Diego RWQCB. Therefore, impacts related to wastewater treatment requirements would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Water. The City's Utilities Department provides water services to the project site. The Utilities Department receives its domestic water supply from the following three sources: (1) water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD); (2) the City's Groundwater Recovery Plant; and (3) local groundwater wells within the City. The largest source of water for the City is purchased water from MWD, which accounts for approximately 64 percent of the City's water supply portfolio.52 50 South Orange County Wastewater Authority. About SOCWA. Website: https://www.socwa.com/about- socwa/(accessed December 26,2017). 51 SOCWA. Infrastructure.Website: https://www.socwa.com/infrastructure/(accessed December 26,2017). S2 City of San Juan Capistrano. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.July 2016. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-159 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 The City's water supply system provides reliable service to a population of nearly 39,047 within the service area. According to the City's Final 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP),the total projected water demand for the retail customers served by the City was approximately 8,531-acre feet (af) in 2015. The City's projected water demand for 2020 and 2040 is 8,618 and 8,688 of per year, respectively, which would be equal to the City's projected water supply for 2020 and 2040 (8,618 and 8,688 of per year, respectively). According to the 2015 UWMP, the City's available supply will meet the future projected demand because the City has entitlements to receive imported water from the MWD and also has significant water reserves from local groundwater supplies. In addition, the 2015 UWMP water demand forecast for South Orange County (which includes the City of San Juan Capistrano) is based on projected demographics (U.S. Census Bureau data) provided by the Center for Demographic Research (CDR) to each water agency in Orange County. Based on these projections, along with the City's access to imported water and local groundwater, the City would have adequate water supplies to meet full service demands. Construction. Short-term demand for water may occur during construction activities on site. Water demand for soil watering (fugitive dust control), cleanup, masonry, painting, and other activities would be temporary and would cease at project build out. Overall, construction activities require minimal water and are not expected to have any adverse impacts on the existing water system or available water supplies. Therefore, potential project impacts associated with short-term construction activities would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Operation. As shown in Table 4.18.A, the proposed project would develop the currently vacant project site with up to 180 single-family residences, which would result in a projected water demand of 71,460 gpd (80 of annually). Therefore, the estimated increase in water demand associated with the proposed project would represent 0.9 percent of the City's current and projected annual water demand (based on the City's consumption of 8,531 of in 2015 and projected water demands of 8,618 of in 2020 and 8,688 of 2040). Table 4.18.A: Project-Related Water Demand Land Use Type Generation Rate Proposed Project Total Per Day Single-Family 397 gallons of water per 180 units 71,460 gallons Residential day/unit Source:City of San Juan Capistrano.2015 Urban Water Management Plan(July 2016). As is required of all new development in California, the proposed project would comply with California State law regarding water conservation measures, including pertinent provisions of Title 24 of the California Government Code (Title 24) regarding the use of water-efficient appliances and low-flow plumbing fixtures. As such, the proposed project would not necessitate new or expanded water entitlements, and the City would be able to accommodate the increased demand for potable water. The project would also be required to comply with Standard Condition UTL-1, which requires the Applicant to pay a Domestic Water Fee to further 4-160 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA reduce impacts related to water demand. Therefore, project impacts associated with an increase in potable water demand are considered less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Water Distribution. As discussed in Section 2.0, Project Description, the proposed project may include up to three connections to the existing 10-inch public water lines that are owned and operated by the City and are located in Del Obispo Street and Via Positiva. The project may also include an on-site potable water system, which would consist of 8-inch and 12-inch water distribution piping. Mitigation Measure ULT-1 requires preparation of a water feasibility study at the time future Tentative Tract Maps are proposed to confirm there is sufficient water distribution infrastructure to accommodate the project's domestic water needs and fire flow requirements. If a deficiency or service problem is found during the permitting process, the project Applicant would be required by existing regulation to fund the required upgrades to adequately serve the project. Upgrades may include connections to the existing City-owned water lines in Del Obispo Street and Via Positiva. During any required improvements on these roadways, the project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires implementation of a Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan to reduce potential traffic impacts associated with temporary lane closures on roadways within the project vicinity during infrastructure improvements and utility connections. Furthermore, new utility connections to existing utilities in Del Obispo Street and Via Positiva would be similar to typical repair operations on the existing facilities. Therefore, the project's impacts related to water conveyance and distribution would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and ULT-1. Wastewater. As previously stated, wastewater generated in the City is collected and treated at the J.B. Latham Plant, located at 34156 Del Obispo Street in the City of Dana Point, approximately 2 miles south of the project site.The City is one of 10 member agencies that own treatment capacity in the SOCWA wastewater treatment facilities. The City owns 4 mgd of the liquids treatment capacity (30.8 percent) of the J.B. Latham Plant.53 The J.B. Latham Plant has a total design capacity of 13 mgd and currently treats an average wastewater flow of 6.7 mgd.54 Therefore, the J.B. Latham Plant is currently operating at approximately 52 percent of its daily design capacity. The City operates and maintains a sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system that includes approximately 120 miles of sewer lines in sizes up to 27 inches in diameter. In addition, the City also operates and maintains two lift stations- the Rosenbaum Lift Station and the Avenida De La Vista List Station.55 Existing sewer lines in the vicinity of the project site include one City-owned 8-inch gravity sewer line south of the project site in Via Positiva. This existing 8-inch gravity sewer line runs east 53 City of San Juan Capistrano.2015 Urban Water Management Plan.July 2016. 54 SOCWA. J.B. Latham Treatment Plant. Website: https://www.socwa.com/infrastructure/J`b-latham- treatment-plant(accessed December 21,2017). ss Ibid. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-161 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 along Via Positiva and connects to a City-owned 18-inch trunk line in Alipaz Street. The existing 18-inch gravity trunk line flows south in Alipaz Street and connects to a City-owned 21-inch sewer line that continues south, adjacent to San Juan Creek, until it is disposed of at the SOCWA J.B. Latham Plant. As shown in Table 4.18.13, the proposed project would develop the currently vacant project site with up to 180 single-family residences, and would generate approximately 46,200 gpd (0.05 mgd) of wastewater. Therefore, the estimated 56 increase in wastewater generated as a result of project implementation would represent approximately 0.7 percent of the available daily treatment capacity at the J.B. Latham Plant. 56 1,320 gallons of wastewater per day per acre * 35 acres=46,200 gallons of wastewater per day. 4-162 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA Table 4.18.8: Project-Related Wastewater Generation Land Use Type Generation Rate Proposed Project Total Per Day Single-Family 1,320 gpd per acre for 35 acres 46,200 gpd Residential Medium-Density Residences Source:City of San Juan Capistrano,Municipal Code,Section 9-4.523. gpd=gallons per day The J.B. Latham Plant is in compliance with the San Diego RWQCB's treatment requirements and has the capacity to accommodate the increased wastewater flows from the proposed project. Furthermore, as each Tentative Tract Map is submitted, the City would confirm and ensure that there is sufficient capacity in the local and trunk lines currently located in Via Positiva to accommodate the wastewater (Mitigation Measure UTL-2). In the unlikely event that the public sewer has insufficient capacity, the Applicant would be required to a pay a fair-share portion of the cost to improve or replace sewer lines to ensure sufficient capacity. A final approval for sewer capacity and connection permit would be made at that time. Any improvements to existing local or trunk lines would occur within the existing right-of-way and would be temporary in nature, similar to repair or maintenance of infrastructure and/or roadways. As such, impacts associated with improvements to the existing local and/or trunk lines would be anticipated to be less than significant. The proposed project would also be required to adhere to Standard Condition UTL-2, which requires the Applicant to pay a Sewer Connection Fee. Therefore, development of the project would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities, which would cause significant environmental impacts. Project impacts related to construction or expansion of wastewater treatment facilities would, therefore, be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures UTL-1 and UTL-2. Mitigation Measures: UTL-1: Water Capacity Study. Concurrent with Tentative Tract Map (TTM) submittals for the project, the Applicant shall submit a Water Capacity Study to the City of San Juan Capistrano City Engineer, or designee, for review and approval. The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations in the Water Capacity Study shall be based on final design plans and shall be consistent with the all applicable City requirements. UTL-2: Sewer Feasibility Study. Concurrent with TTM submittals for the project, the Applicant shall submit a Sewer Feasibility Study to the City of San Juan Capistrano City Engineer, or designee, for review and approval. The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations in the Sewer Feasibility Study shall be based on final design plans and shall be consistent with the all applicable City requirements. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-163 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Standard Conditions: UTL-1: Domestic Water Fee. Prior to issuance of any grading or construction permits, the City of San Juan Capistrano Public Works Director, or designee, shall verify that the project Applicant has paid the proposed project's fair share of Domestic Water Fees in accordance with City Resolution No. 04-05-18-04. UTL-2: Sewer Connection Fee. Prior to issuance of any grading or construction permits, the City Public Works Director, or designee, shall verify that the project Applicant has paid the proposed project's fair share of Sewer Connection Fees in accordance with City Resolution No. 04-11-16-05. (c) Would the project 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? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed further in Section 4.9, the project site is currently undeveloped and consists of pervious surfaces. Development of the project would increase impervious surface area by approximately 15.3 acres, which would increase stormwater runoff and could potentially result in flooding. As specified in Mitigation Measure WQ-2, the project would be required to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which would specify the site design, source control, low impact development, and hydromodification Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be implemented to capture, treat, and reduce stormwater runoff. Incorporation post-construction BMPs would reduce stormwater peak flows in compliance with the County hydromodification requirements. Because the proposed BMPs would reduce stormwater runoff, the project would not exceed the capacity of the downstream storm drain lines or result in off-site flooding. In addition, a Hydrology Report would be prepared for the project which would specify the required sizing of the drainage facilities needed to accommodate stormwater runoff so that on-site flooding would not occur (Mitigation Measure WQ-3). Therefore, the project would not cause or require the expansion of existing stormwater drain facilities, and no mitigation would be required. (d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Section 4.18 (b). The proposed project would use approximately 71,460 gallons per day (80 of per year) of potable water. According to the City of San Juan Capistrano's Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP 2015), citywide supply and demand for potable water was 8,531 of in 2015 and is expected to increase to 8,618 of by 2020 and 8,688 of by 2040 under a normal year scenario. The 2015 UWMP projections include population increases of approximately 1 percent per year, as well as anticipated water conservation strategies. Overall, the City's per capita water use is projected to continue to decrease into the future,thereby keeping demand relatively constant over the next 25 years. 4-164 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA The proposed project's projected water demand would represent approximately 0.9 percent of the projected water supply and demand in 2020 and 2040. As described further in the City's Final 2015 UWMP, the City has sufficient entitlements to receive imported water from the Metropolitan Water District, and also has significant water reserves from local groundwater supplies. Based on the Final UWMP, the City would be able to purchase additional water to supply the project-related increase in demand for potable water. As such, the City would have adequate water supplies to serve existing and projected water demands through the year 2040 under normal, single-dry year, and multiple-dry year scenarios. The incremental water demand generated by the proposed project would be within the available water supplies to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources and would not necessitate new or expanded entitlements.Therefore, impacts related to water supplies would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (e) Would the project 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? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Section 4.18 (b). Although the proposed project would increase demand for wastewater treatment,the increased wastewater generated by the project could be accommodated within the design capacity of the treatment plants currently serving the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact the wastewater treatment provider's service capacity or the ability of the service provider to meet existing service commitments. Project-related impacts related to wastewater generation and treatment would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (f) Would the project be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction. The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped, and therefore, no solid waste is generated under existing conditions. As previously described, the proposed project would allow for the development of up to 180 single-family residential units on the site. Construction of the proposed project would generate minimal amount of demolition waste because the site is currently vacant, with the exception of the loading dock foundations associated with the nursery that formerly operated on the site. In compliance with Municipal Code Section 6-3.08.01, Minimum Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion Requirements, the project would divert at least 65 percent of the construction waste materials generated during the project. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to cause significant impacts related to solid waste generation during construction, and no mitigation measures regarding construction debris are required. Operation. The City contracts with CR&R Waste and Recycling Services (CR&R), a private solid waste hauler, to collect and dispose of the solid waste/refuse generated by the City. Solid waste generated by the proposed project would be collected by CR&R and hauled to the Prima Deshecha Landfill, which currently processes an average of approximately 1,400 tons per day P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-165 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 (tpd), with a maximum capacity of 4,000 tpd.57 Therefore, the Prima Deshecha Landfill is currently operating at approximately 35 percent of its daily design capaCity. 58 Build out of the proposed project would generate approximately 1,764 lbs of solid waste per day per da s9 60 (0.9 tons p y). Therefore, the total solid waste generated at project buildout would represent approximately 0.3 percent61 of the Prima Deshecha Landfill's currently available daily capacity. The proposed project would generate approximately 0.03 percent of the maximum daily permitted capacity of the Prima Deshecha Landfill, which is a less-than-significant proportion of solid waste compared to the total permitted daily capacity of the Prima Deshecha Landfill. The Prima Deshecha Landfill is scheduled to close in approximately 2067. A General Development Plan being prepared for the Prima Deshecha Landfill indicates end use of the landfill as a regional park. The proposed project is estimated to be completed by 2021; the Prima Deshecha Landfill is therefore anticipated to be closed 46 years after the completion of project buildout. Therefore, impacts related to solid waste generation are considered less than significant and no mitigation would be required. (g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid wastes? Less Than Significant Impact. The California Integrated Waste Management Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 939) changed the focus of solid waste management from landfill to diversion strategies, such as source reduction, recycling, and composting. The purpose of the diversion strategies is to reduce dependence on landfills for solid waste disposal. AB 939 established mandatory diversion goals of 25 percent by 1995, 50 percent by 2000, and 75 percent by 2020. The proposed project would comply with existing or future statutes and regulations, including waste diversion programs mandated by City, State, or federal law. As discussed above, the proposed project would not result in an excessive production of solid waste that would exceed the capacity of the existing landfills serving the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid wastes, and no mitigation would be required. 57 OC Landfills Prima Deshecha Landfill.Website: http://www.oclandfills.com/landfill/active/deshecha. (accessed December 21, 2017). S8 CalRecycle. Facility/Site Summary Details: Prima Deshecha Sanitary Landfill.Website: http://www.caIrecycle.ca.gov/SWFaciIities/Directory/30-AB-0019/Detail/(accessed December 21,2017). 59 180 single-family residences* 9.8 lbs per unit per day= 1,764 tons per day. 60 CalRecycle. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates.Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates(accessed December 21,2017). 61 0.9 tons per day/2,600 tons per day=0.03 percent 4-166 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA 4.19 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (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? (b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are ❑ ® ❑ ❑ considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) (C) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ indirectly? Impact Analysis: (a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.The project site is located in an urban area. The project site lacks any natural streams or riparian habitat and does not contain any jurisdictional waters. The project site is not suitable to support special-status species, and no known candidate, sensitive, or special-status species are known to inhabit the site. However, Allen's hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin), which is included on the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Special Animals List (and, as such, is considered a special-status animal species), thrives in the ornamental plantings of Orange County. Given the current project site conditions, this species could potentially occur on site, although it was not observed during the site visit. A row of non-native Peruvian pepper trees (Schinus molle) located along the edge of the project site and other ornamental trees surrounding and adjacent to the site could potentially support nesting birds, some of which are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires nesting bird surveys if construction commences between February 15 and August 15 to reduce potential project impacts related to migratory birds, including Allen's hummingbird.Adherence to Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would ensure that the project complies with the MBTA and that impacts to nesting birds are reduced to a less than significant level. Although the proposed project may include the removal of the non-native Peruvian pepper trees on the site, the project would include the planting of a variety of trees along the perimeter and within the interior of the project site. The proposed project would also P:AJCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-167 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 include shrubs throughout the site and a landscaped 0.5-acre park within the central portion of the site. Ornamental vegetation associated with project implementation would provide habitat for migratory birds, including Allen's hummingbird. Therefore, operational impacts to biological resources would be less than significant. There are no previously recorded cultural resources within the project area. However, there is potential for discovery of unknown subsurface archaeological deposits below the ground surface due to the project site's proximity to other archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 requires that an archaeological monitor be on site during ground-disturbing activities to monitor for buried prehistoric or historic material. Mitigation Measure CUL-2 includes procedures for recovering any significant or unique archaeological resources and for preparation of a report that documents the monitoring and any recovery at the project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would reduce any potential impacts to previously undiscovered archaeological resources to a less than significant level. The potential for paleontological resources on the project site is considered low because the site contains Artificial Fill (which has no paleontological sensitivity) and Young Alluvial Flood-Plain deposits to a depth of 15 feet (ft) below ground surface (bgs). However, there is potential for subsurface archaeological deposits below the Artificial Fill in the Young Alluvial Fan Deposits. Mitigation Measure CUL-3 requires preparation of a standard Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) prior to the beginning of ground-disturbing activities to reduce potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level. Although no human remains are known to be present on the project site, Native American representatives have notified the City in the past that human remains were previously found on the Cook property, north of the project site. As such, buried and undiscovered archaeological remains, including human remains, may be present below ground surface in portions of the project site. Mitigation Measure CUL-4 requires, in the event human remains are encountered, notification of the proper authorities and adherence to standard procedures for the respectful handling of human remains. In addition, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 requires Native American monitors to be present on site for ground-disturbing activities in native soils. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 and TCR-1 would reduce any potential impacts to previously undiscovered historic resources, archaeological resources, tribal cultural resources, paleontological resources, or human remains to a less than significant level. Based on the Project Description and the preceding responses, implementation of the proposed project with the required mitigation measures, does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the natural environment. Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure BIO-1 in Section 4.4, Biological Resources; Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources; and Mitigation Measure TCR-1 in Section 4.17,Tribal Cultural Resources. 4-168 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA (b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.The project site is located in an urban area. The proposed project would allow for the development of up to 180 single-family homes on a previously developed but currently vacant property. The proposed project would be consistent with the City's Zoning designation of Specific Plan/ Precise Plan (SP/PP), but would require a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan land use designation on the site from Agri-Business to SP/PP. Impacts related to the proposed project are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant levels with incorporation of mitigation measures. The proposed project would rely on and can be accommodated by the existing road system, public parks, public services, and utilities. The proposed project would not result in or contribute to a significant biological or cultural resource impact. The proposed project would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD's) air quality and greenhouse gas significance thresholds, and would also not exceed applicable noise thresholds established by the City. Moreover, construction and implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant traffic impacts on the City's local roadway system. Based on the Project Description and the preceding responses, impacts related to the proposed project are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant levels with incorporation of mitigation measures. In summary, based on the analysis and conclusions in Sections 4.1 through 4.18 of this IS/MND, construction and implementation of the proposed would result in less than significant impacts and/or less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated related to aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gases, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, tribal cultural resources, and utilities. Therefore, the proposed project's contribution to any significant cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. (c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is currently located in an urban area. The proposed project would allow for the development of up to 180 single-family residences on a currently undeveloped property. The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation on the site from Agri-Business to Specific Plan/Precise Plan (SP/PP). If approved, the proposed project would be consistent with the City's zoning classification for the site, which is currently SP/PP. Furthermore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to agricultural resources, air quality and GHG emissions, noise, public services, traffic and utilities. The project would also result in less than significant impacts with respect to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards, water quality, noise, and tribal cultural resources with mitigation P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 4-169 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 incorporated. Based on the Project Description and the preceding responses, implementation of the proposed project would not cause substantial adverse effects to human beings because all potentially significant impacts of the proposed project can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure AES-1, Mitigation Measure BI0-1 in Section 4.4, Biological Resources; Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources; Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3 in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils; Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Mitigation Measures WQ-1 through WQ-3 in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality; Mitigation Measures N0I-1 through N0I-3 in Section 4.12, Noise;, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 in Section 4.17, Tribal Cultural Resources; and Mitigation Measures UTL-1 and UTL-2 in Section 4.18, Utilities and Service Systems. Also refer to Standard Conditions AES-2 and AES-3 in Section 4.1, Aesthetics; Standard Condition AGR-1 in Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forest Resources; Standard Conditions PSU-1 and PSU-2 in Section 4.14, Public Services; Standard Condition REC-1 in Section 4.15, Recreation; and Standard Conditions UTL-1 and UTL-2 in Section 4.18, Utilities and Service Systems. 4-170 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 5.1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6 (enacted by the passage of Assembly Bill [AB] 3180) mandates that the following requirements shall apply to all reporting or mitigation monitoring programs: • The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a Responsible Agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. • The Lead Agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. A public agency shall provide the measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment that are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Conditions of project approval may be set forth in referenced documents which address required mitigation measures or in the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other project, by incorporating the mitigation measures into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design. • Prior to the close of the public review period for a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), a Responsible Agency, or a public agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, shall either submit to the Lead Agency complete and detailed performance objectives for mitigation measures which would address the significant effects on the environment identified by the Responsible Agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, or refer the Lead Agency to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to a Lead Agency by a Responsible Agency or an agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project shall be limited to measures that mitigate impacts to resources, which are subject to the statutory authority of, and definitions applicable to, that agency. Compliance or noncompliance by a Responsible Agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project with that requirement shall not limit that authority of the Responsible Agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project, or the authority of the Lead Agency,to approve, condition, or deny projects as provided by this division or any other provision of law. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx x03/02/18» 5-1 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 5.2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROCEDURES The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in compliance with PRC Section 21081.6. It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the City of San Juan Capistrano to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of the proposed project will be carried out as described in this IS/MND. Table 5.A lists each of the mitigation measures specified in this document and identifies the party or parties responsible for implementation and monitoring of each measure. 5-2 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA Table 5.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program Timing for Standard Compliance Verification Condition or Mitigation (date and signature Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Measure required) 4.1 Aesthetics AES-1: Maintenance of Construction Barriers. Prior to issuance of any City of San Juan Prior to issuance of any construction permits, the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) Development Capistrano construction permits Services Director, or designee, shall verify that construction plans include the Development Services following note: "During construction,the Construction Contractor shall ensure, Director,or designee through appropriate postings and daily visual inspections,that no unauthorized materials are posted on any temporary construction barriers or temporary pedestrian walkways, and that any such temporary barriers and walkways are maintained in a visually attractive manner. In the event that unauthorized materials or markings are discovered on any temporary construction barrier or temporary pedestrian walkway,the Construction Contractor shall remove,paint over,or otherwise obscure such items within 48 hours." Standard Condition AES-2: Comprehensive Lighting Plan. Prior to issuance of City of San Juan Prior to issuance of any any building permits, the project Applicant shall prepare a comprehensive Capistrano Design building permits lighting plan for review and approval by the City of San Juan Capistrano Review Committee,or Development Services Director and/or the City's Design Review Committee, or designee designee. The lighting plan shall be prepared by a qualified lighting engineer and shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the City's Municipal Code. The lighting plan shall address all aspects of lighting, including infrastructure, on-site driveways, recreation, safety, signage, and promotional lighting, if any. The lighting plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following,as determined by the lighting engineer: • Exterior on-site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. • No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites. • "Walpak"type fixtures are not permitted. • Parking area lighting shall include cut-off fixtures,and light standards shall not exceed 20 feet in height. • Lighting fixtures that blink,flash,or emit unusual high intensity or brightness are not permitted. P:AJCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx x03/02/18» 5-3 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Table S.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program Timing for Standard Compliance Verification Condition or Mitigation (date and signature Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Measure required) • The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the illumination recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America,or,if,in the opinion of the City Development Services Director,or designee,the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources.The City Development Services Director,or designee,may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. Standard Condition AES-3: Photometric Study. Prior to the issuance of any City of San Juan Prior to the issuance of building permits, a photometric study shall be prepared by the project Capistrano any building permits Applicant in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the City Development Services Development Services Director,or designee.The photometric study shall show Director,or designee that lighting values are 1 footcandle or less at all property lines. 4.2 Agricultural&Forest Resources Standard Condition AGR-1: Agricultural Preservation Funds: Prior to issuance City of San Juan Prior to issuance of any of any grading permits,the Applicant shall provide proof to the City of San Juan Capistrano grading permits Capistrano's Development Services Director, or designee,that payment of fees Development Services to the City's Agricultural Preservation Fund have been made in accordance with Director,or designee City Ordinance Number 316. 4.3 Air Quality The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to air quality.No mitigation would be required. 4.4 Biological Resources BIO-1: Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In the event that construction activities occur City of San Juan In the event that during the breeding season (February 15—August 15),the Applicant shall retain Capistrano construction activities a qualified biologist to conduct a nesting bird survey within 5 days prior to Development Services occur during the breeding commencement of construction activities.The nesting bird survey shall identify Director,or designee season(February 15— and document active nesting within 100 feet of the construction limits. If August 15)/Prior to nesting birds are discovered during preconstruction surveys,the biologists shall commencement of grading identify an appropriate buffer (i.e., up to 500 feet depending on the activities and issuance of circumstances and specific bird species) where no construction activities or any building permits, other disturbances are allowed to occur until after the birds have fledged from the nest. Prior to commencement of grading activities and issuance of any 5-4 P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA Table 5.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program Timing for Standard Compliance Verification Condition or Mitigation (date and signature Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Measure required) building permits, the City of San Juan Capistrano Director of Development Services,or designee,shall verify that all project grading and construction plans include specific documentation regarding the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act(META),that preconstruction surveys have been completed and the results reviewed by staff, and that the appropriate buffers (if needed) are noted on the plans and established in the field with orange snow fencing. 4.5 Cultural Resources CUL-1: Archaeological Monitor. Prior to issuance of grading permits, and in City of San Juan Prior to issuance of adherence to the recommendations of the cultural resources survey, the Capistrano grading permits Applicant shall retain, with approval of the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) Development Services Development Services Director,or designee,a qualified archaeological monitor. Director,or designee The monitor shall be present on the project site during ground-disturbing activities to monitor rough and finish grading, excavation, and other ground- disturbing activities in the native soils. Because no cultural resources were identified on the project site, archaeological monitors are not required to be present on a full-time basis, but shall spot check ground-disturbing activities to ensure that no cultural resources are impacted during construction activities. The exact timing of monitoring activities shall be consistent with the provisions established in the Monitoring Plan, which is required as part of Mitigation Measure CUL-2. CUL-2: Archaeological Monitoring Plan and Accidental Discovery. Prior to City of San Juan Prior to commencement of commencement of any grading activities on site, the Applicant shall retain a Capistrano any grading activities on qualified archaeologist to prepare a Monitoring Plan.The Monitoring Plan shall Development Services site/During project be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and shall be reviewed by the City Director,or designee/ excavation and grading Development Services Director, or designee. The Monitoring Plan should City Department of activities include at a minimum: (1) a list of personnel involved in the monitoring Public Works and activities; (2) a description of how the monitoring shall occur; (3) a description Utilities Director,or of the frequency of monitoring (e.g., full-time, part-time, spot checking); (4) a designee description of what resources may be encountered; (5) a description of circumstances that would result in the halting of work at the project site (e.g., what is considered a "significant" archaeological site); (6) a description of procedures for halting work on site and notification procedures; and (7) a description of monitoring reporting procedures. If any significant historical P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» 5.5 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Table S.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program Timing for Standard Compliance Verification Condition or Mitigation (date and signature Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Measure required) resources, archaeological resources, or human remains are found during monitoring,work shall be stopped within the immediate vicinity(precise area to be determined by the archaeologist in the field)of the resource until such time as the resource can be evaluated by an archaeologist and any other appropriate individuals. Project personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials or human remains and associated materials. To the extent feasible, project activities shall avoid these deposits. Where avoidance is not feasible, the archaeological deposits shall be evaluated for their eligibility for listing on the California Register of Historic Places. If the deposits are not eligible, avoidance is not necessary. If the deposits are eligible, adverse effects on the deposits must be avoided, or such effects must be mitigated. Mitigation can include, but is not necessarily limited to: leaving the deposits in place, excavation of the deposit in accordance with a data recovery plan (see California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 4(3) Section 5126.4(b)(3)(C)) and standard archaeological field methods and procedures;laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials; production of a report detailing the methods,findings,and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials; curation of archaeological materials at an appropriate facility for future research and/or display; an interpretive display of recovered archaeological materials at a local school, museum, or library; and public lectures at local schools and/or historical societies on the findings and significance of the site and recovered archaeological materials. It shall be the responsibility of the City Building Official, or designee, to verify that the Monitoring Plan is implemented during project excavation and grading. Upon completion of all monitoring/mitigation activities, the consulting archaeologist shall submit a monitoring report to the City Development Services Director, or designee, and to the South Central Coastal Information Center summarizing all monitoring/mitigation activities and confirming that all recommended mitigation measures have been met.The monitoring report shall be prepared consistent with the guidelines of the Office of Historic Preservation's Archaeological Resources Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format. The City Development Services Director, or designee, shall be responsible for reviewing any reports produced by the archaeologist to determine the appropriateness and adequacy of the findings and recommendations. 5-6 P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA Table S.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program Timing for Standard Compliance Verification Condition or Mitigation (date and signature Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Measure required) CUL-3: Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program. If excavation City of San Juan If excavation activities are activities are anticipated to extend deeper than 15 feet below the surface, the Capistrano anticipated to extend Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist, subject to the review and Development Services deeper than 15 feet below approval of the City Development Services Director, or designee, to prepare a Director,or designee the surface Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program(PRIMP)for the proposed project prior to the issuance of any grading permits. The PRIMP shall be consistent with the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) and shall include,but not be limited to,the following: • The paleontologist, or his/her representative, shall attend the preconstruction meeting. • Excavation and grading activities in sediments with a High paleontological sensitivity rating (Young Alluvial Floodplain Deposits below a depth of 15 feet, Old Alluvial Floodplain Deposits, and the Capistrano Formation) shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor on a full-time basis. • In the event paleontological resources are encountered when a paleontological monitor is not present,work in the immediate area of the find shall be redirected and the paleontologist contacted to assess the find for scientific significance. If any fossil remains are discovered in sediments with a Low paleontological sensitivity rating (Young Alluvial Floodplain Deposits to a depth of 15 feet beneath the surface), the paleontologist shall make recommendations as to whether monitoring shall be required in these sediments on a full-time basis beginning at a shallower depth. • Collected resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation. This includes washing and picking of mass samples to recover small vertebrate and invertebrate fossils and removal of surplus sediment around larger specimens to reduce the storage volume for the repository and the storage cost for the developer. • Any collected resources shall be cataloged and curated into the permanent collections of an accredited scientific institution. • At the conclusion of the monitoring program, a report of findings with an appended inventory of specimens shall be prepared. When submitted to the City, the report and inventory shall signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources. P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» 5-7 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Table 5.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program Timing for Standard Compliance Verification Condition or Mitigation (date and signature Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Measure required) CUL-4: Human Remains. Consistent with the requirements of CCR Section City of San Juan If human remains are 15064.5(e), if human remains are encountered during site disturbance,grading, Capistrano encountered during site or other construction activities on the project site, the construction contractor Development Services disturbance,grading,or shall halt work within 25 feet of the discovery; all work shall be redirected and Director,or designee other construction the Orange County (County) Coroner notified immediately. No further activities on the project disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of site origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be Native American,the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the City, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.Consistent with CCR Section 15064.5(d),if the remains are determined to be Native American and an MLD is notified,the City shall consult with the MLD identified by the NAHC to develop an agreement for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Upon completion of the assessment,the consulting archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results and provide recommendations regarding the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials,as appropriate,and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD.The report shall be submitted to the City Development Services Director, or designee, and the South Central Coastal Information Center. The City Development Services Director, or designee, shall be responsible for reviewing any reports produced by the archaeologist to determine the appropriateness and adequacy of the findings and recommendations. 5-8 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA Table 5.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program Timing for Standard Compliance Verification Condition or Mitigation (date and signature Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Measure required) 4.6 Geology and Soils GEO-1: Compliance with Geotechnical Investigations. Prior to approval of any City of San Juan Prior to approval of any future Tentative Tract Maps (TTMs), a final geotechnical study for each TTM Capistrano Engineer,or future Tentative Tract area shall be completed by the project Applicant. These studies shall be designee Maps(TTMs)/Prior to submitted for review and approval by the City of San Juan Capistrano City issuance of grading Engineer,or designee,to ensure that future development has been evaluated at permits an appropriate level of detail by a professional geologist.The location and scope of each final geotechnical report shall be tiered off of and include recommendations from the three geotechnical reports prepared for the overall site: (1) Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation, Proposed Retirement Community, Armstrong Nursery/Del Obispo Property, City of San Juan Capistrano, California (Draft Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation) (GMU Geotechnical, Inc. [GMU; August 1, 2013); (2) the GMU Technical Inc., 2013, Geotechnical Due Diligence Evaluation, Proposed Retirement Community, Armstrong, Nursery/Del Obispo Property, City of San Juan Capistrano, California, dated August 1 (Required City Peer Review of Draft Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation) (Ninyo & Moore; February 3, 2014); and (3) the Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations, Proposed Retirement Community-Armstrong Nursery/Del Obispo Property, San Juan Capistrano, California (Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations) (GMU; February 20, 2014). Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall confirm that all grading and construction plans incorporate and comply with the recommendations included in the Final Geotechnical Report. Design, grading, and construction shall adhere to all of the seismic requirements incorporated into the most current version of the California Building Code (CBC) and the requirements and standards contained in the applicable chapters of the City of San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code, as well as appropriate local grading regulations,and the specifications of the project geotechnical consultant. Specifications in the Draft Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation (GMU Geotechnical,Inc.,August 1,2013)are summarized below. P:AJCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx x03/02/18» 5-9 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Table 5.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program Timing for Standard Compliance Verification Condition or Mitigation (date and signature Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Measure required) 1. Removal and recompaction of existing fill soils and upper alluvial soils to depths between 5 and 10 feet during site grading; 2. Specifications related to grading equipment to be used during grading excavating and fill placement; 3. Soil sampling to determine infiltration rates when infiltration rates are determined; 4. Seismic design considerations and requirements for foundations(i.e., ribbed slabs,post-tensioned slabs)and additional testing prior to final design;and 5. Requirements for concrete design,protection for buried metal utilities,and corrosion study. Additional site testing and final design evaluation shall be conducted by the project geotechnical consultant to refine and enhance these requirements. If the project geotechnical consultant identifies modifications or refinements to the requirements, the project Applicant shall require appropriate changes to the final project design and specifications. GECI-2: California Building Code Compliance and Seismic Standards. Prior to City of San Juan Prior to issuance of issuance of building permits for planned structures, the Director of the City of Capistrano building permits for San Juan Capistrano Development Services Director, or designee, and the Development Services planned structures project soils engineer shall review the building plans to verify that the structural Director,or designee design conforms to the requirements of the Final Geotechnical Study and the City Municipal Code. Structures and retaining walls shall be designed in accordance with the seismic parameters presented in the Final Geotechnical Study, the Draft Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation (GMU Geotechnical, Inc., August 1, 2013), and applicable sections of Section 1613 of the most current CBC. 5-10 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA Table S.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program Timing for Standard Compliance Verification Condition or Mitigation (date and signature Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Measure required) GEO-3: Corrosive Soils. Prior to the issuance of any building permits,the City's City of San Juan Prior to the issuance of Director of Public Works and Utilities, or designee, shall verify that structural Capistrano Director of any building permits design conforms to the requirements of the Final Geotechnical Study and the Public Works and Draft Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation(GMU,August 1,2013)with regard Utilities,or designee to the protection of ferrous metals and copper that will come into contact with on-site soils. In addition, on-site inspections shall be conducted during construction by the project geotechnical consultant and/or City Building Official to ensure compliance with geotechnical specifications as incorporated into project plans. 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions. No mitigation would be required. 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials HA2-1: Contingency Plan. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the Director of the County Prior to commencement of Director of the County Environmental Health Division,or designee, shall review Environmental Health grading activities and approve a contingency plan that addresses the procedures to be followed Division,or designee should on-site unknown hazards or hazardous substances be encountered during demolition and construction activities. The plan shall indicate that if construction workers encounter underground tanks,gases, odors, uncontained spills, or other unidentified substances, the contractor shall stop work, cordon off the affected area, and notify the Orange County Fire Authority(OCFA).The OCFA responder shall determine the next steps regarding possible site evacuation,sampling,and disposal of the substance consistent with local,State, and federal regulations. Following approval of the Contingency Plan by the County Environmental Health Division, the Applicant shall submit written notification of the approval to the Director of the City of San Juan Capistrano's Development Service Department,or designee. P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» 5-11 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Table 5.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program Timing for Standard Compliance Verification Condition or Mitigation (date and signature Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Measure required) HAZ-2: Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan. Prior to issuance City of San Juan Prior to issuance of a of a grading permit or construction permits, the Applicant shall prepare and Capistrano Engineer, or grading permit or submit a Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan for approval by City designee construction permits of San Juan Capistrano City Engineer,or designee. The Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan shall be implemented during all phases of project construction and shall identify all construction staging areas. The Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan shall also include the name and phone number of a contact person who can be reached 24 hours a day regarding construction traffic complaints or emergency situations. In addition, the Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan shall take into account and coordinate with other similar plans that are in effect or have been proposed for other projects in the City. The Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan shall include,but not be limited to,the following: • Temporary lane closures shall be implemented consistent with the recommendations of the California Joint Utility Traffic Control Manual (February 2014). • Flag persons in adequate numbers shall be provided to minimize impacts to traffic flow and to ensure safe access into and out of the site. • Flag persons shall be trained to assist in emergency response by restricting or controlling the movement of traffic that could interfere with emergency vehicle access. • All emergency access to the project site and adjacent areas shall be kept clear and unobstructed during all phases of construction. • Safety precautions shall be provided for pedestrians and bicyclists through such measures as alternate routing and protection barriers. • Construction-related deliveries,other than concrete and earthwork-related deliveries, shall be scheduled so as to reduce travel during peak travel periods (i.e., 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday). • If necessary, a California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) transportation permit for use of oversized transport vehicles on Caltrans facilities shall be obtained. 5-12 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA Table 5.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program Timing for Standard Compliance Verification Condition or Mitigation (date and signature Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Measure required) • Construction vehicles, including construction personnel vehicles, shall park on the project site and shall not park on public streets. • Construction vehicles shall not stage or queue where they interfere with pedestrian and vehicular traffic or block access to nearby businesses. • If feasible, any traffic lane closures shall be limited to off-peak traffic periods, as approved by the City of San Juan Capistrano Department of Public Works and Utilities. • The Orange County Sheriff's Department (OCSD) shall be notified a minimum of 24 hours in advance of any lane closures or other roadway work. • The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) shall be notified a minimum of 24 hours in advance of any lane closures or other roadway work. 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality WQ-1: Construction General Permit. Prior to issuance of a grading permit,the City of San Juan Prior to issuance of a project Applicant shall obtain coverage under the State Water Resources Capistrano Engineer,or grading permit Control Board National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit designee for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No.2009-0009-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System No.CAS000002, as amended by Orders No.2010-0014-DWQ and 2012- 0006-DWQ)(Construction General Permit). This shall include submission of Permit Registration Documents (PRDs), including a Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage under the permit to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).The project Applicant shall provide the Waste Discharge Identification Number(WDID)to the City of San Juan Capistrano City Engineer,or designee to demonstrate proof of coverage under the Construction General Permit.A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared and implemented for the proposed project in compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit. The SWPPP shall identify construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented to ensure that the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation is minimized and to control the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff as a result of construction activities. P:AJCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx x03/02/18» 5-13 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Table 5.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program Timing for Standard Compliance Verification Condition or Mitigation (date and signature Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Measure required) WQ-2: Water Quality Management Plan. In compliance with Title 8, Chapter City of San Juan Prior to issuance of 14 of the City of San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code and the San Diego Capistrano Engineer,or grading permits Regional Water Quality Control Board National Pollutant Discharge Elimination designee System (NPDES) Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) Draining the Watersheds Within the San Diego Region (Order No. R9-2013-0001, NPDES No. CAS010266, as amended by Order No, R9-2015-0001) (South Orange County MS4 Permit), the project Applicant shall submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to the City Engineer, or designee, or designee,for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. Design of the BMPs specified in the WQMP Report shall be based on final design plans and shall be consistent with the requirements of the Model Water Quality Management Plan (Model WQMP) for South Orange County,the Technical Guidance Document for the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Plans, and the South Orange County Hydromodification Plan(HMP). WQ-3: Hydrology Report. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project City of San Juan Prior to issuance of Applicant shall submit a Hydrology Report to the City Engineer,or designee,for Capistrano Engineer,or grading permits review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits.Design of the drainage designee facilities specified in the hydrology Report shall be based on final design plans and shall be consistent with the requirements of the Los Angeles County Hydrology Manual. 4.10 Land Use/Planning The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to land use/planning.No mitigation would be required. 4.11 Mineral Resources The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to mineral resources.No mitigation would be required. 5-14 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA Table S.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program Timing for Standard Compliance Verification Condition or Mitigation (date and signature Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Measure required) 4.12 Noise NOI-1: Construction Noise Practices. Prior to issuance of building permits,the City of San Juan Prior to issuance of City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Director, or designee, shall Capistrano building permits verify that grading and construction plans include the following requirements: Development Services • Construction activities occurring as part of the project shall be subject to Director,or designee the limitations and requirements of the City Municipal Code,which states that construction activities shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.on weekdays,and from 8:30 a.m.to 4:30 p.m.on Saturdays. No outdoor noise-generating construction activity is allowed on Sundays or on federal holidays. • Ensure that the greatest distance between noise sources and sensitive receptors during construction activities has been achieved. • During all project area excavation and on-site grading,the project contractors shall equip all construction equipment,fixed or mobile,with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers'standards. • The project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project area whenever feasible. • Construction staging areas shall be located as far away from sensitive receptors as possible during all phases of construction. • The construction contractor shall use on-site electrical sources to power equipment rather than diesel generators whenever feasible. N0I-2: Noise Barriers.Prior to the issuance of any building permits,the City of City of San Juan Prior to the issuance of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Director, or designee, shall ensure Capistrano any building permits that project plans include perimeter noise barrier walls for residential outdoor Development Services areas(including private backyards)within 94 feet Del Obispo Street and 76 feet Director,or designee of Alipaz Street. P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» 5-15 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Table S.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program Timing for Standard Compliance Verification Condition or Mitigation (date and signature Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Measure required) N0I-3: Final Acoustical Memorandum. Prior to the issuance of any building City of San Juan Prior to the issuance of permits, the Applicant shall submit a final acoustical memorandum for review Capistrano any building permits and approval by the City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Director, Development Services or designee,to confirm that central air conditioning is incorporated into project Director,or designee plans and that standard building noise reductions shall be achieved. The memorandum shall calculate the exterior-to-interior noise reduction which will account for the specific window and glass door sizes and types to confirm interior noise level standard are less than 45 A-weighted decibels (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level(CNEL). 4.13 Population and Housing The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to population and housing. No mitigation would be required. 4.14 Public Services and Utilities Standard Condition PSU-1: Secured Fire Protection Agreement. Prior to the City of San Juan Prior to the approval of approval of any Tentative Tract Map (TTM), the Applicant shall submit a Capistrano any Tentative Tract Map Secured Fire Protection Agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority Development Services (TTM) (OCFA) to the City of San Juan Capistrano's (City's) Development Services Director,or designee Director, or designee.This Agreement shall specify the Applicant's pro-rata fair share funding of capital improvements necessary to establish adequate fire protection facilities and equipment,and/or personnel. Standard Condition PSU-2: Fire Hydrant Flow Test.Prior to the approval of any City of San Juan Prior to issuance of any (TTM),the Applicant shall perform a fire hydrant flow test on the existing water Capistrano Water grading or construction system in the vicinity of the proposed project in order to demonstrate that the Utilities Department permits Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) requirement for fire hydrant flow can be Director,or designee met with at least a 20 pound per square inch (psi) residual on the project site. The fire flow results shall be incorporated into the hydraulic modeling of the existing water system plus the proposed project's on-site public water system. The hydraulic modeling shall be performed in accordance with the guidelines and standards of the City's Water Utilities Department and shall be submitted to the Director of the City's Water Utilities Department,or designee. The Applicant shall pay the proposed project's appropriate share of any improvements required to provide the necessary increase of flow and pressure to the water system so that the fire flow requirements will be met. 5-16 P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA Table 5.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program Timing for Standard Compliance Verification Condition or Mitigation (date and signature Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Measure required) 4.15 Recreation Standard Condition REC-1: Dedication Fees. Prior to issuance of any building City of San Juan Prior to issuance of any permits,the project Applicant shall provide proof to the Director of the City of Capistrano building permits San Juan Capistrano(City) Development Services Department,or designee,that Development Services payment of park fees to the City has been made in accordance with the Director,or designee Development Agreement between the City and the project Applicant. 4.16 Transportation/Traffic The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to transportation/traffic.No mitigation would be required 4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources TCR-1 Tribal Cultural Resources: Monitoring Procedures. Prior to Director of the City of Prior to commencement of commencement of any ground-disturbing activities, the project Applicant shall San Juan Capistrano any ground-disturbing present evidence to the Director of the City of San Juan Capistrano Community Community activities Department, or designee, that a qualified Native American monitor has been Development retained to provide Native American monitoring services during ground- Department,or disturbing activities in native soils. Because no known resources have been designee identified on the site, monitors are not required on a full-time basis, but shall spot check ground-disturbing activities in compliance with the monitoring procedures outlined in the Monitoring Plan (which itself is required as part of Mitigation Measure CUL-2) to ensure that no resources are impacted during construction. The Native American monitor shall be selected by the project Applicant from the list of certified Native American monitors maintained by Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation. The Native American monitor shall be present at the pre-grading conference to establish procedures for tribal cultural resource surveillance. Those procedures shall include provisions for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of resources deemed by the Native American monitor to be tribal cultural resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074.These procedures shall be reviewed and approved by the City of San Juan Capistrano Community Department Director, or designee, prior to commencement of any surface disturbance on the project site. P:AJCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx x03/02/18» rj-17 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 Table S.A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program Timing for Standard Compliance Verification Condition or Mitigation (date and signature Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Measure required) 4.18 Utilities/Service Systems UTL-1: Water Capacity Study. Concurrent with Tentative Tract Map (TTM) San Juan Capistrano Concurrent with Tentative submittals for the project,the Applicant shall submit a Water Capacity Study to City Engineer,or Tract Map(TTM) the City of San Juan Capistrano City Engineer, or designee, for review and designee, submittals approval. The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations in the Water Capacity Study shall be based on final design plans and shall be consistent with the all applicable City requirements. UTL-2: Sewer Feasibility Study. Concurrent with TTM submittals for the San Juan Capistrano Concurrent with Tentative project, the Applicant shall submit a Sewer Feasibility Study to the City of San City Engineer,or Tract Map(TTM) Juan Capistrano City Engineer, or designee, for review and approval. The designee, submittals analysis, conclusions, and recommendations in the Sewer Feasibility Study shall be based on final design plans and shall be consistent with the all applicable City requirements. Standard Condition UTL-1: Domestic Water Fee. Prior to issuance of any City Public Works Prior to issuance of any grading or construction permits, the City of San Juan Capistrano Public Works Director,or designee grading or construction Director, or designee, shall verify that the project Applicant has paid the permits proposed project's fair share of Domestic Water Fees in accordance with City Resolution No.04-05-18-04. Standard Condition UTL-2: Sewer Connection Fee. Prior to issuance of any City Public Works Prior to issuance of any grading or construction permits, the City Public Works Director, or designee, Director,or designee grading or construction shall verify that the project Applicant has paid the proposed project's fair share permits of Sewer Connection Fees in accordance with City Resolution No.04-11-16-05. 5-18 P:\1CA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA 6.0 REFERENCES CalFire. Orange County Fire Hazard Severity Zones. October 2011. Website: http://www.fire.ca.gov/ fire_prevention/fhsz_maps/FHSZ/orange/c30_SanJuanCapistrano_vhfhsz.pdf(accessed December 13, 2017). CalFire. Fire and Resource Assessment Program, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. San Juan Capistrano: Very high Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs).Website: http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps/FHSZ/ orange/c30_SanJuanCapistrano_vhfhsz.pdf(accessed December 13, 2017). California Department of Conservation, California Important Fact Finder.Website: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/(accessed December 7, 2017). California Department of Education. 2017. Educational Demographics Unit. Enrollment by Grade for 2016-17 District Enrollment by Grade. Available: http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/ (accessed: December 21, 2017). California Department of Farmland Mapping and Monitoring, Important Farmland Map Categories. Website: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/mccu/Pages/map_categories.aspx (accessed December 11, 2017). California Department of Mines and Geology, Generalized Aggregate Resources Classification Map of Orange County. 1994. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). California Scenic Highway Mapping System (Los Angeles County).Website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_ highways/index.htm (accessed December 7, 2017). CalRecycle. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Website: https://www2.caIrecycle.ca.gov/ WasteCharacterization/General/Rates (accessed December 21, 2017). CalRecycle. Facility/Site Summary Details: Prima Deshecha Sanitary Landfill. Website: http://www.caIrecycle.ca.gov/SWFaciIities/Directory/30-AB-0019/Detail/(accessed December 21, 2017). Capistrano Unified School District. District Facts. Website:-http://capousd.ca.schoolloop.com/ cros/page_view?d=x&piid=&vpid=1232963501986 (accessed December 21, 2017). City of Laguna Niguel. SunPointe Residential Project. Draft Environmental Impact Report. April 2017. Website: http://www.cityoflagunaniguel.org/DocumentCenter/View/12686 (accessed December 21, 2017). City of San Juan Capistrano. 2014-2021 Housing Element.January 21, 2014. P:AJCA1703\CECA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 6-1 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 City of San Juan Capistrano. Conservation and Open Space Element. December 14, 1999; revised May 7, 2002. City of San Juan Capistrano. Household Hazardous Waste. Website: http://38.106.4.59/ index.aspx?page=121 (accessed December 13, 2017). City of San Juan Capistrano. Land Use Element. December 14, 1999; revised May 7, 2002. City of San Juan Capistrano. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.July 2016. City of San Juan Capistrano. General Plan Cultural Resources Element. December 14, 1999. City of San Juan Capistrano. Household Hazardous Waste. Website: http://38.106.4.59/ index.aspx?page=121 (accessed December 13, 2017). City of San Juan Capistrano. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study for the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints Meetinghouse Project. September 2017. City of San Juan Capistrano. Written correspondence between the City of San Juan Capistrano and Michael Kisko, Environmental Scientists at the California Department of Conservation. January 4, 2018. County of Orange Environmental Management Agency. Natural Community Conservation Plan & Habitat Conservation Plan & EIR& EIS. County of Orange Central &Coastal Subregion. Map Section (Figures 1 through 76). May 1996. GMU Geotechnical, Inc. Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation, Proposed Retirement Community, Armstrong Nursery/Del Obispo Property, City of San Juan Capistrano, California. August 1, 2013). GMU Geotechnical, Inc. Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations, Proposed Retirement Community-Armstrong Nursery/Del Obispo Property, San Juan Capistrano, California. February 20, 2014. LSA. California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment for the Spieker CCRC Specific Plan. April 25, 2014. LSA. Paleontological Resources Assessment, Spieker Continuing Care Retirement Community, City of San Juan Capistrano, Orange County, California. February 2014. LSA. Results of the Cultural Resource Assessment Survey for the 35-acre Spieker Continuing Care Retirement Community in the City of San Juan Capistrano, Orange County, California. February 2014. Ninyo& Moore. GMU Geotechnical, Inc. GMU Technical Inc., 2013. Geotechnical Due Diligence Evaluation, Proposed Retirement Community,Armstrong, Nursery/Del Obispo Property, City 6-2 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18» INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT MARCH 2018 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRAN O,CALIFORNIA of San Juan Capistrano, California, dated August 1 (Required City Peer Review of Draft Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation). February 3, 2014. Ninyo& Moore. Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation, Proposed Retirement Community, Armstrong Nursery/Del Obispo Property, City of San Juan Capistrano, California(GMU Geotechnical, Inc. [GMU],August 1, 2013) and the GMU Technical Inc., 2013, Geotechnical Due Diligence Evaluation, Proposed Retirement Community,Armstrong, Nursery/Del Obispo Property, City of San Juan Capistrano, California, dated August 1 (Ninyo & Moore, February 3, 2014). OC Landfills. Household Hazardous Waste.Website: http://www.oclandfills.com/hazardous/ (accessed December 26, 2017). OC Landfills Prima Deshecha Landfill. Website: http://www.oclandfills.com/landfill/active/deshecha (accessed December 21, 2017). Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA), About Us. Website: http://www.ocfa.org/aboutus/Overview/ (accessed December 19, 2017). OCFA. Operations Division 6. Website: http://www.ocfa.org/aboutus/Departments/Operations Directory/Division3.aspx (accessed December 19, 2017). Orange County Public Libraries. About OCPL. Website: http://ocpl.org/services/about (accessed December 21, 2017). SOCWA. Infrastructure. Website: https://www.socwa.com/infrastructure/(accessed December 26, 2017). SOCWA.J.B. Latham Treatment Plant. Website: https://www.socwa.com/infrastructure/jb-latham- treatment-plant/(accessed December 21, 2017). South Coast Air Quality Management District. Greenhouse Gases (GHG) CEQA Significance Thresholds. Website: http://www.agmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis- handbook/ghg-significance-thresholds/(accessed December 2017). South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA).About SOCWA. Website: https://www.socwa.com/about-socwa/(accessed December 26, 2017). SOCWA. Infrastructure. Website: https://www.socwa.com/infrastructure/(accessed December 26, 2017). Southern California Association of Governments, 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy, Demographics and Growth Forecast,Table 11 Jurisdictional Forecast.April 2016.Website: http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/ f2016RTPSCS_DemographicsGrowthForecast.pdf(accessed December 13, 2017). P:A1CA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx a03/02/18» 6-3 THE FARM SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CALIFORNIA MARCH 2018 State Water Resources Control Board. State Water Quality Protection Areas of Special Biological Significance. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water—issues/programs/ocean/ asbs_areas.shtml (accessed January 2, 2018). United States Census Bureau. DP05 ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Website: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/ tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF (accessed December 13, 2017). United States Census Bureau. DP-1 Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010. Website: https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/ productview. xhtml?src=CF (accessed December 13, 2017). United States Department of Agriculture. 2012 Census of Agriculture. County Profile-Orange County, California. Website: https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/County_Profiles/Calif ornia/cp06O59.pdf (accessed February 15, 2018). Wildermuth Environmental Inc., Fall 2015 Analysis of Storage in the San Juan Groundwater Basin (November 18, 2015). Website: http://www.sjbauthority.com/assets/downloads/Fall%202015/`2OStorage/`2OAnalysis%20o f/o20the%20San/o20Juan%20Groundwater%20Basin.pdf). (accessed February 15, 2017). Written correspondence between the City of San Juan Capistrano and Michael Kisko, Environmental Scientists at the California Department of Conservation.January 4, 2018. 6-4 P:\JCA1703\CEQA\Pre-Print MND\Draft MND.docx«03/02/18»