Resolution Number 20-06-02-02RESOLUTION NO. 20-06-02-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN
CAPISTRANO ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT
TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, CERTIFYING
THE GANAHL LUMBER PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (SCH #2019050015), ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND THE MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING THE
PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Ganahl Lumber Project ("Project") proposes to develop three
separate development areas, which would include two drive-through restaurants,
Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard, and a crushed -rock gravel area for
short-term vehicle storage; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located on an approximately 17 -acre site in the City of
San Juan Capistrano, generally bounded to the south by Stonehill Drive, to the west by
San Juan Creek Channel and Trail, to the east by the Los Angeles—San Diego—San
Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) rail corridor, and to the north by the Capistrano Valley Mobile
Estates (CVME) mobile home park; and
WHEREAS, the Project requires approvals of Property Sale and Development
Agreements, a grading plan modification, architectural control, flood plain land use
permit, sign permit program, and tentative tract map; and
WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of the retail activities proposed for the
Ganahl Lumber hardware store as an unlisted use in the CM zone to determine whether
they fall within the purpose and intent of the CM zone; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and
section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.),
the City of San Juan Capistrano is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15063, the City
evaluated the Project by preparing an Initial Study, to evaluate whether an
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was required; and
WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study, the City determined that an EIR should be
prepared because the Project may have a significant effect on the environment in the
following areas: aesthetics, biological resources, geology/soils, hydrology/water quality,
noise, utilities/service systems, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, land
use/planning, transportation/traffic, air quality, energy, hazards and hazardous
materials, tribal cultural resources; and
WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study, the City further determined that impacts
to agricultural resources, mineral resources, population and housing, public services,
1 6/2/2020
recreation, and wildfire would be less than significant and thus need not be analyzed
further in the EIR; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, on May
22, 2019, the City sent to the Office of Planning and Research and each responsible
and trustee agency a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") stating that an Environmental
Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number #2019050015) would be prepared; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.9 and State
CEQA Guidelines sections 15082(c) and 15083, the City held a duly noticed Scoping
Meeting on June 6, 2019, to solicit comments on the scope of the environmental review
of the proposed Project and eleven (11) comments were received; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") was prepared,
incorporating comments received in response to the NOP; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR determined that mitigation measures were required to
mitigate impacts to a less than significant level for the following resource areas:
aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and
hazardous materials, noise, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR further concluded that despite the incorporation of all
feasible mitigation measures, the proposed Project would nonetheless result in
significant and unavoidable impacts relating to transportation; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15085, a Notice
of Completion was prepared and filed with the Office of Planning and Research on
January 6, 2020; and
WHEREAS, as required by State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(a), the City
provided Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR to the public at the same time that the
City sent Notice of Completion to the Office of Planning and Research, on January 6,
2020; and
WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the Draft EIR and
technical appendices were available for review and inspection at the City of San Juan
Capistrano Development Services Department, on the City's website, and at the San
Juan Capistrano Public Library; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(e), the Draft EIR
was circulated for at least a 45 -day public review and comment period from January 6,
2020 to February 19, 2020; and
WHEREAS, during the public review and comment period, the City consulted
with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other
regulatory agencies, and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086; and
and
WHEREAS, the City received nine (9) written comment letters on the Draft EIR;
2 6/2/2020
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City
provided copies of its responses to commenting public agencies at least ten (10) days
prior to the City's consideration of the Final EIR on May 21, 2020; and
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted the public
hearing to consider the Draft EIR, Architectural Control (AC) 18-021, Grading Plan
Modification (GPM) 18-005, Flood Plain Land Use Permit (FP) 18-001, Sign Program
(SP) 18-031, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 20-001, and request for approval of a new
lumber hardware store and lumber yard, future drive-through restaurants and short term
vehicle parking project for the Project and solicited comments on the document. After
hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City's consultant team, the
Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council certify the EIR for the
Project; and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2020, the City released the Final EIR ("Final EIR"), which
consists of the Draft EIR, all technical appendices prepared in support of the Draft EIR,
all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, written responses to all written
comment letters received on the Draft EIR, and errata to the Draft EIR and technical
appendices; and
WHEREAS, the "EIR" consists of the Final EIR and its attachments and
appendices, as well as the Draft EIR and its attachments and appendices (as modified
by the Final EIR); and
WHEREAS, all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts were
sufficiently analyzed in the EIR; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set
forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all of the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the State
CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in connection with the preparation of
the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant
environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes
the Project's potentially significant environmental impacts and the EIR analyzes a range
of feasible alternatives capable of reducing these effects to an even lesser level of
significance; and
WHEREAS, the City has made certain findings of fact, as set forth in Exhibit A to
this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein, based upon the oral and
written evidence presented to it as a whole and the entirety of the administrative record
for the Project, which are incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that environmental impacts that are identified in the
EIR as less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section II of
Exhibit A; and
3 6/2/2020
WHEREAS, the City finds that environmental impacts that are identified in the
EIR that are less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures are
described in Section III of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that even with the incorporation of all feasible
mitigation measures, the environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR that are
significant and unavoidable are described in Section IV of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the Project identified in the EIR and set
forth herein, are described in Section V of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the potential significant irreversible environmental changes that
would result from the proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are
described in Section VI of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the existence of any growth-inducing impacts resulting from the
proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section VII
of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the proposed Project that might further reduce the
already less than significant environmental impacts are described in Section VIII of
Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Statement of Overriding Considerations that indicates the
benefits of the Project outweigh the unavoidable significant environmental effects is
described in Section IX of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, all the mitigation measures identified in the EIR and necessary to
reduce the potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project to a level of less than
significant are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in
Exhibit B to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City has heard, been presented with,
reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record,
including but not limited to the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it
during all meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City and is deemed
adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and
WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City and
no additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new
information requiring recirculation of the EIR or additional environmental review of the
Project under Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines
section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2020, the City conducted a duly noticed public hearing on
this Resolution, at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the Project
was fully considered; and
4 6/2/2020
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by
reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the
EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate
and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the
State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that the EIR reflects the independent
judgment and analysis of the City. The City Council declares that no evidence of new
significant impacts or any new information of "substantial importance" as defined by
State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation
of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation. Therefore, the City Council hereby
certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby adopts the "CEQA Findings of Fact" which
were prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and which
are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City
Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached
hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. Implementation of the
Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is
hereby made a condition of approval of the Project. In the event of any inconsistencies
between the Mitigation Measures set forth in the EIR or the Findings of Fact and the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program shall control.
SECTION 5. Based upon the entire record before it, including the EIR, Findings
of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, and all written and oral evidence presented, the City Council may
take action on the proposed Project.
SECTION 6. The documents and materials that constitute the record of
proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at City Hall, 32400
Paseo Adelanto, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675. The custodian for these records is
City Clerk. This information is provided pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21081.6.
SECTION 7. City staff shall prepare and execute a Notice of Determination,
which staff shall file and post with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within
five working days of the adoption of this Resolution.
5 6/2/2020
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of June 2020.
017-9=47MURNE, MAYOR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO )
I, Maria Morris, appointed City Clerk of the City of San Juan Capistrano, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 20-06-02-02 was duly adopted by the
City Council of the City of San Juan Capistrano at a Regular meeting thereof, held the
2nd day of June 2020, by the following vote:
AYES: QbUNCIL MEMBERS: Maryott, Farias, Taylor and Mayor Bourne
NOS:: OUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSE T:'�OUNCIL MEMBERS: Reeve
RIS, CITYALERK
6 6/2/2020
EXHIBIT A
CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
The California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et
seq.) (CEQA) requires that public agencies shall not approve or carry out a project for
which an environmental impact report'(EIR) has been certified that identifies one or
more significant adverse environmental effects of a project unless the public agency
makes one or more written Findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied
by a brief explanation of the rationale for each Finding (State CEQA Guidelines [Cal.
Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.], § 15091). This document presents the CEQA
Findings of Fact made by the City of San Juan Capistrano, in its capacity as the CEQA
lead agency, regarding the Ganahl Lumber Project (Project), evaluated in the Draft
Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") and Final Environmental Impact Report
(Final EIR) for the Project.
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
Public Resources Code section 21002 states that "public agencies should not
approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation
measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects of such projects[.]" Section 21002 further states that the procedures required by
CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the
significant effects of proposed Projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible
mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects."
Pursuant to section 21081 of the Public Resources Code, a public agency may
only approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies
any significant environmental effects if the agency makes one or more of the following
written finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief
explanation of the rationale for each finding:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction
of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted
by that other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for
highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
As indicated above, section 21002 requires an agency to "avoid or substantially
lessen" significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that
"substantially lessen" significant environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided,
1 6/2/2020
satisfy section 21002's mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council
(1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 ["CEQA does not mandate the choice of the
environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation
measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage
from a project to an acceptable level"]; Las Virgenes Homeowners Fed., Inc. v. County
of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 300, 309 ["[t]here is no requirement that
adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of
insignificance ... if such would render the project unfeasible"].)
While CEQA requires that lead agencies adopt feasible mitigation measures or
alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts, an
agency need not adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives. (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21002.1(c) [if "economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to
mitigate one or more significant effects on the environment of a project, the project may
nonetheless be carried out or approved at the discretion of a public agency"]; see also
State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(a) [an "EIR is not required to consider alternatives
which are infeasible"].) CEQA defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into
account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21061.1.) The State CEQA Guidelines add "legal" considerations as another
indicia of feasibility. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15364.) Project objectives also inform
the determination of "feasibility." (Jones v. U.C. Regents (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 818,
828-829.) "'[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that
desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic,
environmental, social, and technological factors." (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego
(1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of
Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715.) "Broader considerations of policy thus come
into play when the decision making body is considering actual feasibility[.]" (Cal. Native
Plant Soc'y v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1000 ("Native Plant"); see
also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081(a)(3) ["economic, legal, social, technological, or
other considerations" may justify rejecting mitigation and alternatives as infeasible]
(emphasis added).)
Environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition
of mitigation measures. (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222
Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347.)
The California Supreme Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of approving ... any
development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is
necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who
are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires
that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v.
Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576.) In addition, perfection in a project or
a project's environmental alternatives is not required; rather, the requirement is that
sufficient information be produced "to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far
as environmental aspects are concerned." Outside agencies (including courts) are not
to "impose unreasonable extremes or to interject [themselves] within the area of
2 6/2/2020
discretion as to the choice of the action to be taken." (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com.
v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 287.)
SECTION II
FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION
The City Council hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts
of the Project are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of
Mitigation Measures.
A. AESTHETICS
1. Scenic Vistas
vista?
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-1.)
Explanation: California State Government Code Section 65560(b)(3) stipulates
that city and county General Plans address "...Open space for
outdoor recreation, including but not limited to, areas of outstanding
scenic, historical and cultural value; areas particularly suited for
park and recreation purposes, including access to lakes shores,
beaches, and rivers, and streams; and areas which serve as links
between major recreation and open space reservations, including
utility easements, banks of rivers and streams, trails, and scenic
highway corridors.
A scenic vista is the view of an area that is visually or aesthetically
pleasing from a certain vantage point and 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 Project
site is characterized by an undeveloped dirt parking 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
3 6/2/2020
points throughout the City. The only regional visual resource that is
visible from the Project site is the Santa Ana Mountains.
Construction. Construction of the proposed Project would require
site preparation, grading, and construction activities. Construction
activities would be visible to travelers along Stonehill Drive, the San
Juan Creek Trail, the BNSF rail line, and adjacent roadways.
Construction equipment is not of sufficient height or mass to
substantially block views of distant scenic vistas. In addition,
construction activities would be short-term in nature and would
cease upon completion of project construction. Therefore,
construction impacts related to adverse effects on a scenic vista
would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
Operation. The Community Design Element (1999) of the City's
General Plan addresses the effect of future development projects
on scenic corridors within the City. As described in the Community
Design Element, major roadways and railways provide visual
images of the quality of life in the City. As such, Stonehill Drive
(located immediately south of the site) is a designated scenic
corridor. The City's Community Design Element (1999) identifies
design criteria to ensure that new development located within the
scenic corridor is developed in a manner that preserves the City's
aesthetic values. While no 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 roadways and sidewalks surrounding the site, including
the adjacent San Juan Creek Trail.
The proposed Project may partially block views from the adjacent
San Juan Creek Trail and Creekside Park beyond to the west.
Creekside Park contains a substantial amount of trees and
vegetation that act as a barrier to its surrounding visual setting, thus
the proposed Project would only be partially visible from the park.
The San Juan Creek Trail is an approximately 1 -mile long concrete
multi -use trail that runs parallel to the San Juan Creek River. The
Project site is currently visible from the trail, and may impair some
public views from persons accessing the trail. However,
landscaping elements included throughout the Project site would
serve to enhance and frame views from both Creekside Park and
San Juan Creek Trail. Therefore, impacts to views from both
Creekside Park and San Juan Creek Trail would be less than
significant.
Implementation of the proposed Project would allow for the
development of three sites including the restaurants on Site A,
hardware store and associated uses on Site B, and automobile
storage space on Site C. The buildings on each site vary in height
4 6/2/2020
ranging from 20 feet (ft) to a maximum of 35 ft for the hardware
store and lumber yard (Building 1). Implementation of the proposed
Project would modify views to and from the Project site by allowing
for development of commercial and industrial uses on the existing,
largely vacant site. However, because the buildings do not exceed
35 ft in height, and because the Project site is at a lower elevation
than the surrounding roadways, 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. The proposed Project would not obstruct or block
views of the surrounding hills from nearby roads, including a City -
designated scenic corridor, Stonehill Drive. Furthermore,
landscaping elements included throughout the Project site would
serve to enhance and frame views of these scenic corridors and
would help to block views of the proposed commercial uses from
within the Project site. In addition to adhering to the Community
Design Element (1999), the proposed Project design has been
refined to include natural materials and planting to connect with the
regional landscape. Therefore, potential impacts of the proposed
Project on scenic vistas would be less than significant, and no
mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-1
through 4-3.)
2. Scenic Resources
Threshold: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
Findin : No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-3.)
Explanation: The California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans)
Landscape Architecture Program administers the Scenic Highway
Program, contained in the Streets and Highways Code, Sections
260-263. State Highways are classified as either Officially Listed or
Eligible. The proposed Project is located approximately 0.1 mile
west of Interstate 5 (1-5) and 0.8 mile north of Pacific Coast
Highway (PCH, State Route 1 [SR -1]), both of which are classified
as Eligible State Scenic Highways — Not Officially Designated.'
Additionally, the portion of State Route 74 (SR -74) that converges
with 1-5, located approximately 2 miles north of the Project site, is
' California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). California Scenic Highway
Mapping System (Orange County). Website:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_iivability/scenic_highways/ (accessed April 19,
2019).
5 6/2/2020
also identified as an Eligible State Scenic Highway.' There are no
Officially -listed State Scenic Highways in the vicinity of the Project
site.
In its existing condition, no existing scenic resources such as
protected trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings 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 and residential uses. As discussed further in Section
4.4, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, the majority of the
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 designed to reflect that of the
surrounding environment. Therefore, the proposed Project does not
have the potential to damage resources within a State scenic
highway, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial
Study], p. 4.3.)
3. Visual Character
2 Ibid.
Threshold: In non -urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public view of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, 4.1-11.)
Explanation: The United States Census Bureau designates the Project site as
part of an urbanized area because the entire City is within the
Mission Viejo -Lake Forest -San Clemente, CA Urbanized Area. The
Project site's current land use designation (Quasi -Industrial and
Industrial Park) and zoning designations (Commercial
Manufacturing and Mobile Home Park Senior Overlay) are
consistent with the proposed use. However, the following
consistency analysis is included in this section to demonstrate the
proposed Project's consistency with General Plan and zoning
regulations governing scenic quality.
General Plan. The City of San Juan Capistrano General Plan is
intended to guide future growth and development within the City.
The General Plan Land Use and Community Design Elements
contain specific goals and policies related to aesthetics and scenic
quality. As shown in Table 4.1.A (found at Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-8
through 4.1-10), the project would be consistent with applicable
6 6/2/2020
General Plan goals and policies related to aesthetics and scenic
quality.
The project would be consistent with applicable General Plan goals
and policies related to aesthetics and scenic quality. Further, the
project would be consistent with both existing General Plan land
use designations for the property, and no General Plan Amendment
would be required to implement the proposed Project. Therefore,
the proposed Project would not substantially degrade the visual
character of the Project site nor conflict with applicable General
Plan regulations governing scenic quality.
City of San Juan Capistrano Zoning Code. Section 9-3.305,
Industrial Districts, of the City's Zoning Code includes applicable
development standards for the Commercial Manufacturing zoning
classification (i.e., the zoning classification on the portion of the
Project site proposed for development). As shown in Table 4.1.13
(found at Draft El R, p. 4.1-11), the project would be consistent with
applicable zoning code development standards related to
aesthetics and scenic quality.
The majority of the Project site is zoned Commercial Manufacturing
(CM); however, the northernmost portion of the Project site where
the utility easement would be located is zoned Mobile Home Park
Senior Overlay. For that reason, the above development standards
apply to the Commercial Manufacturing zone and not the Mobile
Home Park Senior Overlay zone. The proposed utility easement
would consist of minor improvements and would be required to
conform to development standards in the Mobile Home Park Senior
Overlay zone. As such, the project would be consistent with both
existing zoning designations for the property, and no Zoning
Amendment would be required to implement the proposed Project.
For the reasons stated above, the proposed Project would not
substantially degrade the visual character of the Project site nor
conflict with applicable zoning regulations governing scenic quality.
The proposed Project would enhance the existing visual setting of
the Project site by converting the existing underutilized property to
a developed commercial use featuring high quality building
materials and new landscaping. Further, the project would be
consistent with other regulations governing scenic quality, including
those outlined in the General Plan Land Use and Community
Design Elements and the City's Zoning Code. Therefore, the
proposed Project would not substantially degrade the visual
character of the Project site nor conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality, and no mitigation would
be required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-6 through 4.1-11.)
7 6/2/2020
B. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
1. Farmland Conversion
Threshold: Would the Project convert Primate Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide significance, as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4-7.)
Explanation: Maps of designated farmlands are compiled by the California
Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program (FMMP), pursuant to the provisions of Section 65570 of
the California Government Code. These maps represent an
inventory of agricultural resources within the State. Agricultural land
is evaluated based on soil quality and irrigation status, and the best
quality land is designated as Prime Farmland. Every 2 years, the
maps are updated with the use of a computer mapping system,
aerial imagery, public review, and field reconnaissance.3
The Project site is located in an urbanized area predominantly
developed with residential and commercial uses. The Project site is
characterized by an undeveloped gravel parking lot and ruderal
vegetation. While the Project site is currently undeveloped, a large
portion of the site is being used for temporary storage of
automobiles by nearby automobile dealerships. The site is currently
zoned as Commercial Manufacturing and Mobile Home Park Senior
Overlay on the City's Zoning Map; it is not zoned for agricultural
uses. The Project site currently has General Plan land use
designations of Quasi -Industrial and Industrial Park.
The Project site and surrounding area are currently mapped as
Urban and Built Up Land by the FMMP.4 There are no designated
Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmlands, or Farmlands of Statewide
Importance on the Project site or in the project's immediate vicinity.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result
in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance, and no mitigation would be
required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4-6 through 4-7.)
3 California Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program.
Documenting Changes in Agricultural Land Use since 1984. Website:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dIrp/fmmp (accessed April 19, 2019).
4 California Department of Conservation. 2016. Orange County Important Farmland.
Website: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2016/oral6.pdf/ (accessed April 19,
2019).
6/2/2020
2.
0
U
Agricultural Zoning
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act Contract?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4-7.)
Explanation: The proposed Project is located on a 17 -acre undeveloped site that
is currently used for vehicle storage by local automobile
dealerships. According to the City's Zoning Map, the Project site is
zoned as Commercial Manufacturing and Mobile Home Park Senior
Overlay. As such, the Project site is not zoned for agricultural use
and is not currently used for agricultural production.
The Project site is not located within an area covered under a
Williamson Act contract.5 Therefore, no impacts related to an
agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract would occur with
implementation of the proposed Project, and no mitigation would be
required. (Draft EIR, p. 4-7.)
Forestland Zoning
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production
(as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4-8.)
Explanation: The Project site is zoned Commercial Manufacturing and Mobile
Home Park Senior Overlay. Neither the Project site nor the
surrounding area is zoned as forest land, timberland, or timberland
production. As a result, no significant impacts would occur, and no
mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the
EIR unless new information identifying it as a potentially significant
impact is presented during the scoping process. (Draft EIR, pp. 4-7
through 4-8.)
Loss of Forest Land
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non -forest use?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4-8.)
5 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. 2017,
Williamson Act Contract Land Map. Website: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/
(accessed April 19, 2019).
9 6/2/2020
Explanation: The Project site is characterized by an undeveloped gravel parking
lot and ruderal vegetation. While the Project site is currently
undeveloped, a large portion of the site is being used for temporary
storage of automobiles by nearby automobile dealerships. There
are no forest or timberland resources on or in the vicinity of the
Project site. The proposed Project would not convert forest land to
a non -forest use. Likewise the Project site would not contribute to
environmental changes that could result in conversion of forest land
to non -forest use. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts
related to the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to
non -forest uses. No mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4-8.)
5. Conversion of Farmland or Forestland
Threshold: 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 or conversion of
forest land to non -forest use?
.Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4-8.)
Explanation: The Project site is in an urban, built -out portion of San Juan
Capistrano. While the Project site is currently undeveloped, it is not
used for agricultural purposes and is not designed or zoned for
forest land. The proposed Project would not convert farmland to a
non-agricultural use or convert forest land to a non -forest use.
Likewise, the proposed Project would not contribute to
environmental changes that could result in conversion of farmland
to a non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to a non -forest
use. Therefore, no impacts to farmland or forest land would occur
as a result of project implementation, and no mitigation is required.
(Draft EIR, p. 4-8.)
C. AIR QUALITY
1. Air Quality Plans and Air Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan; violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-13.)
Explanation: Chapter 12, Sections 12.2 and 12.3 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air
Quality Handbook (1993) outlines two criteria for determining
consistency with the 2016 AQMP. A project would be consistent
with the AQMP if the project (1) would not increase the frequency
10 6/2/2020
or severity of an existing air quality violation or cause or contribute
to new a new violation or delay the timely attainment of air quality
standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the
AQMP, and (2) would not exceed the growth assumptions in the
AQMP based on the year of project build out, would be consistent
with land use planning strategies set forth by SCAQMD, and would
implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures.
Criterion 1. The SCAQMD's first criterion for determining project
consistency with the AQMP includes methodologies that require
that an air quality analysis for a project include forecasts of project
emissions in relation to contributing to air quality violations and
delay of attainment. As described further under Threshold 4.2.2
below, the short-term construction and long-term pollutant
emissions from the proposed Project would not exceed the regional
criteria emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD.
Pollutant emissions generated during project construction and
operation would not result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard. Therefore, the proposed Project would be
consistent with the AQMP under the first criterion.
Criterion 2. The SCAQMD's second criterion for determining
project consistency focuses on whether or not the proposed Project
exceeds the assumptions utilized in preparing the forecasts
presented its air quality planning documents. Project consistency
with population, housing, and employment assumptions that were
used in the development of SCAQMD air quality plans ensures a
project is consistent with regional air quality planning efforts.
Generally, three sources of data form the basis for the projections
of air pollutant emissions in San Juan Capistrano: the City's
General Plan, SCAG's Growth Management chapter of the
Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG), and SCAG's
2016 RTP/SCS. The RTP/SCS also provides socioeconomic
forecast projections of regional population growth. The City's
General Plan designates the Project site as Industrial Park, which
allows for light industrial and manufacturing uses, including
wholesale businesses, light manufacturing and assembly, research
and development, warehousing and storage, and distribution and
sales. Thus, the proposed Project is consistent with the existing
land use designation. Additionally, the project does not involve any
uses that would increase population beyond what is considered in
the General Plan, and therefore, the project is consistent with the
types, intensity, and patterns of land use envisioned for the Project
site in the General Plan and RCPG. Further, the population,
housing, and employment projections, which are adopted by
11 6/2/2020
SCAG's Regional Council, are based on the local plans and policies
applicable to the City and are used by SCAG in all phases of
implementation and review. Since the SCAQMD has incorporated
these same projections into their air quality planning efforts, the
proposed Project would be consistent with these projections.
In order to further reduce emissions, the project would comply with
SCAQMD emission reduction measures including SCAQMD Rules
402, 403, and 1113. SCAQMD Rule 402 prohibits the discharge,
from any source, air contaminants or other material that cause
injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to the public, or that
endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of the public, or that
cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to
business or property. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires fugitive dust
sources to implement Best Available Control Measures for all
sources, and all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited
from crossing any property line. Rule 403 is intended to reduce
PM10 emissions from transportation, handling, construction, or
storage activities that have the potential to generate fugitive dust.
SCAQMD 1113 requires manufacturers, distributors, and end-users
of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce
reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions from the use of architectural
coatings. The project is required to comply with these emission
reduction measures during construction as outlined in Regulatory
Compliance Measures AQ -1 through AQ3 (refer to Section 4.2.8,
Regulatory Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures, of the
Draft EIR). For the reasons stated above, the proposed Project is
consistent with the second criterion.
In sum, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the 2016 AQMP because (1) the project's
construction and operational emissions would not exceed the
SCAQMD regional significance thresholds, and (2) the proposed
Project is consistent with the current General Plan land use
designation on the Project site and would not exceed the growth
assumptions in the AQMP, is consistent with land use planning
strategies set forth by SCAQMD, and includes implementation of all
feasible air quality measures to reduce emissions. Therefore,
impacts related to the conflict with or obstruction of implementation
of the applicable air quality plan would be less than significant, and
no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-12 through 4.2-13.)
Regulatory Compliance Measures
The proposed Project would comply with the following regulatory standards.
RCM AQ -1 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule
402, Nuisance. Prohibits the discharge from any source
12 6/2/2020
whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material
that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any
considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger
the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the
public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury
or damage to business or property. This rule does not apply to
odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the
growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.
RCM AQ -2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule
403, Fugitive Dust. The project Applicant shall ensure the
construction contractor implements fugitive dust control measures
in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403. The project Applicant shall
include the following fugitive dust control measures for SCAQMD
Rule 403 compliance in the project plans and specifications:
• All clearing, grading, earth -moving, or excavation activities
shall cease when winds exceed 25 miles per hour (mph) per
SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions.
■ The construction contractor shall ensure that all disturbed
unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the Project site
are watered, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, at
least three (3) times daily during dry weather and preferably
mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day.
• The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved
roads and Project site areas are reduced to 15 mph or less.
RCM AQ -3 SCAQMD Rule 1113. The project Applicant shall ensure the
construction contractor implements measures to control
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from
architectural coatings in compliance with SCAQMD Rule
1113. The project Applicant shall include the following
control measures for SCAQMD Rule 1113 compliance in the
project plans and specifications.
Only "Low -Volatile Organic Compounds" paints (no more
than 50 grans/liter of VOC) shall be used.
Implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measures AQ -1 through AQ -3
would ensure that project -related air quality impacts would be at a less than
significant level. No significant impacts related to air quality would occur with
implementation of these standard measures. All anticipated impacts related to air
quality would be considered less than significant and no mitigation is required.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.2-21.)
2. Cumulatively Considerable Pollutant Emissions
13 6/2/2020
Threshold- Would the Project result in 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?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-16.)
Explanation- Construction. Construction related emissions are temporary and
short-term. Project -related construction activities that would
produce emissions include the operation of construction vehicles
(i.e., excavators, trenchers, and dump trucks), the creation of
fugitive dust during clearing and grading, and the use of asphalt or
other oil-based substances during paving activities, which can
release VOCs. Construction emissions would vary daily depending
on the weather, soil conditions, the amount of activity taking place,
and the nature of dust control efforts; therefore, this analysis
provides the worst-case construction emissions based on the
construction schedule and construction equipment anticipated for
project construction.
As specified in Regulatory Compliance Measures AQ -1 through
AQ -3, construction of the proposed Project would comply with
SCAQMD standard conditions, including Rule 402 (Nuisance) to
control nuisance emissions, Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) to control
fugitive dust, and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) to control VOC
emissions from paint. Compliance with SCAQMD standard
conditions are regulatory requirements and were considered in the
analysis of construction emissions. The maximum daily emissions
of VOCs, NOx, S02, CO, PMio, and PM2.5 that would result from
construction of the proposed Project are summarized in Table 4.2.D
(found at Draft EIR, p. 4.2-13) and compared to the SCAQMD
regional significance thresholds. As shown in Table 4.2.D (found at
Draft EIR, p. 4.2-13), construction emissions associated with the
proposed Project would not exceed the significance thresholds
established by the SCAQMD for any of the criteria pollutants.
The portion of the Basin in which the Project site is located is in
nonattainment of the NAAQS for 03 and PM2.5. The Basin is in
nonattainment of the CAAQS for 03, PM2.5, and PM10. As shown
in Table 4.2.D (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.2-13), emissions from
construction of the proposed Project would not exceed the
significance thresholds for 03, PM2.5, or PM10. Therefore,
construction of the proposed Project would not exceed the
significance thresholds of criteria pollutants for which the project
region is nonattainment under the CAAQS or NAAQS.
According to SCAQMD guidance, projects that exceed the
significance thresholds are considered by SCAQMD to result in
14 6/2/2020
cumulatively considerable air quality impacts. Conversely, projects
that do not exceed the significance thresholds are generally not
considered to result in cumulatively considerable air quality
impacts. Therefore, because construction emissions would not
exceed any of the air quality significance thresholds for any criteria
pollutants, the proposed Project would not have a cumulatively
considerable air quality impact. Therefore, compliance with
regulatory requirements (as specified in Regulatory Compliance
Measures AQ -1 through AQ -3) would further reduce impacts, and
construction impacts related to the cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
nonattainment under applicable NAAQS or CAAQS would be less
than significant. No mitigation is required.
Operation. Project -related operations would result in the long-term
emission of ROG, NOx, 502, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 primarily
associated with motor vehicle use. Vehicle trips to and from the
Project site would generate mobile source emissions. Vehicles
traveling on paved roads would be a source of fugitive emissions
due to the generation of road dust and tire wear particulates. Mobile
source emissions are dependent on both overall daily vehicle trip
generation and the effect of the project on peak -hour traffic
volumes and traffic operations in the vicinity of the Project site. The
project -related operational air quality emissions are primarily due to
vehicle trips.
Operational air pollutant emissions were based on the Project site
plans and the estimated traffic trip generation rates from the TIA
(LSA, 2019). According to the TIA, the project is anticipated to
generate 5,221 average daily trips. Additionally, estimated
emissions account for the use of 12 diesel -powered material
handing vehicles (forklifts) on site, daily. Projected emissions
associated with the proposed Project were compared to the existing
baseline, which includes a vehicle storage lot containing 752
spaces in central portion of the Project site. Table 4.2.E (found at
Draft EIR, p. 4.2-16) summarizes the project's maximum daily
emissions during operation. As shown in Table 4.2.E (found at Draft
EIR, p. 4.2-16), while the project would result in the increased
emissions of criteria pollutants, emissions during operation of the
proposed Project would not exceed the thresholds of significance
for any pollutants.
The portion of the Basin in which the Project site is located is in
nonattainment of the NAAQS for 03 and PM2.5. The Basin is in
nonattainment of the CAAQS for 03, PM2.5, and PM10. As shown
in Table 4.2.E (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.2-16), emissions during
operation of the proposed Project would not exceed the
significance thresholds for 03, PM2.5, or PM10. Therefore,
15 6/2/2020
operation of the proposed Project would not exceed the
significance thresholds of criteria pollutants for which the project
region is nonattainment under the CAAQS or NAAQS.
According to SCAQMD guidance, projects that exceed the
significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to result in
cumulatively considerable air quality impacts. Conversely, projects
that do not exceed the significance thresholds are generally not
considered to result in cumulatively considerable air quality
impacts. Therefore, based on the fact that the emissions during
operation of proposed Project would not exceed any of the air
quality significance thresholds for any criteria pollutants, the
proposed Project would not have a cumulatively considerable
impact. Therefore, operational impacts related to the cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is nonattainment under an applicable NAAQS or
CAAQS would be less than significant, and no mitigation is
required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-13 through 4.2-16.)
3. Sensitive Receptors
Threshold: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-20.)
Explanation: Construction. In order to identify impacts to sensitive receptors,
the SCAQMD recommends addressing LSTs for construction. As
previously described, the SCAQMD has issued guidance on
applying CaIEEMod modeling to LSTs for projects greater than five
acres. Further, CaIEEMod calculates construction emissions based
on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil
disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment. For these
reasons, Table 4.21 (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.2-17) shows the
maximum daily disturbed acreage for comparison to LSTs.
As shown in Table 4.21 (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.2-16), project
construction could potentially disturb up to 3.5 acres daily during
the site preparation phase and up to 4.0 acres daily during the
grading phase. Thus, the LST threshold value for a 3.5 -acre
construction site were utilized to analyze site preparation and the
LST threshold value for a 4 -acre construction site were utilized to
analyze grading activities.
Construction activities would result in localized exhaust emissions
that have the potential to affect nearby sensitive receptors. In order
to identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD
recommends analyzing LSTs for construction. Sensitive receptors
16 6/2/2020
near the Project site include existing residential homes located
approximately 60 feet (18 meters) north of the development area on
the site. Creekside Park and the bicycle trail on the western side of
San Juan Creek, which may also be considered sensitive
receptors, are located over 300 feet west of the Project site.
Therefore, construction emissions would be dispersed at a much
lower concentration by the time they reach the Creekside Park and
bike trial as compared to the adjacent residential mobile homes.
LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of
25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. According to SCAQMD
guidance, projects with boundaries located closer than 25 meters to
the nearest receptor are directed to use the LSTs for receptors
located at 25 meters. As such, LSTs for receptors located at 25
meters were utilized in this analysis.
Table 4.2.G (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.2-18) identifies the localized
impacts at the nearest sensitive receptor location to the Project site
compared to the SCAQMD LSTs for NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.
Table 4.2.G shows that pollutant emissions on the peak day of
construction would not result in significant concentrations of
pollutants at the nearby residential sensitive receptors.
As shown in Table 4.2.G (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.2-18),
construction emissions associated with the proposed Project would
not exceed the LSTs established by SCAQMD. Further, as
specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure AQ-2 construction
of the proposed Project would comply with SCAQMD standard
conditions, including Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) to control fugitive
dust. Compliance with SCAQMD standard conditions are regulatory
requirements and were considered in the analysis of construction
emissions. Because the project would not exceed the LSTs with
compliance with regulatory requirements (and would be further
reduced with implementation of Regulatory Compliance
Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2), impacts related to exposure of
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be
less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Operation.
Localized Emissions. A project would generate localized exhaust
emissions that have the potential to affect nearby sensitive
receivers if the project includes stationary sources, or attracts
mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at
the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). As such, operational
LSTs are not applicable to the proposed Project. Although the
proposed Project does not include such uses, impacts associated
with the operational localized emissions have been analyzed for
disclosure purposes. Operational LSTs apply to CO, NO2, PM10,
17 6/2/2020
and PM2.5.
Sensitive receptors near the Project site include existing residential
homes located approximately 60 feet (18 meters) north of the
development area on the site, and LSTs for receptors located at 25
meters were utilized in this analysis. Creekside Park and the
bicycle trail on the western side of San Juan Creek, which may also
be considered sensitive receptors, are located over 300 feet west of
the Project site. Therefore, operational emissions would be
dispersed at a much lower concentration by the time they reach the
Creekside Park and bike trial as compared to the adjacent
residential mobile homes.
Table 4.2.H (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.2-19) shows the maximum
daily emissions for the project's operational activities compared
with the SCAQMD LSTs for NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. In order
to provide a conservative assessment, the emissions shown in
Table 4.2.H (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.2-19) include all on-site
project -related stationary sources, as well as 10 percent of the
project -related mobile sources.
As shown in Table 4.2-H (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.2-19), project
operational source emissions would not exceed LSTs established
by the SCAQMD. Therefore, because the project would not exceed
the LSTs established by the SCAQMD, localized emissions from
operation of the proposed Project would not expose any sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, impacts would be
less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
CO Hot Spot. CO hot spots are caused by vehicular emissions,
primarily when idling at congested intersections. Based on the
analysis presented below, a CO "hot -spot" analysis is not needed
to determine whether a change in the level of service (LOS) of an
intersection in the vicinity of the Project site would have the
potential to result in exceedance of either the CAAQS or NAAQS.
Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in
the last 20 years. Currently, the allowable CO emissions standard
in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars
(there are requirements for certain vehicles that are more
stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of
cleaner fuels, and implementation of increasingly sophisticated and
efficient emissions control technologies, CO concentration in the
Basin is now designated as attainment. In addition, CO
concentrations in the project vicinity have steadily declined.
The analysis prepared for CO attainment in the Basin by SCAQMD
can be used to assist in evaluating the potential for CO
18 6/2/2020
exceedances in the Basin. To establish a more accurate record of
baseline CO concentrations affecting the Basin, a CO "hot -spot"
analysis was conducted by SCAQMD in 2003 for four busy
intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon
time periods. The busiest intersection evaluated was at Wilshire
Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which has a traffic volume of
approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. This analysis did not
predict any violation of CO standards. Based on the SCAQMD
2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon
Monoxide (1992 CO Plan), peak CO concentrations in the Basin
were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical
conditions and not a result of traffic volumes and congestion at a
particular intersection. Even if the traffic volumes of the proposed
Project were double or triple that of the traffic volumes generated at
the four busy intersections in Los Angeles, coupled with the
ongoing improvements in ambient air quality, the project would not
be capable of resulting in a CO "hot spot" at any study area
intersections. Similar considerations are also employed by other Air
Districts when evaluating potential CO concentration impacts. More
specifically, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) concludes that under existing and future vehicle
emission rates, a given project would have to increase traffic
volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per
hour (vph)—or 24,000 vph where vertical and/or horizontal air does
not mix—in order to generate a significant CO impact.
According to the TIA, the project is anticipated to generate 5,221
average daily trips. Since the proposed Project would not increase
traffic volumes at any intersection to more than 100,000 vehicles
per day (the volumes at the busiest intersection evaluated in
SCAQMD's hot spot analysis), there is no likelihood of the project
traffic exceeding CO values. Because the proposed Project would
not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO "hot
spot," CO emissions from operation of the proposed Project would
not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations. Impacts related to CO hot spots would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
Prior to mitigation, the proposed Project would result in less than
significant impacts. However, the following regulatory compliance
measures are existing SCAQMD regulations that are applicable to
the proposed Project and are considered in the analysis of potential
impacts related to air quality. The City of San Juan Capistrano
considers these requirements to be mandatory; therefore, they are
not mitigation measures. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-16 through 4.2-20.)
4. Other Adverse Emissions
19 6/2/2020
Threshold: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-10.)
Explanation: SCAQMD's CEQA Air Qualify Handbook (1993) 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 be considered less than significant
and would not require mitigation.
The proposed Project would allow for the implementation of a
lumber yard development and two fast-food restaurants, which are
not anticipated to produce objectionable odors. Potential sources of
operational odors generated by the project would include disposal
of miscellaneous refuse typical of commercial 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. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p.
4-10.)
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Riparian Habitat
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-12.)
Explanation: The approximately 17 -acre vacant Project site is currently
characterized by an undeveloped gravel parking lot and ruderal
vegetation. According to the National Wetlands Inventory managed
by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the
20 6/2/2020
Project site does not contain riparian habitat.6 There are no riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural communities as identified in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or USFWS. According to
the Biological Technical Report, small areas of disturbed California
sagebrush scrub were the only native vegetation community
identified on Project site. A small patch of mule fat (Baccharis
salicifolia) was present in disturbed habitat, but was not of sufficient
size or composition to qualify as a riparian vegetation community.
The other vegetation community present on the Project site was
California annual grassland, which is not considered sensitive. As
such, no sensitive vegetation communities were observed on the
Project site. In addition, two land cover types, disturbed areas and
developed areas were observed on the Project site. The plant
species observed within these cover types consisted of non-native
or invasive weedy species. Therefore, development of the
proposed Project is not anticipated to have a significant impact on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. No
mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4.12)
2. Wetlands
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-10.)
Explanation: The approximately 17 -acre Project site is currently characterized
by an undeveloped gravel parking lot and ruderal vegetation.
According to the Aquatic Resources Delineation, no potential
waters of the U.S. or CDFW jurisdictional areas are located on the
Project site. A ditch located within the southern half of the Project
site occasionally collects stormwater flows from the north and east
of the site. However, this is not considered to be a water of the U.S.
or a CDFW jurisdictional area as there are no indicators of water
flow through this area. Furthermore, according to the National
Wetlands Inventory managed by the USFWS, the Project site does
not contain federally protected wetlands; however, the San Juan
Creek Channel, located immediately west of the Project site,
contains wetlands classified as Riverine and Freshwater Emergent
Wetlands. Due to the proximity of the San Juan Creek Channel,
project construction and operation could have potentially significant
6 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). National Wetland Inventory.
Website: https://www.fws. gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html (accessed April 24, 2019).
21 6/2/2020
impacts on federally protected wetlands and waters of the United
States as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Therefore, the improvements associated with the project could
potentially affect off site wetlands.
Construction. Pollutants of concern during construction and soil
erosion may 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 storm water runoff into San Juan
Creek. However, compliance with the requirements of the
Construction General Permit and incorporation of construction
BMPs to target pollutants of concern would ensure construction
impacts related to the Riverine and Freshwater Emergent Wetlands
within San Juan Creek would be reduced. Compliance with the
Construction General Permit is specified in Regulatory
Compliance Measure WQ-1. With implementation of Regulatory
Compliance Measure WQ-1, construction impacts to the Riverine
and Freshwater Emergent Wetlands contained within San Juan
Creek Channel would be less than significant, and no mitigation is
required.
Operation. Pollutants of concern during operation may have a
condition of the receiving waters for runoff from the Project site
(San Juan Creek and the Pacific Ocean), the primary pollutants of
concern from long-term operation of commercial and restaurant
developments include nutrients, bacteria/viruses/pathogens,
pesticides, and dry weather runoff; other pollutants of concern
include suspended solids, oil and grease, and trash and debris.
Required compliance with the City Municipal Code and South
Orange County MS4 Permit requirements, including preparation of
a Final WQMP and incorporation of post -construction BMPs to
target pollutants of concern, would reduce operation impacts on the
identified wetlands within San Juan Creek. Compliance with the
South Orange County MS4 Permit requirements and the
development of a Final WQMP is specified in Regulatory
Compliance Measure WQ-4. With implementation of Regulatory
Compliance Measure WQ-4, operational impacts to the Riverine
and Freshwater Emergent Wetlands contained within San Juan
Creek Channel would be less than significant. No mitigation would
be required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-10 through 4.3-11.)
Regulatory Compliance Measures
22 6/2/2020
The proposed Project would comply with the following regulatory standards.
RCM WQ-1 Construction General Permit. Prior to commencement of
construction activities, the project Applicant shall obtain coverage
under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated
with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction
General Permit), NPDES No. CAS000002, Order No. 2009-0009-
DWQ, as amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ and Order No.
2012-0006-DWQ, or any other subsequent permit. This shall
include submission of Permit Registration Documents (PRDs),
including permit application fees, a Notice of Intent (N01), a risk
assessment, a site plan, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP), a signed certification statement, and any other
compliance -related documents required by the permit, to the State
Water Resources Control Board via the Stormwater Multiple
Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS). As required by
Section 8-14.107 of the City of San Juan Capistrano's (City)
Municipal Code, construction activities shall not commence until a
Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) is obtained for the
project from the SMARTS and provided to the City of San Juan
Capistrano Building Official, or designee, to demonstrate that
coverage under the Construction General Permit has been
obtained. Project construction shall comply with all applicable
requirements specified in the Construction General Permit,
including but not limited to, preparation of a SWPPP and
implementation of construction site Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to address all construction -related activities, equipment,
and materials that have the potential to impact water quality for the
appropriate risk level identified for the project. The SWPPP shall
identify the sources of pollutants that may affect the quality of
stormwater and shall include BMPs (e.g., Sediment Control,
Erosion Control, and Good Housekeeping BMPs) to control the
pollutants in stormwater runoff. Construction Site BMPs shall also
conform to the requirements specified in the latest edition of the
Orange County Stormwater Program Construction Runoff Guidance
Manual for Contractors, Project Owners, and Developers to control
and minimize the impacts of construction and construction -related
activities, materials, and pollutants on the watershed. Upon
completion of construction activities and stabilization of the Project
site, a Notice of Termination shall be submitted via SMARTS.
RCM WQ-4 Water Quality Management Plan. Prior to issuance of building
permits, the project Applicant shall submit a Final Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP) to the City of San Juan Capistrano
Building Official, or designee, for review and approval in
compliance with Section 8-14.105 of the City Municipal Code and
23 6/2/2020
3.
4
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from the
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Draining the
Watersheds within the San Diego Region (South Orange County
MS4 Permit), Order R9-2013-0001, NPDES No. CA56010266, as
amended by Order No. R9-2015-0001, or any other subsequent
permit. The Final WQMP shall be prepared consistent with the
requirements of the Model Water Quality Management Plan (Model
WQMP) for South Orange County (County of Orange 2018) and the
Technical Guidance Document for the Preparation of
Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management
Plans (WQMPs) (County of Orange 2018), or subsequent guidance
manuals. The Final WQMP shall specify the BMPs to be
incorporated into the project design to target pollutants of concern
in runoff from the Project site. The City of San Juan Capistrano
Building Official, or designee, shall ensure that the BMPs specified
in the Final WQMP are incorporated into the final project design.
Wildlife Movement
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-13.)
Explanation: The Biological Technical Report determined that no migratory
wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites were identified
within the Project site. The San Juan Creek Channel, located
immediately west of the Project site, is unlikely to serve as a
substantial corridor for local wildlife due to the lack of vegetative
cover. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no
mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-13.)
Local Policies and Ordinances
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-13
through 4-14.)
Explanation: The majority of the Project site is characterized by an undeveloped
gravel lot and ruderal vegetation. Currently, two existing red willow
trees (Salix laevigata) are located on the Project site, both of which
24 6/2/2020
would be removed as part of project implementation. According to
the Existing Tree Inventory Report, the two existing trees would not
be suitable for relocation due to their state of decay and structural
decline.
Section 9-2.349 of the City's Municipal Code provides the policies
on the removal of mature trees within the City. A tree removal
permit is required for the removal of any mature trees associated
with a development project that is subject to other discretionary
land use approvals. Mature trees are considered to be trees with a
diameter at breast height (3 ft above grade) greater than 6 inches.
A tree removal permit for non -heritage trees may be approved
administratively by the City Planning Director or designee.
Trees defined as "heritage trees" shall not be removed without
review and approval of the City Planning Commission. A heritage
tree is defined by the City's Municipal Code as having the following
characteristics: (1) having a trunk diameter at breast height of 36
inches or greater; and (2) being a specimen of the following
species: California pepper (Schinus molle); oak (Quercus spp.);
cedar (Cedar spp.); blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus);
walnut (Jug/ans spp.); olive (Oleg europaea); sycamore (Platanus
spp.); cottonwood (Populus spp.); or as otherwise designated by
the Planning Commission based on the tree's unique and intrinsic
value to the community because of its size, age, historic
association or ecological value.
Based on the information provided in the Existing Tree Inventory
Report, the two red willow trees located on the Project site are not
considered heritage trees and are considered diseased, structurally
unsound, and unstable. Therefore, the Project Applicant would be
required to apply for a tree removal permit as part of the
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, in compliance with the City's
tree preservation policy, specified in the City's Municipal Code
(Section 9-2.349(c)(1), Tree Removal Permit for New Development
Projects). Therefore, 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. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-13 through 4-14.)
5. Habitat Conservation Plans
Threshold: 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?
25 6/2/2020
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4.14.)
Explanation: The Project site is located in the Southern Region of the Orange
County Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat
Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). 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 designated as developed area by the Orange
County NCCP/HCP and is located outside of the boundaries of the
Habitat Reserve System. Thus, the Orange County NCCP/HCP
does not have any requirements that apply to the proposed Project.
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 NCCP/HCP. (Appendix A [Initial
Study], p. 4-14.)
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Historical Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a
significance of a historical
Guidelines, section 15064.5?
substantial adverse change in the
resource pursuant to State CEQA
Finding: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-16.)
Explanation: CEQA defines a "historical resource" as a resource that meets one
or more of the following criteria:
1. Is listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California
Register of Historical Resources (California Register);
2. Is listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k);
3. Is identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting
the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or
4. Is determined to be a historical resource by a project's Lead
Agency (PRC Section 21084.1 and State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5[a]).
Implementation of the proposed Project would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
26 6/2/2020
resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, as there are no eligible resources or structures on site.
In its existing setting, the Project site is undeveloped. On
September 26, 2017, a cultural resources records search was
conducted at the South Central Coastal Archaeological Information
Center (SCCIC), located at California State University, Fullerton.
The purpose of the records search was to determine the extent of
previous cultural resources investigations within -a 0.5 -mile radius of
the project area, and whether any previously recorded
archaeological sites or other historic resources exist within or near
the project area. Materials reviewed included reports of previous
cultural resources investigations, archaeological site records,
historical maps, and listings of resources on the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical
Resources (CRHR), California Points of Historical Interest,
California Landmarks, and National Historic Landmarks. The
records search indicated 49 cultural resources investigations have
been conducted within the 0.5 -mile records search radius between
1978 and 2012. In addition, there is a list of "Indian Campsites" by
John Romero from 1935. Approximately 75 percent of the area in
the records search radius has been previously surveyed. One small
area survey (OR -1506) extends into the southern part of the project
area. The rest of the project area has not been previously
surveyed. The records search results indicated that no previously
recorded cultural resources have been recorded within the Project
site and 14 resources have been recorded within 0.5 mile of the
Project site.
According to the results from the records search, no previously
recorded historic properties are within the Project site. Furthermore,
according to the City's map of historic buildings and structures,'
there are no historic resources on or within the vicinity of the
Project site. As a result, the project will not cause a substantial
change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. No mitigation would be
required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-15 through 4-16.)
F. ENERGY
1. Wasteful Use of Energy
Threshold: Would the Project result in potentially significant impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, during project construction or operation?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-9.)
27 6/2/2020
Explanation: Construction. Construction of the proposed Project is anticipated
to last 24 months, and would require energy for activities such as
the manufacture and transportation of building materials, demolition
and grading activities, and building construction. Construction of the
proposed Project would require electricity to power construction -
related equipment. Construction of the proposed Project would not
involve the consumption of natural gas. The construction -related
equipment would not be powered by natural gas, and no natural
gas demand is anticipated during construction.
Transportation energy represents the largest energy use during
construction and would occur from the transport and use of
construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and
construction worker vehicles that would use petroleum fuels (e.g.,
diesel fuel and/or gasoline). Therefore, the analysis of energy use
during construction focuses on fuel consumption. Construction
trucks and vendor trucks hauling materials to and from the Project
site would be anticipated to use diesel fuel, whereas construction
workers traveling to and from the Project site would be anticipated
to use gasoline -powered vehicles. Fuel consumption from
transportation uses depends on the type and number of trips, VMT,
the fuel efficiency of the vehicles, and travel mode.
As indicated in Table 4.5.A (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.7-8), the
project would consume approximately 381,084 gallons of fuel
during construction, which would increase the annual construction
generated fuel use in Orange County by approximately 2.2 percent.
As such, project construction would have a negligible effect on local
and regional energy supplies. Furthermore, impacts related to
energy use during construction would be temporary and relatively
small in comparison to Orange County's overall use of the State's
available energy sources. No unusual project characteristics would
necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less
energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region
or the State.
For these reasons, fuel consumption during construction would not
be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar
development projects of this nature and impacts would be less than
significant. No mitigation is required.
Operation. Energy use consumed by the proposed Project would
be associated with natural gas use, electricity consumption, and
fuel used for vehicle trips associated with the project. As shown in
Table 4.5-A (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.5-9), the estimated potential
increase in electricity demand associated with the operation of the
proposed Project is 1,840,033 kWh per year. Total electricity
28 6/2/2020
demand in Orange County in 2018 was approximately
13,044,070,989 kWh. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project
would increase the annual electricity consumption in Orange
County by approximately 0.014 percent. However, it should be
noted that the proposed Project is the relocation of a Ganahl
Lumber store currently operating, and consuming electricity, in the
adjacent City of Dana Point.
As shown in Table 4.5.A (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.5-8), the
estimated potential increase in natural gas demand associated with
the proposed Project is 19,536 therms per year. Total natural gas
consumption in Orange County in 2018 was 236,102,647 therms.
Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would negligibly
increase the annual natural gas consumption in Orange County by
approximately 0.008 percent. However, it should be noted that the
proposed Project is the relocation of a Ganahl Lumber store
currently operating, and consuming natural gas, in the adjacent City
of Dana Point.
Electrical and natural gas demand associated with project
operations would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or
unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the
region. Furthermore, the proposed Project would not conflict with or
obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency. The project would be required to adhere to all federal,
State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the
Title 24 standards. Title 24 building energy efficiency standards
establish minimum efficiency standards related to various building
features, including appliances, water and space heating and
cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting.
Compliance with Title 24 standards is required and is identified in
Regulatory Compliance Measure E-1, which would significantly
reduce energy usage. Impacts are considered less than significant
and no mitigation is required.
The proposed Project would also result in energy usage associated
with gasoline fuel consumed by project -related vehicle trips. As
shown in Table 4.5.A of the Draft EIR, fuel use associated with the
vehicle trips generated by the proposed Project is estimated at
422,889 gallons. The amount of operational fuel use was estimated
using CARB's EMFAC2014 model, which provided projections for
typical daily fuel usage in Orange County. This analysis
conservatively assumes that all vehicle trips generated as a result
of project operation would be new to Orange County. Further, it
should be noted that the proposed Project is the relocation of a
Ganahl Lumber store currently operating in the adjacent City of
Dana Point; fuel consumption due to vehicle trips is already
29 6/2/2020
occurring under the existing conditions. Total fuel consumption in
Orange County in 2018 includes on -road automotive fuel
consumption and off-road equipment fuel consumption, and is
estimated at approximately 1,402,492,695 gallons. Therefore,
operation of the proposed Project would increase the annual
automotive fuel consumption in Orange County by approximately
0.031 percent. The proposed Project would not result in excessive
long-term operational automotive fuel consumption. Fuel
consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by project
operations would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or
unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the
region. Furthermore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a
State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is
required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-7 through 4.5-9.)
Requiatory Compliance Measures
RCM E-1 California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24. Prior to issuance
of building permits, the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) Director
of Development Services, or designee, shall confirm that the project
design complies with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards (CCR Title 24) energy conservation and green building
standards, as well as those listed in Part 11 (California Green
Building Standards Code [CalGreen Code]). The City Director of
Development Services shall confirm that the project complies with
the mandatory measures listed in the CalGreen Code for non-
residential building construction.
2. Energy Efficiency Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state of local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, 4.5-10.)
Explanation: In 2002, the Legislature passed SB 1389, which required the CEC
to develop an integrated energy plan every 2 years for electricity,
natural gas, and transportation fuels for the California Energy Policy
Report. The plan calls for the State to assist in the transformation of
the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion,
and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least
environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan
identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public
agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs
for ZEVs and their infrastructure needs, and encouragement of
30 6/2/2020
urban designs that reduce VMT and accommodate pedestrian and
bicycle access.
The CEC recently adopted the 2017 Integrated Energy Policy
Report (CEC 2018a) and the 2018 Integrated Energy Policy Report
Update (CEC 2018b). The Integrated Energy Policy Report
provides the results of the CEC's assessments of a variety of
energy issues facing California. Many of these issues will require
action if the State is to meet its climate, energy, air quality, and
other environmental goals while maintaining energy reliability and
controlling costs. The Integrated Energy Policy Report covers a
broad range of topics, including implementation of SB 350,
integrated resource planning, distributed energy resources,
transportation electrification, solutions to increase resiliency in the
electricity sector, energy efficiency, transportation electrification,
barriers faced by disadvantaged communities, demand response,
transmission and landscape -scale planning, the California Energy
Demand Preliminary Forecast, the preliminary transportation
energy demand forecast, renewable gas, updates on Southern
California electricity reliability, natural gas outlook, and climate
adaptation and resiliency. The City of San Juan Capistrano relies
on the State integrated energy plan and does not have its own local
plan to address renewable energy or energy efficiency.
As indicated above, energy usage on the Project site during
construction would be temporary in nature and would be relatively
small in comparison to the overall use in the County. In addition,
energy usage associated with operation of the proposed Project
would be relatively small in comparison to the overall use in Orange
County, and the State's available energy sources and energy
impacts would be negligible at the regional level. Because
California's energy conservation planning actions are conducted at
a regional level, and because the proposed Project's total impact on
regional energy supplies would be minor, the proposed Project
would not conflict with or obstruct California's energy conservation
plans as described in the CEC's Integrated Energy Policy Report.
Additionally, the proposed Project would not result in the inefficient,
wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Potential
impacts related to conflict with or obstruction of a State or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
Energy impacts related to the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary
consumption of energy are considered less than significant, and no
mitigation is required.
G. GEOLOGY AND SOI
31 6/2/2020
1. (a) Fault Rupture
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving
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)?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-19.)
Explanation: 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 Investigation 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 nearest known
earthquake fault to the Project site is the Newport -Inglewood -Rose
Canyon Fault Zone, which is located approximately 20 miles to the
north of the Project site. 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. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-
18 through 4-19.)
1. (d) Landslides
Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving landslides?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-20.)
Explanation: 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 Geotechnical Investigation, the Project site 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. (Appendix A [Initial
Study], p. 4-20.)
2. Soil Erosion
32 6/2/2020
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Find lng: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-11.)
Explanation: During construction activities, soil would be exposed and there
would be an increased potential for soil erosion compared to
existing conditions due to soil disturbance and the exposure of
substantial amounts of soil to weather conditions (e.g., wind, rain).
During a storm event, soil erosion could occur at an accelerated
rate. The increased erosion potential could result in short-term
water quality impacts as identified in Section 4.9, Hydrology and
Water Quality. During construction, the project Applicant is required
to adhere to the requirements of the General Construction Permit
and utilize typical BMPs specifically identified in the SWPPP (as
required by Regulatory Compliance Measure WQ-1) for the
project in order to prevent construction pollutants from contacting
stormwater and to keep all products of erosion from moving off site
into receiving waters. Additionally, the project Applicant is required
to install and maintain erosion control devices year round in
compliance with a City -approved pollution control plan, construction
BMP plan, and/or erosion and sediment control plan (as required by
Regulatory Compliance Measure WQ-2). Water -related impacts
during construction would be less than significant through
implementation of construction site BMPs, as specified in
Regulatory Compliance Measures WQ-1 and WQ-2.
The proposed Project would result in an increase in impervious
area and a net increase in stormwater runoff; however, the
proposed Project would also install a stormwater runoff system to
manage increased peak runoff from the site. Additionally, a Final
Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis would be required to be prepared
and submitted to the City for Approval, to ensure the peak flow of
stormwater runoff in the proposed condition would not exceed the
outfall capacity (as required by Regulatory Compliance Measure
WQ-5). As a result, any increase in peak discharge would be
negligible. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in
substantial on-site or downstream erosion, siltation, or flooding, and
no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-10 through 4.6-11.)
3. Unstable Soils
Threshold: 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?
33 6/2/2020
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-20,
Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-11 through 4.6-13.)
Explanation:
Landslides. Both the existing Project site and the surrounding area
are relatively flat and are not subject to slope instability or
landslides. Therefore, on- or off-site landslides are not considered a
potential constraint or a potentially significant impact of the project,
and no mitigation is required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-20.)
Unsuitable Soils.
Subsidence.
The phenomenon of widespread land sinking, or subsidence,
is generally related to substantial overpumping of
groundwater or petroleum reserves from deep underground
reservoirs. Overpumping and excessive groundwater
withdrawal have not occurred in the project area. In addition,
the project does not have an oil, gas, or water pump on site
and none are located near the site and has not been used
for the extraction of either resource. Subsidence is therefore
not considered a potential constraint or a potentially
significant impact of the project, and no mitigation is
required.
Lateral Spreading.
Lateral spreading typically occurs as a form of horizontal
displacement of relatively flat -lying alluvial material toward
an open or "unconfined" face such as an open body of
water, channel, or excavation. In soils, this movement is
generally due to failure along a weak plane and may often
be associated with liquefaction. According to the
Geotechnical Investigation, lateral spreading at the Project
site is not a concern because the proposed final ground
surface would be relatively flat and the recently constructed
sheet pile system along the San Juan Creek levee (a
separate project), which penetrates below the lowest
liquefiable layer identified within the Project site for
protection of the creek levee, would prevent lateral motion
from occurring. Therefore, the soils on the Project site are
not subject to lateral spreading. Therefore, lateral spreading
is not considered a potential constraint or a potentially
significant impact of the project, and no mitigation is
required.
34 6/2/2020
(Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-11 through 4.6-13.)
4 Septic Tanks
Threshold: Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Finding: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-21.)
Explanation: The proposed Project would include a sewer connection to the
City's existing sewer infrastructure and would not include the
installation of, or connections to, a septic system or alternative
waste water disposal system. 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.
(Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-22.)
H. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
1. Emissions Generation
Threshold: Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-10 through 4.7-11.)
Explanation: Construction. Construction activities associated with the proposed
Project would result in emissions of CO2e from construction
activities, including construction worker commute trips, haul trucks
carrying supplies and materials to and from the Project site, and off-
road construction equipment (e.g., dozers, loaders, and
excavators). Project construction -generated GHG emissions were
primarily calculated using CalEEMod model defaults for Orange
County, and construction of the proposed Project was assumed to
start in 2020 and is estimated to last 24 months. Table 4.7.A (found
at Draft EIR, p. 4.7-8) shows construction -generated GHG
emissions that would result from construction of the project.
As shown in Table 4.7.A (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.7-8), construction
of the proposed Project would generate approximately 3,868 MT
over the course of construction. The amortized construction
emissions have been assessed as part of the annual average
operation emissions, below. Because construction would be
temporary (approximately 24 months), would cease upon project
completion, and would not result in a permanent increase in
35 6/2/2020
emissions, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation
is required.
Operation. Operation of the project would result in GHG emissions
predominantly associated with motor vehicle use by employees and
patrons to the Project site. Projected emissions associated with the
proposed Project were compared to the existing baseline, which
includes a vehicle storage lot containing 752 spaces in the central
portion of the Project site.
Table 4.7.13 (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.7-9) shows the long-term
operational GHG emissions attributable to the project following site
buildout, which are compared to SCAQMD's interim screening -level
bright -line threshold of 3,000 MT of CO2e annually.
As shown in Table 4.7.13 (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.7-9), project
operations would generate 3,787 MT of CO2e per year, which
exceeds SCAQMD's interim screening -level bright -line threshold of
3,000 MT of CO2e per year. As such, the project has been
compared with the efficiency -based threshold of 4.8 MT of CO2e
per Project site service population per year by the year 2020, and
3.0 MT of CO2e per Project site service population per year in
2035.
The project's service population is comprised of project employees
and patrons to the Project site. The SCAQMD identifies the
emissions level for which a project would not be expected to
substantially conflict with any State legislation adopted to reduce
statewide GHG emissions. As such, the utilization of a service
population represents the rates of emissions needed to achieve a
fair share of the State's mandated emissions reductions. Overall,
SCAQMD identifies a GHG efficiency level that, when applied
statewide or to a defined geographic area, would meet the year
2020 and post -2020 emissions targets as required by AB 32 and
SB 32. If projects are able to achieve targeted rates of emissions
per the service population, the State will be able to accommodate
expected population growth and achieve economic development
objectives, while also abiding by AB 32's emissions target and
future post -2020 targets.
According to the Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment,
patrons would comprise the majority of visitors to the Project site,
followed by a smaller number of employees working at the site.
Patrons visiting the Project site would not reside on site; instead,
they would largely reside in the surrounding communities and
represent a population that is served by the proposed uses.
Additionally, patrons traveling to the Project site would represent a
dominate source of project -generated GHG emissions. For these
36 6/2/2020
reasons, an efficiency -based threshold is utilized in the analysis.
The Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment estimates that
1,491 patrons would visit the Project site per day. Combined with
the 145 employees expected to be employed at the Project site
daily, the project's service population totals 1,636 people.'
Table 4.7.0 (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.7-10) shows the project's
estimated operational GHG emissions per service population.
As shown in Table 4.7.0 (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.7-10), the project
would not exceed SCAQMD efficiency -based thresholds in either
2020 or 2035 buildout scenarios. SCAQMD thresholds were
developed based on substantial evidence that such thresholds
represent quantitative levels of GHG emissions. Since the project is
in compliance with this threshold, the project's environmental
impact related to GHG emissions would not be cumulatively
considerable under CEQA. Therefore, impacts related to
operational GHG emissions would be less than significant, and no
mitigation would be required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-8 through 4.7-11.)
2. Emission Reduction Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of
greenhouse gases?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-11.)
Explanatior7: Although the City of San Juan Capistrano does not currently have
an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing GHG emissions, the City is a member city of SCAG.
SCAG's 2016-2040 RTP/SCS is a long-range planning document
that provides a common foundation for regional and local planning,
policymaking, and infrastructure goals in the SCAG region. The
2016-2040 RTP/SCS establishes GHG emissions goals for
automobiles and light-duty trucks for target years 2020 and 2035
and establishes an overall GHG target for the region consistent with
both the statewide GHG-reduction targets for 2020 and post -2020
statewide GHG reduction goals. Table 4.7.D (found at Draft EIR,
pp. 4.7-12 through 4.7-13) shows the proposed Project's
consistency with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS goals as analyzed in the
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment.
For more information regarding the methodology used to calculate project's service
population, refer to the Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment, included as
Appendix B to the Draft EIR.
37 6/2/2020
As shown in Table 4.7.D (found at Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-12 through
4.7-13), the proposed Project would not conflict with the stated
goals of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. As such, the proposed Project
would not interfere with SCAG's ability to achieve the region's 2020
and post -2020 mobile source GHG reduction targets outlined in the
2016-2040 RTP/SCS, and it can be assumed that regional mobile
emissions will decrease consistent with the goals of the 2016-2040
RTP/SCS. Further, the proposed Project is not considered
regionally significant per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15206.
Thus, the project would not conflict with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS
targets since those targets were established and are applicable on
a regional level. Therefore, impacts related to conflict with an
applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing GHG emissions would be less than significant, and no
mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-11.)
I. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. Hazardous Materials
Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-26.)
Explanation: 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 irritant, or strong
sensitizer.$ 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. These
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. During construction activities for the proposed
Project, there is a possibility of generating small quantities of
hazardous materials. The construction phase of the proposed
8 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).
38 6/2/2020
Project may include the transport, storage, and short-term use of
petroleum-based fuels, lubricants, pesticides, and other similar
materials. 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).
Any associated risk would be adequately reduced to a level that is
less than significant through compliance with these standards and
regulations; thus, the limited use and storage of hazardous
materials during construction of the proposed Project proposed
Project would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the
environment. Accordingly, the potential for the release of hazardous
materials during project construction would be 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. No
mitigation would be required.
Operation. The proposed Project would allow for the development
of a lumber yard and hardware store, drive-through restaurant
uses, and a crushed -rock gravel area for long-term vehicle storage.
Hazardous substances associated with retail, warehousing, and
restaurant uses are typically limited in both amount and use, such
that they can be contained without impacting the environment.
Long-term operational activities typical of the proposed retail,
lumber storage yard, and restaurant uses, such as landscape and
building maintenance, would occur on the Project site. Maintenance
activities related to landscaping include the use of fertilizers and
light equipment (such as lawn mowers and edgers). These types of
activities do not involve the use of a large or substantial amount of
hazardous materials. The proposed retail, lumber storage yard, and
restaurant uses would involve the use and storage of small
quantities of potentially hazardous materials in the form of cleaning
solvents and pesticides. However, such materials would be
contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers'
instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards
and regulations. As such, when utilized properly, hazardous
materials used and stored on the Project site would not result in a
significant hazard to visitors or the environment.
A fueling area for delivery trucks will be included as part of the
project. During operation of the proposed Project, the diesel fueling
station would be enclosed within integrated containment vessels,
and would be required to be operated in compliance with all
applicable State and federal regulations governing the handling of
39 6/2/2020
diesel fuels. As stated in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality,
Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented as part of
the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to ensure proper
operation of the fueling area and avoid any hazardous wastes that
could be generated as a result.
The project proposes vehicle parking and storage; however, there
would be no vehicle cleaning or maintenance areas on the Project
site. As such, chemicals, oils, and grease, generated from such
activities would not result in significant impacts related to the
release of hazardous materials.
All transport, handling, use, and disposal of substances such as
petroleum products, paints, and solvents related to the operation
and maintenance of the proposed Project would be required to
comply with all federal, State, and local laws regulating the
management and use of hazardous materials. Additionally, the
Project Applicant has retained a Chemical Classification and High
Pile Storage consultant to provide guidance on the handling of
hazardous materials. Therefore, compliance with BMPs and
adherence to the recommendations of the chemical classification
consultant, the proposed Project would result in a less than
significant impact with regard to the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous material. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-24
through 4-26.)
2. Hazards Near Schools
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-28
through 4-29.)
Explanation: West River Academy Private School located at 33721 Bluewater
Lane, in the City of Dana Point, is the nearest school to the Project
site, located approximately 0.25 mile to the southwest. The closest
public schools to the Project site are Del Obispo Elementary
School, located at 25591 Camino Del Avion, and Marco Forster
Middle School, located at 25601 Camino Del Avion, both of which
are approximately 0.6 mile north of the Project site.
Construction. Construction activities would involve the routine use
of hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, paints, curing
compounds, solvents, and sanitizers. Compliance as required with
40 6/2/2020
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 an
existing school. 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 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. No mitigation would be required.
Operation. Although the Project site is located within 0.25 mile of
West River Academy Private School, operation of the proposed
commercial uses would not result in the production of hazardous
emissions or handling of significant amounts of hazardous
materials. Therefore, operation of the proposed retail, lumber
storage yard, and restaurant 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. Therefore, impacts within 0.25
mile of an existing or proposed school are considered less than
significant, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial
Study], pp. 4-28 through 4-29.)
3. Waste Sites
Threshold: Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
Finding: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-29.)
Explanation: According to the Phase I ESA, which included a review of
hazardous materials databases, 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.
(Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-29.)
41 6/2/2020
4. Public Airports
Threshold: 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?
Finding: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-29.)
Explanation: There are no airports within 2 miles of the Project site. The nearest
public use airport to the Project site is John Wayne Airport located
at 18601 Airport Way, in the City of Santa Ana, approximately 17
miles northwest of the Project site. Given the distance of the Project
site to the nearest airport, there would be no safety hazards for
people residing or working at the Project site or vicinity. No
mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-29.)
5. Emergency Plans
Threshold: Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-30.)
Explanation: 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, Stonehill Drive is listed as a potential evacuation
routes in the event of an emergency.9
Construction. Construction of the proposed Project, specifically
construction of the proposed signal and deceleration lane on
Stonehill Drive, may result in temporary lane closures adjacent to
the Project site. However, construction impacts would be temporary
in nature and would cease upon project completion. As such, the
Project would not physically impair or otherwise conflict with the
9 City of San Juan Capistrano. Evacuation Routes. Website:
http://sanjuancapistrano.orePortals/0/Evacuation%2OMap%202017.pdf (accessed on
April 24, 2019).
42 6/2/2020
long-term implementation of the City's Emergency Preparedness
Program. Therefore, construction of the proposed Project would
result in less than significant impacts related to the implementation
of emergency response and evacuation plans, and no mitigation
would be required.
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. Stonehill Drive is identified as an evacuation
route in the City. 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 Project would not impair
implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. In
addition, the proposed Project includes expanded access via an
emergency access road extending to the north of the site, and a
new access road extending under the Stonehill Drive bridge to
parcels immediately south of the Project site. Therefore, operation
of the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts
related to the implementation of emergency response and
evacuation plans, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A
[Initial Study], pp. 4-29 through 4-30.)
6. Wildland Fires
Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Finding: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-30 through 4-31.)
Explanation: The Project site is located in an urbanized, developed portion of the
City of San Juan Capistrano. Surrounding land uses include a
mobile home park to the north; the San Juan Creek Channel and
Trail, Creekside Park, and single-family residential uses to the
west; the BNSF rail line and automobile dealerships to the east;
and a hotel, a mobile home park, and commercial uses south of
Stonehill Drive.
43 6/2/2020
The Project site is not adjacent to any wildland areas. 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). According to the CAL FIRE and Resource
Assessment Program, the Project site is not within a Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).10 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. (Appendix A
[Initial Study], pp. 4-30 through 4-31.)
J. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. Water Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Fines: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-15 through 4.9-19.)
Explanation: Construction. The proposed Project would allow for the
development of a lumber yard and hardware store, drive-through
restaurant uses, and a crushed -rock gravel area for long-term
vehicle storage. Pollutants of concern during construction include,
but are not limited to, 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 (i.e., San
Juan Creek and ultimately the Pacific Ocean). Sediment from
increased soil erosion and chemicals from spills and leaks have the
potential to be discharged to downstream receiving waters during
storm events, which can affect water quality and impair beneficial
uses.
Because construction of the proposed Project would disturb greater
than 1 acre of soil, the proposed Project is subject to the
10 CalFire. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. San Juan Capistrano. October
2011. Website: http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps/FHSZ/ora
nge/c30_SanJuanCap istrano_vhfhsz.pdf (accessed April 24, 2019).
44 6/2/2020
requirements of the Construction General Permit, as specified in
Regulatory Compliance Measure WQ-1. As also specified in
Regulatory Compliance Measure WQ-1, a SWPPP would be
prepared and construction BMPs detailed in the SWPPP would be
implemented during construction, in compliance with the
requirements of the Construction General Permit. In addition, as
specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure WQ-2, a pollution
control plan, construction BMP plan, and/or erosion and sediment
control plan would be prepared and submitted to the City's Building
Official prior to issuance of a grading or building permit in
compliance with the City Municipal Code. The SWPPP and
pollution control plan, construction BMP plan, and/or erosion and
sediment control plan would detail the BMPs to be implemented
during construction. 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. The
Construction General Permit and City Municipal Code also require
inspection and maintenance of construction BMPs prior to, during,
and after rain events. Compliance with the requirements of the
Construction General Permit and City Municipal Code, including
incorporation of construction BMPs to target and reduce pollutants
of concern in stormwater runoff, would ensure that construction
impacts related to waste discharge requirements, water quality
standards, and degradation of water quality would be less than
significant.
The Project site lies within the southerly portion of the San Juan
Groundwater Basin. As discussed in the Update Geotechnical
Investigation Report, groundwater was encountered in all
exploratory borings drilled to a depth of 18 to 22 ft bgs.
Groundwater depth can fluctuate due to factors such as rainfall and
presence of water near the Project site. Because excavation is
anticipated to reach a maximum depth of approximately 20 ft bgs,
there is a potential for groundwater to be encountered during
construction and for groundwater dewatering to be required.
Release of dewatered groundwater to surface waters can introduce
total dissolved solids and other constituents to surface waters. In
the event that groundwater or perched groundwater is encountered
during construction and groundwater dewatering is necessary,
disposal of dewatered groundwater can introduce total dissolved
solids and other constituents to surface waters. Any groundwater
dewatering during excavation would be conducted in accordance
with the Groundwater Discharge Permit, as specified in Regulatory
Compliance Measure Regulatory Compliance Measure WQ-3.
The Groundwater Discharge Permit would require testing and
45 6/2/2020
treatment (as necessary) of groundwater encountered during
groundwater dewatering prior to release to surface waters to
ensure that discharges do not exceed water quality limits specified
in the permit. Compliance with the requirements of the
Groundwater Discharge Permit, as specified in Regulatory
Compliance Measure WQ-3, would ensure impacts related to
waste discharge requirements, water quality standards, and surface
water quality would be less than significant during dewatering
activities, and no mitigation would be required.
Although groundwater dewatering would likely be required,
dewatered groundwater would be discharged to the storm drain
system, which discharges to San Juan Creek, rather than back into
groundwater and therefore would not have the potential to
introduce pollutants to groundwater. Infiltration of stormwater has
the potential to affect groundwater quality in areas of shallow
groundwater. However, according to the Preliminary Water Quality
Management Plan prepared for the proposed Project, a majority of
the on-site soils are not favorable for infiltration. Additionally, as
discussed above, groundwater could occur at depths from 18 to 22
ft bgs. Pollutants in stormwater are generally removed by soil
through absorption as water infiltrates. In areas of deep
groundwater, there is more absorption potential and, as a result,
less potential for pollutants to reach groundwater. As such, due to
the depth to groundwater and low infiltration potential of the
majority on-site soils, there is not a direct path for pollutants to
reach groundwater. As such, the potential for stormwater to
infiltrate and introduce pollutants to groundwater during
construction would be minimal and project construction activities
would not substantially degrade groundwater quality.
In conclusion, construction of the proposed Project would comply
with existing NPDES regulations (as specified in Regulatory
Compliance Measures WQ-1, WQ-2, and WQ-3), which include
preparation of a SWPPP and a pollution control plan; preparation of
a construction BMP plan, and/or erosion and sediment control plan;
implementation of Construction BMPs to target and reduce
pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff; and testing and
treatment (if required) of any groundwater prior to discharge to
surface waters. Compliance with these regulatory requirements
would ensure that impacts related to violation of any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements, and degradation of
surface or ground water quality, during construction would be less
than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Operation. According to the Preliminary Water Quality
Management Plan prepared for the project, based on the existing
impairments and water quality condition of the receiving waters for
46 6/2/2020
runoff from the Project site (San Juan Creek and the Pacific
Ocean), the primary pollutants of concern from long-term operation
of commercial and restaurant developments include suspended
solids, nutrients, heavy metals, bacteria/viruses/pathogens,
pesticides, toxic organic compounds, trash and debris, and dry
weather runoff; other pollutants of concern include oil and grease.
The project would comply with the requirements of Title 8, Chapter
14 of the City's Municipal Code and the South Orange County MS4
Permit. WQMPs specify the Site Design, Source Control, Low
Impact Development (LID) BMPs that would be implemented to
capture, treat, and reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater
runoff. Site Design BMPs are stormwater management strategies
that emphasize conservation and use of existing site features to
reduce the amount of runoff and pollutant loading generated from a
Project site. Source Control BMPs are preventative measures that
are implemented to prevent the introduction of pollutants into
stormwater. LID BMPs mimic a Project site's natural hydrology by
using design measures that capture, filter, store, evaporate, detain,
and infiltrate runoff rather than allowing runoff to flow directly to
piped or impervious storm drains.
The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the
project specifies the Source Control, Site Design, and LID BMPs
proposed for the project. The Preliminary Water Quality
Management Plan will be refined during final design based on the
final site plans, as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure
WQ-4. The proposed Project BMPs are detailed, below.
As detailed in the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan,
proposed Site Design BMPs include: maximize pervious areas,
preserve existing drainage patterns and time of concentration,
disconnect impervious areas, revegetate disturbed areas,
protection of soil stockpiling, water efficient landscaping, and slope
and channel buffers.
Proposed Non -Structural Source Control BMPs include education
for property owners, tenants and occupants; activity restrictions;
common area landscape management; BMP maintenance;
common area litter control; employee training; housekeeping of
loading docks; common area catch basin inspections; and street
sweeping public streets and parking lots.
Proposed Structural Source Control BMPs include: provide storm
drain system stenciling and signage; design and construct outdoor
material storage areas to reduce pollution introduction; design and
construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution
introduction; use of efficient irrigation systems and landscape
design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control;
47 6/2/2020
protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation;
incorporate requirements applicable to individual priority project
categories (from SDRWQCB NPDES Permit); loading dock areas;
fueling areas; hillside landscaping; and wash water control for food
preparation areas.
The proposed LID BMPs include underground detention systems
and proprietary treatment BMPs (Modular Wetland Stormwater
Biofiltration Systems). On-site runoff will be conveyed into catch
basins, then to the underground detention system, and then into the
proprietary biofiltration treatment system before discharging into
San Juan Creek channel. Flogard Catch Basin Insert Filter with
absorbent pouches (for inlet type) or Flogard Trash and Debris
Guard (for curb opening type) with absorbent pouches would be
installed on the on-site catch basins to prevent trash and debris
from entering the storm drain system and being conveyed to the
LID BMP systems.
Please refer to the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
included in Appendix H of the EIR for additional details of the
proposed Site Design BMPs, Non-Structural Source Control BMPs,
Structural Source Control BMPs, and LID BMPs.
The proposed BMPs would target and reduce pollutants of concern
from runoff from the Project site in compliance with the South
Orange County MS4 Permit requirements. Compliance with the
requirements of the South Orange County MS4 Permit, including
incorporation of operational BMPs to target pollutants of concern,
would ensure that impacts related to waste discharge requirements,
water quality standards, and degradation of water quality during
project operation would be less than significant.
Infiltration of stormwater could have the potential to affect
groundwater quality in areas of shallow groundwater. However, any
infiltration would be minimal due to the low infiltration potential of
the majority of on-site soils. Due to the depth to groundwater, it is
not expected that any stormwater that may infiltrate during
operation would affect groundwater quality because there is no
direct path for pollutants to reach groundwater. In addition, the
proposed Project would be required to implement LID BMPs to treat
stormwater before it could reach groundwater. Therefore, project
operation would not substantially degrade groundwater quality.
In conclusion, construction of the proposed Project would comply
with existing NPDES regulations (as specified in Regulatory
Compliance Measure WQ-4), which includes preparation of a
Final WQMP and implementation of operational BMPs to target and
reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff from the Project
48 6/2/2020
site. Compliance with regulatory requirements would ensure that
impacts related to violation of any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements, and degradation of surface water or
groundwater quality during project operation would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-15
through 4.9-19.)
Regulatory Compliance Measures
RCM WQ-2 Erosion and Sediment Control Plans. In compliance with the
requirements of Sections 8-2.15, 8-2.16, and 8-14.107 of the San
Juan Capistrano Municipal Code, the project Applicant shall submit
a pollution control plan, construction BMP plan, and/or erosion and
sediment control plan to the City of San Juan Capistrano Building
Official, or designee, for review and approval prior to issuance of a
grading permit. The project Applicant shall also install and maintain
erosion control devices year round in compliance with the City -
approved pollution control plan, construction BMP plan, and/or
erosion and sediment control plan. The project Applicant shall
ensure that the construction BMPs are inspected and maintained
prior to, during, and after rain events.
RCM WQ-3 Groundwater Dewatering Permits. Prior to initiation of excavation
activities, the project Applicant shall obtain coverage under San
Diego RWQCB issued the General Waste Discharge Requirements
for Discharges from Groundwater Extraction Discharges to Surface
Waters within the San Diego Region (Order No. R9-2015-0013,
NPDES No. CAG919003), or any other subsequent permit, and
provide evidence of coverage to the City of San Juan Capistrano
Building Official, or designee. This shall include submission of a
Notice of Intent (N01) for coverage under the permit to the San
Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) at least 60
days prior to the start of excavation activities and anticipated
discharge of dewatered groundwater to surface waters.
Groundwater dewatering activities shall comply with all applicable
provisions in the permit, including water sampling, analysis,
treatment (if required), and reporting of dewatering -related
discharges. Upon completion of groundwater dewatering activities,
a Notice of Termination shall be submitted to the San Diego
RWQCB.
2. Groundwater Supplies
Threshold: Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
49 6/2/2020
Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-34
through 4-35.)
Explanation: According to the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the
project, groundwater was encountered in all exploratory borings
drilled to a depth of 18 to 22 ft bgs.
Construction. Because excavation is anticipated to reach a
maximum depth of approximately 20 feet bgs, there is a potential
for groundwater to be encountered during construction and for
groundwater dewatering to be required. However, groundwater
dewatering would be temporary, and the volume of groundwater
removed would not be substantial. The project would also comply
with the requirements of Groundwater Discharge Permit, including
testing and treatment (if necessary) of dewatered groundwater prior
to discharge to surface waters. Furthermore, neither groundwater
extraction nor injection would occur during project construction.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation
would be required.
Operation. Currently, the Project site is undeveloped and consists
of primarily pervious surfaces. Due to the undeveloped nature of
the site, development of the project would increase impervious
surface area on the Project site compared to existing conditions.
The increase in impervious surface area as a result of project
implementation 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 (af) of water per year. 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. For these reasons,
impacts related to depletion of groundwater supplies or interference
with groundwater recharge would be less than significant, and no
mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4.-34
through 4-35.)
3. Erosion or Siltation
Threshold: 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 substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
50 6/2/2020
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, , p. 4.9-20.)
Explanation: Construction. During project 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. Project
construction would not disturb San Juan Creek because the
proposed Project does not include physical improvements to the
creek. The Construction General Permit requires preparation of a
SWPPP (Regulatory Compliance Measure WQ-1) and the City of
San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code requires preparation of
pollution control plan, construction BMP plan, and/or erosion and
sediment control plan (Regulatory Compliance Measure WQ-2).
The SWPPP and pollution control plan, construction BMP plan,
and/or erosion and sediment control plan would detail Erosion
Control and Sediment Control BMPs to be implemented during
project construction to minimize erosion and retain sediment on
site. With compliance with the requirements of the Construction
General Permit and the City's Municipal Code, and with
implementation of the construction BMPs, construction impacts
related to on- or off-site erosion or siltation would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
Operation. In the proposed condition, 10.81 acres (66.08 percent)
of the Project site would be impervious surface area and not prone
to on-site erosion or siltation because no exposed soil would be
included in these areas. The remaining 5.55 acres (33.92 percent)
of the site would consist of pervious surface area, which would
contain landscaping that would minimize on-site erosion and
siltation by stabilizing the soil. Therefore, on-site erosion and
siltation impacts would be minimal. However, the proposed Project
would increase impervious area on the Project site by 10.73 acres,
which would result in a net increase in stormwater runoff that can
lead to downstream erosion in receiving waters (San Juan Creek).
However, because San Juan Creek is an engineered concrete
channel, it is not susceptible to hydromodification.11 According to
the South Orange County Hydromodification Management Plan
(HMP), major storm drains, concrete lined conveyance channels,
and engineered channels (including San Juan Creek) are exempt
"Hydromodification is the alteration of the hydrologic characteristics of water bodies.
Increased stream flows and changes in sediment transport caused by increased
impervious areas from urbanization or other land use changes can result in increased
stream flows, erosion, and changes in sediment transport.
51 6/2/2020
from hydromodification requirements of the South Orange County
MS4 Permit. Therefore, any increase in stormwater runoff from the
Project site to San Juan Creek would not have a potential to result
in downstream erosion or siltation. For these reasons, operation
impacts related to substantial on- or off-site erosion or siltation
would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Draft
EIR, pp. 4.9-19 through 4.9-20.)
4. Flooding
Threshold: 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 substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-210.)
Explanation: Construction. Project construction would comply with the
requirements of the Construction General Permit and would include
the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP
would include construction BMPs to control and direct on-site
surface runoff and would include detention facilities, if required, to
ensure that stormwater runoff from the construction site does not
exceed the capacity of the stormwater drainage systems. With
implementation of BMPs, construction impacts related to a
substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff that
would result in flooding would be less than significant, and no
mitigation is required.
Operation. In the existing condition, on-site drainage is conveyed
to two outfalls that discharge to San Juan Creek. Outfall #1 is
located approximately 350 ft north of the Stonehill Drive center line
and collects on-site stormwater runoff from 12.7 acres of the
Project site as well as run-on from the LOSSAN rail corridor and the
adjacent hillside. On-site runoff sheet flows to graded swales that
convey stormwater to the Outfall #1 outlet structure that discharges
directly to San Juan Creek through a 48 -inch diameter pipe. Outfall
#2 is located approximately 975 ft north of the Stonehill Drive
center line and collects stormwater runoff from 7.52 acres of the
Project site. On-site stormwater sheet flows to graded swales that
convey water to the Outfall #2 outlet structure that discharges
directly to San Juan Creek through two 48 -inch diameter pipes.
The proposed Project would not alter on-site drainage patterns and
stormwater would continue to be conveyed to the two outfalls (via
the proposed on-site stormdrain systems) and then into San Juan
Creek. However, the proposed Project would increase impervious
52 6/2/2020
area on the Project site by 10.73 acres, which would increase
stormwater runoff from the Project site. The proposed on-site storm
drain facilitates would be appropriately sized to convey stormwater
runoff so that on-site flooding would not occur. As demonstrated in
the Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Analysis prepared for the
proposed Project, the proposed Project would decrease stormwater
runoff to Outfall #1 by 15.03 cubic feet per second (cfs), a 66
percent decrease compared to existing conditions. The proposed
Project would increase discharge to Outfall #2 by 24.9 cfs, a 228
percent increase compared to existing conditions. The overall
discharge from the Project site would increase by 9.87 cfs, a 29
percent increase compared to existing conditions. It should be
noted that this is a conservative analysis and does not account for
the reduction in stormwater runoff that would be achieved by the
proposed underground detention systems. As demonstrated in the
Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Analysis, the existing outfalls
have sufficient capacity to accommodate the increased stormwater
discharge from the Project site. The proposed discharge to Outfall
#1 and Outfall #2 represents 3 percent and 8 percent, respectively,
of the overall outfall capacity. Because of the close proximity of the
Project site to San Juan Creek and the lag time of discharge
stormwater runoff from the entire watershed to San Juan Creek,
runoff from the Project site would discharge to the outfalls well
before the remainder of stormwater runoff from the watershed
would discharge to San Juan Creek. As such, the increased runoff
from the Project site would not exceed the capacity in San Juan
Creek. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not result in
downstream flooding.
Flow from the Project site to the outfalls is regulated by flap gates.
In both the existing and proposed condition, in the unlikely event
that the flap gates are closed during a storm event due to high
flows within San Juan Creek, stormwater would pond on the Project
site before overflowing the east property line, flowing along the
west limit of the LOSSAN rail corridor, and flowing southerly to
discharge to the Pacific Ocean at Doheny State Beach through an
existing drainage culvert. The on-site ponding combined with the
storage capacity of the underground detention storage would limit
the increase in discharge volume from the proposed Project to the
railroad during this unlikely catastrophic flood event. According to
the Hydrology and Hydraulics Analysis prepared for the project,
taking into account the combined storage volume, the proposed
Project would increase the 100 -year storm overflow runoff volume
by less than 4 percent in the event that a catastrophic flood event
occurs. However, due to the lag time between the watershed peak
flow and the Project site peak flow reaching San Juan Creek, this
condition is not expected to occur during the project lifespan and
53 6/2/2020
represents a conservative, worst-case scenario to ensure a
conservative project design for structure protection. In addition, the
railroad tracks are currently inundated and inoperable during a 100 -
year storm event in the existing condition. During the low likelihood
condition that the Project site were to overflow to the railroad in the
proposed condition, the 4 percent increase in overflow to the
railroad would not further impede the operations of the railroad
beyond the flooding experienced in the existing condition.
As specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure WQ-5, a Final
Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis would be required to be prepared
and submitted to the City for approval. The Final Hydrology and
Hydraulic Analysis would be required to confirm that the final
design of the project meets the City and County requirements, that
peak flow of stormwater runoff in the proposed condition would not
exceed the outfall capacity, the on-site stormdrain and detention
facilities are appropriately sized to accommodate stormwater runoff
from the design storm, and the project would not substantially
increase off-site flooding. As demonstrated in the Preliminary
Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis prepared for the proposed
Project and to be subsequently confirmed in the Final Hydrology
and Hydraulic Analysis, impacts related to an increase in the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in on- or off-
site flooding would be less than significant, and no mitigation is
required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-20 through 4.9-21.)
Regulatory Compliance Measures
RCM WQ-5 Final Hydrology and Hydraulics Analysis. Prior to issuance of
building permits, the project Applicant shall submit Final Hydrology
and Hydraulics Analysis to the City of San Juan Capistrano Building
Official, or designee, for review and approval. The Final Hydrology
and Hydraulics Analysis shall be prepared consistent with the
requirements of the Orange County Hydrology Manual (Orange
County Public Works [OCPW] 1986) and the Orange County
Hydrology Manual Addendum No. 1 (OCPW 1996), or subsequent
guidance manuals. The Final Hydrology and Hydraulics Analysis
shall confirm that the on-site storm drains, on-site detention
systems, and any other drainage structures are appropriately sized
to accommodate stormwater runoff from the design storm so that
the capacity of downstream storm drain facilities is not exceeded.
The City of San Juan Capistrano Building Official, or designee,
shall ensure that the drainage facilities specified in the Final
Hydrology and Hydraulics Analysis are incorporated into the final
project design.
54 6/2/2020
5. Runoff
Threshold: 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 create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantially additional
sources of polluted runoff?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-22 through 4.9-23.)
Explanation: Construction. Construction of the proposed Project has the
potential to introduce pollutants to the storm drain system from
erosion, siltation, and accidental spills. However, as specified in
Regulatory Compliance Measures WQ-1 and WQ-2, the
Construction General Permit requires preparation of a SWPPP, and
the City of San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code requires
preparation of pollution control plan, construction BMP plan, and/or
erosion and sediment control plan. Both the SWPPP and the
pollution control plan, construction BMP plan, and/or erosion and
sediment control plan would identify construction BMPs to be
implemented during construction to reduce impacts to water quality,
including those impacts associated with soil erosion, siltation, and
spills. In addition, any groundwater extracted during groundwater
dewatering activities that is discharged to surface waters would be
tested and treated (if necessary) to ensure that any discharges
meet the water quality limits specified in the applicable NPDES
permit (as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure WQ-3).
Regulatory Compliance Measures WQ-1, WQ-2, and WQ-3 are
existing NPDES requirements with which the project is required to
comply. These measures would prevent substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff being discharged to the storm drain
system through implementation of construction BMPs that target
pollutants of concern in runoff from the Project site as well as
testing and treatment (if required) of groundwater prior to its
discharge to surface waters.
Additionally, the SWPPP would include construction BMPs to
control and direct surface runoff on site and would include detention
measures if required to ensure that stormwater runoff from the
construction site does not exceed the capacity of the stormwater
drainage systems. For these reasons, construction impacts related
to creation or contribution of runoff water that would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff would be
less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
55 6/2/2020
Operation. Operation of the project has the potential to introduce
pollutants to the storm drain system from the proposed on-site
uses. However, as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure
WQ-4, permanent operational BMPs that target and reduce
pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff would be implemented
and maintained throughout the life of the project. Regulatory
Compliance Measure WQ-4 is an existing NPDES requirement
with which the project is required to comply. This measure would
prevent substantial additional sources of polluted runoff being
discharged to the storm drain system through implementation of
operational BMPs to target pollutants of concern in runoff from the
Project site. Additionally, the proposed underground detention
facilities would reduce stormwater runoff from the Project site. Even
without the proposed underground detention facilities, the two
outfalls that convey runoff from the Project site to San Juan Creek
have sufficient capacity to accommodate any increase in
stormwater from the Project site. In addition, the increase in
stormwater runoff from the Project site would not reduce the
capacity of San Juan Creek because of the Project site's close
proximity to the creek. Peak flow from the Project site would
discharge to San Juan Creek prior to the peak flow from the
remainder of the watershed reaching San Juan Creek, resulting in a
substantial lag time between the watershed peak flow and the
Project site peak flow. As specified in Regulatory Compliance
Measure WQ-5, a Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis would be
required to be prepared and submitted to the City for approval to
confirm that, based on final project design, the peak flow of
stormwater runoff in the proposed condition would not exceed the
outfall capacity. For these reasons, operational impacts related to
creation or contribution of runoff water that would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff would be
less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp.
4.9-22 through 4.9-23.)
6. Flood Flows
Threshold: 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 impede or redirect flood
flows?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-22 through 4.9-23.)
Explanation: The majority of the Project site is located within 100 -year floodplain
Zone AO. Zone AO is defined by FEMA as areas subject to
inundation by 1 -percent -annual -chance (100 -year) flood with
56 6/2/2020
shallow flooding (1 ft depth for the Project site). A portion of the
Project site (along the western boundary) is located within Zone A,
which is classified as an area subject to inundation by the 1 -
percent -annual -chance flood event.
In the existing condition, the outfall structures that convey
stormwater runoff from the Project site to San Juan Creek are
designed with flap gates. When San Juan Creek is experiencing
high flows, the flap gates close to prevent water from the creek
from back flowing into the Project site. The flap gates remain closed
for short periods of time until there is sufficient pressure from water
accumulated on site to open the flap gates and allow flow from the
Project site to the creek to resume. Because of the lag time
between stormwater peak flow from the Project site reaching San
Juan Creek and stormwater peak flow from the remainder of the
watershed reaching San Juan Creek, stormwater from the Project
site would be expected to discharge to San Juan Creek before
water levels in San Juan Creek are high enough to close the flap
gates. In the unlikely event that the flap gates are closed during a
storm event, stormwater ponds on the Project site, overflows the
east property line, is conveyed along the west limit of the LOSSAN
rail corridor, and flows southerly to discharge to the Pacific Ocean
at Doheny State Beach through an existing drainage culvert. In the
existing conditions, the railroad tracks are inundated and inoperable
during a 100 -year storm event.
The proposed Project would be designed in compliance with the
design requirements of the Section 8-11.115 of the City Municipal
Code, which specifies design requirements for developments within
the 100 -year floodplain. The proposed Project would be designed
to not impede or redirect flood flows. In the event of a 100 -year
flood event, stormflows would be conveyed similar to existing
conditions. In the unlikely event that the flap gates are closed
during a storm event, stormwater would pond on the Project site
and would rise to 1 ft below the finish floor elevation before
overflowing to the east property line, being conveyed along the
west limit of the LOSSAN rail corridor, and flowing southerly to
discharge to the Pacific Ocean at Doheny State Beach through an
existing drainage culvert. The on-site ponding combined with the
storage capacity of the underground detention storage would limit
the increase in discharge volume during this unlikely catastrophic
flood event. According to the Hydrology and Hydraulics Analysis
prepared for the project, taking into account the combined storage
volume, the proposed Project would increase the 100 -year storm
overflow runoff volume by less than 4 percent in the event that a
catastrophic flood event occurs. However, due to the lag time
between the watershed peak flow and the Project site peak flow
57 6/2/2020
reaching San Juan Creek, this condition is not expected to occur
during the project lifespan and represents a conservative, worst-
case scenario to ensure a conservative project design for structure
protection. In addition, the railroad tracks are inundated and
inoperable during a 100 -year storm event in the existing condition.
During the low likelihood condition that the Project site were to
overflow to the railroad in the proposed condition, the 4 percent
increase in overflow to the railroad would not further impede the
operations of the railroad beyond the flooding experienced in the
existing conditions.
The proposed Project would also be required to obtain an Elevation
Certificate, as outlined in Regulatory Compliance Measure WQ-6.
The Elevation Certificate is part of the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) and is used to provide elevation information
necessary to ensure compliance with community floodplain
management ordinances, to determine the proper insurance
premium rate, and may serve as documentation supporting a
Conditional Letter of Map Revision based on fill (CLOMR-F) and
Letter of Map Revision based on fill (LOMR-F).
As specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure WQ-7, the
project would be required to process a CLOMR-F during final
design and a LOMR-F upon project completion through the City,
the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD), and FEMA. A
CLOMR is FEMA's comment on a proposed Project that would,
upon construction, affect the hydrologic or hydraulic characteristics
of a floodplain and thus result in the modification of the existing
floodplain or floodway or the base flood elevation. A CLOMR does
not revise an effective FIRM; instead, it indicates whether the
project, if built as proposed, would be recognized by FEMA. An
LOMR is FEMA's modification to an effective FIRM. The CLOMR-F
and LOMR-F process is applicable to properties elevated out of a
floodplain through the placement of fill. The CLOMR-F and LOMR-
F would ensure that the FEMA FIRM reflects the changes to the
floodplain that would result from project implementation. With
implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measures WQ-6 and
WQ-7, potential impacts related to impeding or redirecting flood
flows would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
(Final EIR, pp. 4.9-23 through 4.9-24.)
Regulatory Compliance Measures
RCM WQ-6 Flood Hazard Certification. Prior to issuance of any Certificates of
Occupancy, the project Applicant shall obtain certification from a
registered professional engineer or surveyor that the constructed
58 6/2/2020
structures on the project site comply with the requirements of
Section 8-11.115 and Section 8-11.117 of the City's Municipal
Code. The certification shall be a Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Elevation Certificate and shall verify that the
elevation of the first floor of the completed building is located above
the 100 -year floodplain and complies with the elevation
requirements in Section 8-11.115 of the City's Municipal Code. In
addition, the certification shall verify that the on-site structure would
not impede or increase the 100 -year flood elevations. Additionally,
the registered engineer or surveyor shall certify the final pad
elevation, lowest floor elevation, and lowest adjacent grade in
compliance with Section 8-11.117 of the City's Municipal Code. The
certification shall be submitted to and verified by the City Floodplain
Administrator.
RCM WQ-7 Letter of Map Revision. Flood Insurance Rate Map Revisions.
Prior to the issuance of any grading or construction permits, the
project Applicant shall process a Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR-F) through the City of San Juan Capistrano, Orange
County Flood Control District (OCFCD), and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Project construction
shall not commence until the CLOMR-F is approved by FEMA.
Upon completion of construction, the project Applicant shall
process a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR-F) through the City of San
Juan Capistrano, OCFCD, and FEMA. The City of San Juan
Capistrano shall not issue the first Certificate of Occupancy until the
LOMR-F is approved by FEMA.
7. Flood Hazard
Threshold: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the Project risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-36
through
Explanation: Tsunami. 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. According to the Department of Conservation
(DOC) Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Dana
Point Quadrangle/San Juan Capistrano Quadrangle, the Project
site is not located within a tsunami inundation area. Therefore,
impacts related to tsunamis would be less than significant, and no
mitigation is required.
59 6/2/2020
Seiche Zones. Seiching occurs when seismic ground shaking
induces standing waves (seiches) inside water retention facilities
(e.g., reservoirs and lakes). Because there are no large lakes or
reservoirs in the vicinity of the Project site, the Project site is not at
risk of inundation from seiche. Therefore, impacts related to
seiching would be less than significant, and no mitigation is
required.
Flood Hazard. The majority of the Project site is located in Zone
AO, which is defined by FEMA as areas subject to inundation by 1 -
percent annual chance (100 -year) flood with shallow flooding (1
foot depth for the Project site). A small portion of the Project site is
located in Zone A, which is classified as an area subject to
inundation by the 1- percent -annual -chance flood event. In addition,
according to the City's General Plan Safety Element, the Project
site is located within the inundation area based on catastrophic
failure of Trampas Canyon Dam. Therefore, in the event of flooding
during a storm event or in the unlikely event of failure of Trampas
Canyon Dam, there would be risk of inundation and pollutant
release on the Project site. The project would introduce a new land
uses (commercial, restaurant, and storage yard) on the Project site,
which would change the potential on-site pollutants compared to
existing conditions. However, BMPs would be implemented to
target and reduce pollutants of concern on the Project site. In
addition, hazardous substances associated with commercial and
restaurant uses would be limited in both amount and use. The
materials used on-site would be contained, stored, and used in
accordance with manufacturers' instructions and handled in
compliance with applicable standards and regulations. Because
BMPs would reduce introduction of pollutants on the site and any
hazardous materials used on site would be properly stored and
contained, impacts related to release of pollutants in the event of
inundation from flooding would be less than significant. No
mitigation is required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-36 through
4-37.)
8. Water Quality Control Plan
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-37
through 4-38.)
Explanation: The project is within the jurisdiction of the San Diego Regional
Water Quality Control Board. The San Diego RWQCB adopted a
60 6/2/2020
Water Quality Control Plan (i.e. Basin Plan) (September 1994, with
amendments effective on or before May 2016) which designates
beneficial uses for all surface and groundwater within their
jurisdiction and establishes the water quality objectives and
standards necessary to protect those beneficial uses. As
summarized below, the project would comply with the applicable
NPDES permits and implement construction and operational BMPs
to reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff.
Construction. 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. However, the proposed
Project would be required to comply with requirements set forth by
the Construction General Permit, which requires preparation of an
SWPPP and Erosion Control Plan and implementation of
construction BMPs to control stormwater runoff and discharge of
pollutants. The project would also comply with the requirements of
Groundwater Discharge Permit, including testing and treatment (if
necessary) of dewatered groundwater prior to discharge to surface
waters.
Operation. The primary pollutants of concern during project
operations are suspended solids, bacteria/virus/pathogens, and dry
weather runoff. Other pollutants of concern are nutrients, heavy
metals, pesticides, toxic organic compounds, and trash and debris.
A Final WQMP would be prepared for the Project in compliance
with the South Orange County MS4 Permit and City Municipal
Code. The Final WQMP will detail the Source Control, Site Design,
and LID BMPs that would be implemented to treat stormwater
runoff and reduce impacts to water quality during operation. The
proposed LID BMPs include proprietary biofiltration BMPs. These
BMPs would capture and treat stormwater runoff and reduce
pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff.
The Project would comply with the applicable NPDES permits,
which requires preparation of a Final WQMP and implementation of
construction and operational BMPs to reduce pollutants of concern
in stormwater runoff so that the project would not degrade water
quality, cause the receiving waters to exceed the water quality
objectives, or impair the beneficial use of receiving waters. As such,
the project would not result in water quality impacts that would
conflict with the RWQCB's Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan).
61 6/2/2020
Impacts related to conflict with a water quality control plan would be
less than significant and no mitigation is required.
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was
enacted in September 2014. SGMA requires governments and
water agencies of high and medium priority basins to halt overdraft
of groundwater basins. SGMA requires the formation of local
groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs), who are required to
adopt Groundwater Sustainability Plans to manage the
sustainability of the groundwater basins. The Project site is located
within the San Juan Valley Groundwater Basin which is managed
by the San Juan Basin Authority, which is comprised of the City of
San Juan Capistrano, the Moulton Niguel Water District, the Santa
Margarita Water District, and the South Coast Water District. The
San Juan Valley Groundwater Basin is identified by the Department
of Water Resources as a low priority basin; therefore, development
of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan is not required. Because there
is not an adopted Groundwater Sustainability Plan applicable to the
groundwater basin within the Project area, the project would not
conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a sustainable
groundwater management plan. Therefore, no impact would occur
related to conflict or obstruction of water quality control plans or
sustainable groundwater management plans and no mitigation is
required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-37 through 4-38.)
K. LAND USE AND PLANNING
1. Established Communities
Threshold: Would the Project physically divide an established community?
Finding: ding: Less than significant impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-40.)
Explanation: The Project site consists of a vacant, undeveloped site that is
comprised of Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 121-253-13, and
15; and 121-240-39, 73 and 76. The Project site is located within a
largely developed portion of the City of San Juan Capistrano.
Surrounding land uses include a mobile home park to the north; the
San Juan Creek Channel and Trail, Creekside Park, and single-
family residential uses to the west; the BNSF rail line and
automobile dealerships to the east; and a hotel, a mobile home
park, and commercial uses south of Stonehill Drive. The proposed
Project would allow for the development of a lumber yard and
hardware store, drive-through restaurant uses, and a crushed -rock
gravel area for long-term vehicle storage. Vehicular access would
be provided via Stonehill Drive.
62 6/2/2020
Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via a
proposed signalized intersection at Stonehill Drive and the
southwestern corner of the Project site. Two separate truck traffic
routes would be provided on the Project site along the western and
eastern perimeters and would allow access to the lumber yard and
an employee parking lot. A fire access lane would also provide
access throughout the Project site. Pedestrian and bicycle access
to the Project site would be provided by sidewalks and a bicycle
route on Stonehill Drive, respectively. Pedestrian circulation within
the Project site would be provided with sidewalks, which would
travel from the Project driveway to the parking areas adjacent to
Building 1. A sidewalk would also be provided along the western
truck route leading to the rear parking lot.
As part of the Project, a two-lane easement travelling north/south
from the northwestern corner of the Project site to Avenida
Aeropuerto is proposed; the easement would be located
immediately west of the mobile home park adjacent to the Project
site and would be approximately 1,270 ft in length. The purpose of
the northern easement is to provide emergency ingress/egress to
and from the Project site to the north. A second two-lane easement
travelling north/south is proposed at the southeastern corner of the
Project site; this easement would travel under the Stonehill Drive
Bridge and connect the Project site to neighboring parcels to the
south.
Although implementation of the proposed Project would change the
existing parcel configuration within the site, it would not change the
existing parcel configuration of adjacent parcels. The proposed site
configuration (including truck routes, fire access lanes, easements,
and sidewalks) would provide new internal routes traversing the
Project site and allow access where none currently exists; however,
the proposed development would not divide or separate any
existing land uses or neighborhoods. In addition, access for
properties adjacent to the Project site would be improved due to
incorporation of the easements as part of the Project. Therefore,
construction and implementation of the Project would not result in
the physical division of an established community, and no
mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-39
through 4-40.)
2. Conflicts With Plans
Threshold: Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
63 6/2/2020
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-25.)
Explanation: Several regionally and locally adopted land use plans, policies, and
regulations would be applicable to development under the
proposed Project, including the SCAG 2008 Regional
Comprehensive Plan, the SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, the City of
San Juan Capistrano General Plan, and the City of San Juan
Capistrano Zoning Code.
Southern California Association of Governments Regional
Comprehensive Plan. The 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan
(RCP) addresses regional goals related to growth and infrastructure
in the Southern California region. The RCP also addresses issues
such as housing, traffic, air quality, and water resources as a guide
for local agencies to use in preparing plans that deal with regional
issues. The RCP outlines a vision of how the Southern California
region can balance growth with conservation in order to achieve a
higher quality of life. In order to achieve this balance, the RCP aims
to establishes the following land use goals: (1) focus growth in
existing centers and along major transportation corridors, (2)
encourage mixed-use development, (3) provide new housing
opportunities, (4) encourage development near existing and
planned transportation stations to reduce traffic congestion and
associated air pollutants, (5) preserve existing single-family
neighborhoods, and (6) protect open space and environmentally
sensitive habitat areas from development. The proposed Project
does not include new housing nor does the existing Project site
contain protected open space or environmentally sensitive habitat
areas. Therefore, Goals (3) and (6) are not applicable to the
proposed Project and are not discussed further in the following
RCP consistency analysis below.
The Project site is located immediately north of Stonehill Drive,
which is a Primary Arterial consisting of four lanes. The proposed
Project would develop the currently undeveloped and underutilized
Project site with a Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard,
a vehicle storage lot, and the potential development of two fast-food
restaurants at a future date. Together, the development of these
uses comprises a mixed-use development. Uses proposed as part
of the Project would be easily accessed from Stonehill Drive and
other major transportation corridors near the site (e.g., 1-5 and
Camino Capistrano). In addition, the proposed Project would be
located immediately north of Class 2 bike lanes on Stonehill Drive,
0.34 mile west of the nearest bus station (e.g., Orange County
Transportation Authority Route 91 station off Del Obispo), and 1.74
miles south of the San Juan Capistrano Train Station. Employees
of the Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard, future
64 6/2/2020
restaurants and storage lot may utilize alternative transportation to
access the site; however, the majority of the patrons of the Project
are not anticipated to use alternative transportation to access the
site due to proposed use of the site as a lumber yard servicing the
construction trade, along with the two drive-through restaurants
which will likely serve patrons in automobiles. However, overall the
Project would be consistent with RCP Goal 1 to focus growth along
major transportation corridors, Goal 2 to encourage mixed-use
development, and Goal 4 to encourage new development near
existing transportation stations.
Development of the proposed Project would be consistent with
existing commercial uses surrounding the Project site, and would
serve nearby residents west, south, and north of the site in existing
single-family neighborhoods. The proposed Project would improve
the currently vacant and underutilized site with landscaping and
development of uses that would serve surrounding residents; it
would not interfere or conflict with the existing land use patterns
and visual character of established residential neighborhoods near
the site. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with RCP Goal
5 of preserving existing single-family neighborhoods.
For the reasons stated above, the proposed Project would be
consistent with applicable goals and policies in SCAG's 2008 RCP.
SCAG RTP/SCS Consistency. The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS also
provides a comprehensive outline for transportation investments
throughout the SCAG region. The RTP was most recently adopted
in 2016 and is updated every four years to address regional
transportation needs. In order to receive State and federal funding,
transportation projects must be outlined in the RTP. In addition, the
2016-2040 RTP outlines the following primary goals: (1) align the
plan investments and policies with improving regional economic
development and competitiveness, (2) maximize mobility and
accessibility for all people and goods in the region, (3) ensure travel
safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region, (4)
preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system,
(5) maximize the productivity of our transportation system (6)
protect the environment and health of our residents by improving air
quality and encouraging active transportation (e.g., bicycling and
walking) (7) actively encourage and create incentives for energy
efficiency, where possible, (8) encourage land use and growth
patterns that facilitate transit and active transportation, and (9)
maximize the security of the regional transportation system through
improved system monitoring, rapid recovery planning, and
coordination with other security agencies. Goal 9 of the 2016-2040
RTP/SCS relates to planning/policy actions to be taken by regional
65 6/2/2020
and local agencies; therefore, the Project's consistency with Goal 9
is not discussed further in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS consistency
analysis provided below.
The proposed Project would result in the conversion of the currently
vacant and underutilized Project site to a commercial property with
a Ganahl Lumber lumber yard and hardware store, fast-food
restaurants, and a vehicle storage lot. The Project site is located
directly north of Stonehill Drive, which is a Primary Arterial that runs
in an east -west fashion through the Cities of Dana Point and San
Juan Capistrano. The project would provide access to the site off
Stonehill Drive, which would serve to connect the site with the local
and regional transportation systems. As such, development of the
proposed Project would help maximize the productivity of the
existing roadway network in the vicinity of the site and would
improve accessibility to the site and areas adjacent to the site
(Goals 2 and 5), including Stonehill Drive to the south and 1-5 to
the east. Moreover, all access improvements included as part of the
proposed Project would comply with City and OCFA standards to
ensure the safety and reliability of transportation improvements
included as part of the Project (Goal 3). Development of the
currently underutilized Project site would also provide additional
employment opportunities that would promote economic
development and competiveness in the area (Goal 1).
The proposed Project would promote energy efficiency through
compliance with the California Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen Code). Sustainability features proposed as part of the
Project would include the use of sun shading and natural day -
lighting to diminish heat gain and decrease the need for artificial
lighting during daylight hours and the installation of energy efficient
lighting technologies. As such, the Project would be consistent with
Goal 7 in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS.
The majority of patrons of the proposed on-site uses are not
anticipated to use alternative modes of transportation to access the
Project site due to the proposed operation of a lumber yard and
drive-through restaurants on the site. However, employees
traveling to and from the Project site may use alternative
transportation to access the site given the proximity of Class 2 bike
lanes along Stonehill Drive south of the site and the OCTA Route
91 bus stop approximately 0.34 mile west of the site on Del Obispo
Street. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with
Goals 6 and 8 in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS.
66 6/2/2020
For the reasons stated above, the proposed Project would be
consistent with applicable goals outlined in the 2016-2040
RTP/SCS.
City of San Juan Capistrano General Plan. The existing General
Plan land use designation for the majority of the Project site is
Quasi -Industrial. According to the City's Land Use Element, the
Quasi -Industrial designation provides for a variety of light industrial
and manufacturing uses, including limited regional commercial
activities that are non-polluting and are compatible with surrounding
land uses, as well as regional and sub -regional commercial
activities. The northernmost portion of the Project site has a land
use designation of Industrial Park, which allows light industrial and
manufacturing uses.
The proposed Project would develop the site with a lumber yard
and hardware store, a vehicle storage lot, and the future addition of
two fast-food restaurants. The proposed lumber yard is considered
a light industrial use, whereas the proposed fast-food restaurants,
hardware retail store, and vehicle storage are considered
commercial uses. All uses proposed as part of the Project would be
consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation of
Quasi -Industrial for the site. The existing Industrial Park designation
on the northernmost portion of the property falls within an area of
the site that is currently identified for a utility easement to provide
future private emergency access. No development is proposed on
this portion of the site. Therefore, the Project would be consistent
with both existing General Plan land use designations for the
property; and no General Plan Amendment would be required to
implement the proposed Project.
The City of San Juan Capistrano General Plan also contains goals
and policies that are considered applicable to the proposed Project.
These goals are discussed in Table 4.10.A, General Plan
Consistency Analysis, (found at Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-16 through
4.10-23) and a consistency analysis is provided for each applicable
General Plan goal. Goals that are not applicable to the proposed
Project are not included in this table. This discussion is intended to
provide a guide to the decision -makers for policy interpretation. As
identified through this consistency analysis, the proposed Project
would not conflict with any applicable General Plan land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted by the City for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental impact.
City of San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code. The majority of the
Project site is zoned Commercial Manufacturing (CM). The
67 6/2/2020
Commercial Manufacturing zone allows industrial and commercial
uses, including wholesaling, limited manufacturing, eating
establishments, limited retail, and indoor recreational uses. The
northernmost portion of the Project site where the utility easement
is located is zoned Mobile Home Park Senior Overlay, which allows
mobile home uses for seniors 55 years of age and older. No
development is proposed on this portion of the site. Therefore, the
Project would be consistent with both existing land use
classifications for the property; and no Zoning Amendment would
be required to implement the proposed Project.
Development Standards. Section 9-3.305, Industrial Districts, of
the City's Zoning Code includes applicable development standards
for the CM zoning classification (i.e., the zoning classification on the
portion of the Project site proposed for development).
As outlined in this section of the City's Municipal Code, the
minimum lot area for the CM zoning classification is 7,200 sf (0.17
acre). Proposed lot sizes included as part of the Project would be
2.06 acres (Area A), 10.61 acres (Area B), and 4.39 acres (Area C).
The maximum allowable floor area ratio (FAR) is 0.40 (established
in the General Plan). As proposed, Area A would be developed at a
FAR of 0. 11, Area B would be developed at a FAR of 0.28, and
Area C would be developed at a FAR of 0.01. The minimum
allowable street frontage setback is 60 feet (ft). Area A (the portion
of the Project site abutting Stonehill Drive) would locate the closest
proposed fast-food restaurant 78 ft from the roadway. In addition,
proposed ancillary buildings on the site (e.g., sheds) would be
setback 5 ft from the eastern and western boundaries of the
property line, consistent with the required 5 ft side yard setback.
Due to the presence of a proposed landscaped berm and surface
parking lot on the northernmost portion of the property, the Project
would also comply with the City's required 25 ft rear yard setback.
Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with
applicable development standards outlined in the City's Municipal
Code.
Parking Standards. The proposed Project would provide parking
spaces throughout Areas A, B, and C on the Project site.
Area A would allow for the future development of two fast-food
restaurants. The City's Municipal Code requires a minimum of 1
parking space per patron for fast-food restaurant uses with a drive-
through based on the restaurant's total capacity, plus 1 additional
parking space per employee per shift. Tenants for the proposed
restaurant uses have not yet been identified, and therefore,
proposed hours of operation, number of employees, and other
68 6/2/2020
tenant -specific details are not known at this time. The required
number of parking spaces would be determined at the time a tenant
is identified. Although the required and proposed number of parking
spaces have not yet been determined, the proposed Project would
comply with the City's parking requirements.
Development on Area B would include several buildings proposing
a mix of uses within each building. The City's Municipal Code
requires a minimum of 160 parking spaces for the development
proposed on Area B. Area B would include 165 parking spaces
provided within surface parking lots in Area B. As such,
development within Area B would satisfy the City's parking
requirements and would provide a surplus of 5 parking spaces on
the Project site.
The proposed Project does not proposed to develop Area C, but
rather intends on using this area for long-term vehicle storage. In
total, Area C would provide 399 vehicle storage spaces to be used
by local car dealerships. These spaces would not function as
parking for visitors to the Project site, and would not be required to
meet the Project's parking demands.
There would be no potentially significant impacts related to land
use and planning. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-12 through 4.10-25.)
L. MINERAL RESOURCES
1. Regional and Statewide Mineral Resources
Threshold: 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?
Finding: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-43.)
Explanation: In 1975, the California Legislature enacted the Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act (SMARA) which provides 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 areas are categorized into 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
69 6/2/2020
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
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 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 (CDMG) as MRZ-3, indicating that the Project
site is in an area where it is judged that little likelihood exists for
their presence. 12
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. (Appendix A
[Initial Study], p. 4-43.)
2. Locally -Important Mineral Resource
Threshold: 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?
Finding: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-43.)
12 State of California Department of Conservation (DOC). 1994. California Division of
Mines and Geology. Generalized Mineral Land Classification or Orange County. Open -
File Report 94-15, Plate 1.
70 6/2/2020
Explanation- As discussed previously in Response 4.11 (a), above, no known
valuable mineral resources exist on or near the Project site, and no
mineral resource extraction activities occur on the site. Additionally,
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 proposed 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. Appendix A [Initial
Study], p. 4-43.)
M. NOISE
1. Noise Standards
Threshold: Would the Project result in the generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-15.)
Explanation: Operational Noise.
Pro'ect Land Use Compatibility. The City of San Juan Capistrano
General Plan Noise Element includes a land use compatibility table
(Table 4.11.E, found at Draft EIR, p. 4.11-9) that provides the City
with a tool to gauge the compatibility of new land uses relative to
existing noise levels. This table identifies normally acceptable,
conditionally acceptable, and clearly unacceptable noise levels for
various land uses, including commercial and industrial land uses
such as those proposed by the Project. In the case that the noise
levels identified at a proposed Project site fall within levels
considered normally acceptable, the Project is considered
compatible with the existing noise environment. As shown in Table
4.11.E (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.11-9), an acceptable existing noise
level for locating both commercial uses such as fast-food
restaurants and hardware stores, as well as industrial uses such as
a lumber yard, falls under 70 dBA CNEL. In order to quantify
existing ambient noise levels in the Project area, short-term noise
measurements were conducted as described in Section 4.11.2,
71 6/2/2020
Methodology, and as shown in Table 4.11.A (found at Draft EIR, p.
4.11-5). The noise measurement sites were representative of
typical existing noise exposure within and immediately adjacent to
the Project site and are considered representative of the noise
levels throughout the day. As shown in Table 4.11.A, (found at
Draft EIR, p. 4.11-5) the ambient recorded noise levels ranged from
46.1 to 56.8 dBA near the Project site. Additionally, as shown in
Table 4.11.13, the existing traffic -generated noise level on project -
vicinity roadways currently ranges from 53.6 to 64.1 dBA CNEL. As
these ranges all fall below 70 dBA, the Project site is considered an
appropriate noise environment to locate proposed commercial and
industrial land uses.
Long -Term Mobile -Source Noise Impacts. Future traffic noise
levels throughout the Project vicinity were modeled based on the
traffic volumes identified by the Traffic Impact Assessment (LSA
2019) to determine the noise levels along project vicinity roadways.
Table 4.11.H (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.11-13) shows the calculated
off-site roadway noise levels under existing traffic levels compared
to future buildout of the proposed Project. The calculated noise
levels as a result of the Project at affected land uses are compared
to the noise standards in the City of Dana Point General Plan Noise
Element for the segment of Stonehill Drive west of the Project
Driveway and the segments of Del Obispo Street north and south of
Stonehill Drive. The City of Dana Point General Plan Noise Element
includes a mobile source threshold of 65 dBA CNEL at residential
land uses. Calculated noise levels as a result of the proposed
Project at affected land uses were compared to the noise standards
in the San Juan Capistrano Noise Element (see Table 4.11.C,
found at Draft EIR, p. 4.11-7) for the remainder of project vicinity
roadway segments. As shown in Table 4.11.C, similar to Dana
Point, the City of San Juan Capistrano requires outdoor areas of
frequent human use to achieve 65 dBA CNEL. Additionally, project -
generated traffic could potentially influence the ambient noise
environment in the City of Dana Point to the south, specifically a
mobile home park located across Camino Capistrano from the
existing Costco store. A threshold of 65 dBA CNEL at residential
land uses shall be employed for the purpose of this analysis,
consistent with the mobile -source noise thresholds of both the City
of San Juan Capistrano and the City of Dana Point.
As shown in Table 4.11.1-1 (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.11-13),
predicted increases in traffic noise levels associated with the
Project would not result in any mobile -source noise level standards
being exceeded. Therefore, impacts associated with long-term,
mobile -source noise would be less than significant. No mitigation is
required.
72 6/2/2020
Long -Term Stationary -Source Noise Impacts. The proposed
Project would include several on-site noise sources as show in
Table 4.11.1 (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.11-14). The estimated time of
use of these stationary sources would differ as shown in the table.
The fast-food restaurants proposed on Site A would be expected to
operate similar hours as the lumber yard, while the vehicle storage
facility proposed for Site C would only operate during daytime
hours.
Table 4.11.J (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.11-14) shows the predicted
on-site noise levels associated with full operation of the proposed
Project, during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. compared to
the daytime noise standards as described in Section 4.11.3.4. Full
operations at the Project site include noise associated with the
proposed restaurants on Site A, the Ganahl Lumber retail store and
yard operations on Site B, and the vehicle storage facility on Site C.
As shown in Table 4.11.1, daytime nose levels in the vicinity of
nonresidential uses, are all far below applicable daytime standards.
Daytime noise levels at the residential uses in the Project vicinity
also fall below applicable daytime standards of the cities in which
these receivers are located.
Table 4.11.K (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.11-15) shows the predicted
noise propagation associated with evening and nighttime
operations of the proposed Project between the hours of 7:00 p.m.
and 7:00 a.m. Evening and nighttime operations at the Project site
precludes operation of the proposed vehicle storage facility on Site
C. Additionally, the proposed hardware store would be closed.
However, a third shift from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. may be added in
the future for the purpose of replenishment, cleaning, and order
pulling for the next day in the proposed hardware store. As such,
parking lot activity surrounding the proposed hardware is
maintained at daytime noise levels in order to provide a
conservative analysis.
As shown in Table 4.11.K, evening and nighttime noise levels at
vicinity nonresidential uses would range from 44.6 dBA to 52.3 dBA
and noise levels at the Project vicinity residential uses would range
from 30.2 dBA to 44.4 dBA. These noise levels all fall below
applicable evening and nighttime noise standards for the Cities of
San Juan Capistrano and Dana Point as shown in the table.
Therefore, impacts related to operational noise from stationary
sources would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
(Final EIR, pp. 4.11-12 through 4.11-15.)
73 6/2/2020
2. Vibration
Threshold: Would the Project result in the exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Find n : Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-16.)
Explanation: Excessive ground -borne vibration impacts result from continuously
occurring vibration levels. Once operational, the proposed Project
would not be a source of groundborne vibration. Increases in
ground -borne vibration levels attributable to the proposed Project
would be primarily associated with short-term construction -related
activities. Construction on the Project site would have the potential
to result in varying degrees of temporary ground -borne vibration,
depending on the specific construction equipment used and the
operations involved. Ground vibration generated by construction
equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in
magnitude with increases in distance.
Construction -related ground vibration is normally associated with
impact equipment such as pile drivers, jackhammers, and the
operation of some heavy-duty construction equipment such as
dozers and trucks. Vibration decreases rapidly with distance and it
is acknowledged that construction activities would occur throughout
the Project site and would not be concentrated at the point closest
to sensitive receptors.
Ground -borne vibration levels would be considered significant if
predicted short-term construction ground -borne vibration levels
attributable to the proposed Project would exceed 0.2 inch/sec PPV
at the nearest off-site existing non-mobile structure, and 0.1
inch/sec PPV at the nearest off-site mobile home. Based on the
vibration levels presented in Caltrans' Transportation and
Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (2013), ground vibration
generated by heavy-duty equipment would not be anticipated to
exceed approximately 0.073 inch/sec PPV at 50 feet. Therefore,
the use of construction equipment would not result in a ground -
borne vibration velocity level above 0.1 inch/sec at the nearest off-
site structures, including at any mobile homes. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.11-15.)
3. Airport Noise
Threshold: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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
74 6/2/2020
Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to
excessive noise levels?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-16.)
Explanation: The closest airport to the Project site is John Wayne Airport which
is located approximately 17 miles northeast of the Project site. The
Project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or
within an airport land use plan nor is the Project within the vicinity of
a private airstrip. As such, the Project site would not be exposed to
excessive noise levels from airport operations and, therefore, there
would be no impact. No mitigation would be required. (Draft EIR, p.
4.11-16.)
N. POPULATION AND HOUSING
1. Population Growth
Threshold: Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
road or other infrastructure?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-47.)
Explanation: Construction. The Project site encompasses an approximately
17 -acre undeveloped lot. Construction of the proposed Project
would include the development of the Ganahl Lumber hardware
store and lumber yard, two drive-through restaurants, and a
crushed -rock gravel area for long-term vehicle storage.
Construction of the proposed Project would provide short-term
construction jobs over an approximately 24 month period. Many of
the construction jobs would be temporary 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 need 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
75 6/2/2020
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 proposed Project would not cause or result in
direct population growth because the proposed Project would not
provide or remove housing on the Project site. The proposed
Ganahl Lumber Yard development would employ approximately 60
to 80 people at full capacity. The proposed fast-food restaurants
and automobile storage would also result in increased employment
at the Project site; however, these uses are not anticipated to result
in substantial population growth in the area. Further, since the
proposed Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard would
replace an existing Ganahl store approximately 0.50 mile south of
the Project site, it is anticipated that some of the employees of the
current store would resume employment at the proposed location in
San Juan Capistrano.
As of March 2019, the City had a labor force of 17,400, and the
County had a labor force of 1,631,500, with approximately 500 and
52,700 people unemployed, respectively.13 The March 2019
unemployment rate was 3.1 percent for the City and 3.2 percent for
the County.14 This suggests an available local and regional labor
pool to serve the long-term employment opportunities offered by
the proposed Project. It is unlikely that a substantial number of
employees would need to be relocated from outside the region to
meet the need employees resulting from implementation of the
proposed Project. Furthermore, the proposed Project would be
located within a developed area of San Juan Capistrano that is
already served by all utilities. The existing regional infrastructure
and the established roadway network would be utilized by
employees accessing the Project site and would not indirectly or
directly induce population or growth.
Operation of the proposed Project would not induce substantial
population growth or accelerate development in an underdeveloped
area, and any impacts to population growth would be less than
significant. No mitigation is required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp.
4-46 through 4-47.)
13 State of California Employment Development Department. 2019. Monthly Labor Force
Data for Cities and Census Designated Places, March 2019. April 19, 2019. Website:
http://www.labormarketinfo.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/lasub.xls (accessed on April 24, 2019).
14 Ibid.
76 6/2/2020
9
1.
Displacement of Housing
Threshold: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere;
and displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-47.)
Explanation: The project proposes the development of a currently undeveloped
site. Therefore, the Project would not result in a loss of housing or
persons, nor require or necessitate the development of
replacement housing elsewhere. No mitigation would' be required.
(Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-47.)
PUBLIC SERVICES
Fire Protection
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for
fire protection?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-51.)
Explanation. Fire protection services would be provided to the Project site by
the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). OCFA provides fire
protection, emergency medical and rescue services, hazardous
materials inspection and response, and public education activities
to its service area's approximately 1.8 million residents throughout
23 cities and unincorporated Orange County. Currently, OCFA has
a total of 72 stations in Orange County and 1 station within San
Juan Capistrano.15
OCFA Operations Division 3, which includes Battalions 6 and 7,
serves the Cities of San Juan Capistrano, Dana Point, Mission
Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente, and the
15 Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Adopted Budget.
Website: https://www.ocfa.org/Uploads/Transparency/OCFA%202018-
2019%20Adopted%20Budget.pdf (accessed April 24, 2019).
77 6/2/2020
communities of Coto de Caza, Las Flores, and Ladera Ranch.16
The City of San Juan Capistrano is within Battalion 6.
Fire station No. 7 is the only OCFA station located in the City.
Located at 31865 Del Obispo Street (approximately 1.7 miles
northeast of the Project site), Fire Station No. 7 would be the first to
respond 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.17
"Second call" stations are fire stations that support the "first -in"
station. Fire Station No. 30 would be designated as the "second
call" station to support Fire Station No. 7. Fire Station No. 30 is
located at 23831 Stonehill Drive in the City of Dana Point,
approximately 2.2 miles west of the Project site. Station No. 30 is
staffed by three captains, three engineers, six firefighters, and
reserve firefighters.'$
In Fiscal Year 2018/2019, OCFA had 1,412 full -time -equivalent
uniformed and civilian personnel budgeted.19 OCFA is divided into
six primary departments: Business Services, Communications and
Public Affairs, Community Risk Reduction, Human Resources,
Operations, and Support Services. The Operations Department
comprises seven divisions and nine battalions that provide regional
emergency response to all fires, rescues, hazardous materials
incidents, wildland fires, aircraft fire and rescue services to John
Wayne Airport, and other miscellaneous emergencies .20 The
Support Service Department provides essential support functions to
all departments of OCFA, including coordinating all facilities
maintenance, repairs, and construction; automotive and fleet
maintenance, repairs, and acquisitions; development, operation,
16 OCFA. Operations Division 3. Website:
https://www.ocfa.org/aboutus/Departments/Operations Directory/Division3.aspx
(accessed April 24, 2019).
17 OCFA. Fire Station 7. Website:
https://www.ocfa.org/aboutus/Departments/OperationsDirectory/Division3.aspx
(accessed April 24, 2019).
18 OCFA. Fire Station 30. Website:
https://www.ocfa.org/aboutus/Departments/OperationsDirectory/Division3.aspx
(accessed April 24, 2019).
19 OCFA. Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Adopted Budget. Website:
https://www.ocfa.org/Uploads/Transparency/OCFA %202018 -
2019%20Adopted%20Budget.pdf (accessed April 24, 2019).
20 OCFA. Operations. Website:
https://www.ocfa.org/AboutUs/Departments/Operations.aspx (accessed April 24, 2019).
78 6/2/2020
maintenance, and security of OCFA's computers and technical
infrastructure; and operations of the Emergency Command
Center.21 The Community Risk Reduction Department's
responsibilities include adopting and enforcing codes and
ordinances relative to fire and life safety issues; reviewing plans
and conducting inspections of construction projects; coordinating
annual life safety inspections of all existing commercial buildings;
providing long-range analysis of impacts on resources associated
with future land use and development; and investigating fires .22 The
Communications and Public Affairs Department is responsible for
both internal and external communications for OCFA .23 The
Business Services Department provides budget, payroll,
accounting, and administrative support to OCFA; monitors cash
balances, makes investments, and coordinates the annual Tax and
Revenue Anticipation Note (TRAN); and provides warehouse,
purchasing, shipping and receiving, and mail operations.24 Finally,
the Human Resources Department works with OCFA employees to
administer employee benefits, uphold merit principles, and ensure
compliance with legal and contractual obligations.25
According to the OCFA's 2017 Statistical Annual Report, OCFA
responded to over 141,858 total calls for service; a total of 7,968
calls were responded to citywide. Approximately 108,347
responses were related to emergency medical services (EMS);
citywide, EMS responses totaled 6,299. OCFA's average current
response times are less than 7 minutes, ranging from 6 minutes, 58
21 OCFA. Support Services. Website:
https://www.ocfa.org/AboutUs/Departments/SupportServices.aspx(accessed April 24,
2019)
22 OCFA. Community Risk Reduction. Website:
https://www.ocfa.org/AboutUs/Departments/CommunityRiskReduction.aspx (accessed
April 24, 2019).
23 OCFA. Communications and Public Affairs. Website:
https://www.ocfa.org/AboutUs/Departments/Communications And PublicAffairs. aspx
(accessed April 24, 2019).
24 OCFA. Business Services. Website:
https://www.ocfa.org/AboutUs/Departments/BusinessServices.aspx(accessed April 24,
2019).
25 OCFA. Human Resources. Website:
https://www.ocfa.org/AboutUs/Departments/HumanResources.aspx(accessed April 24,
2019).
79 6/2/2020
seconds (80311 percentile) to 9 minutes, 17 seconds (90th
percentile).26
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). According to the CAL FIRE and
Resource Assessment Program, the Project site is not within a Very
High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).27
Construction. Construction of the proposed Project would include
the development of the Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber
yard, two drive-through restaurants, and a crushed rock gravel area
for long-term vehicle storage. As discussed in Section 4.8, Hazards
and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR, 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
Program. Emergency access to the Project site would be provided
via a proposed signalized intersection on Stonehill Drive, a new
emergency access road along the northern boundary of the site,
and a new access under Stonehill Drive to the properties directly
south of the site. Thus, the proposed Project 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. Consequently, OCFA would
be able to maintain current levels of service provided to the Project
site following project implementation. Therefore, construction
impacts related to acceptable emergency response time plans and
fire protection services associated with construction of the
proposed Project would be less than significant, and no mitigation
would be required.
Operation. The proposed Project would allow for the operation of a
hardware store and lumber yard, two drive-through restaurant uses,
and a vehicle storage area on the site, which would increase the
number of on-site visitors, and potentiality increase the demand for
fire protection services. As discussed in Section 4.14, Population
26 OCFA. 2017 Statistical Annual Report. Website:
https://www.ocfa.org/Uploads/Transparency/OCFA%2OAnnual%2OReport%202017.pdf
(accessed April 24, 2019).
27 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire). 2011. Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. San Juan Capistrano. October 2011. Website:
http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps/FHSZ/orange/c3O_SanJuanCapistran
o_vhfhsz.pdf (accessed April 24, 2019).
80 6/2/2020
and Housing, of the Draft EIR, the proposed Project would not
cause or result in direct population growth because the proposed
Project would not provide or remove housing on the Project site.
The proposed Ganahl Lumber Yard development would employ
approximately 60 to 80 people at full capacity. The proposed
restaurants and automobile storage would also result in increased
employment at the Project site; however, these uses are not
anticipated to result in substantial population growth in the area. As
of March 2019, the City had a labor force of 17,400, and the County
had a labor force of 1,631,500, with approximately 500 and 52,700
people unemployed, respectively. The March 2019 unemployment
rate was 3.1 percent for the City and 3.2 percent for the County.39
This suggests an available local and regional labor pool to serve
the long-term employment opportunities offered by the proposed
Project. It is unlikely that a substantial number of employees would
need to be relocated from outside the region to meet the need
employees resulting from implementation of the proposed Project.
As such, the operation of the proposed Project would result in a
small increase in demand for fire protection services but would not
trigger the need for new or altered facilities. No new facilities would
be required to be constructed to accommodate the proposed
Project.
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
(Municipal Code Section 8-10.01 [Adoption of the 2016 California
Fire Code]), adequately spaced fire hydrants, fire access lanes, and
adequate emergency access. In order to meet the California Fire
Code requirements, the Project would include the addition of six on-
site fire hydrants, fire lanes throughout the site, and emergency
access at all entry points to the property. In addition, buildings
proposed on the southwestern portion of the site would include
automatic sprinkler systems to further minimize impacts related to
fires. As such, the proposed Project would be designed to comply
with all OCFA access requirements and California Fire Code
requirements. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project 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. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-48
through 4-51.)
2. Police Protection
81 6/2/2020
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for
police protection?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-51.)
Explanation: The City contracts with the Orange County Sheriffs 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 mile north of the Project site, serves
the City. OCSD's Aliso Viejo Station, located at 11 Journey in the
City of Aliso Viejo, approximately 4 miles northwest of the Project
site, also serves the City.
In total, 28 OCSD personnel are assigned to the City, including one
lieutenant, four sergeants, two investigators, and 21 sheriffs
deputies.28 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.29
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 substantial adverse impacts on existing
police protection services, as the construction workers would
occupy a temporary position and would only incrementally increase
the demand for police protection services. Construction of the
proposed Project would be temporary in nature and would not
28 City of San Juan Capistrano. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study for the
Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints Meetinghouse Project. September 2017.
29 28 officers / 35,948 (2017 population) = approximately 1 officer per 1,300 persons.
Source: United States Census Bureau. American Fact Finder 2013-2017 American
Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates. San Juan Capistrano city, California. Website:
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community facts. xhtml?src=bkmk
(accessed April 24, 2019).
82 6/2/2020
result in the need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities related to police protection and would not result in an
increased demand for police services. Therefore, impacts related to
the provision of police protection for the construction of the
proposed Project would be less than significant, and no mitigation
would be required.
Operation. Substantial population growth is not anticipated as a
result of the implementation of the proposed Project. The proposed
Ganahl Lumber Yard development would employ approximately 60
to 80 people at full capacity. The proposed fast-food restaurants
and automobile storage would also result in increased employment
at the Project site; however, these uses are not anticipated to result
in substantial population growth in the area. Further, since the
proposed Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard would
replace an existing Ganahl store approximately 0.50 mile south of
the Project site, it is anticipated that some of the employees of the
current store would resume employment at the proposed location in
San Juan Capistrano. When considered with the existing
population, the Project -related population increase would have a
negligible impact on OCSD's ratio of one police officer for every
1,300 residents. 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. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-51
through 4-52.)
3. Schools
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of 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?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-54.)
Explanation: 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
kindergarten through 12th grade.30 The CUSD's boundaries
encompass all or part of the Cities of San Juan Capistrano, San
Clemente, Dana Point, Laguna Niguel, Aliso Viejo, Mission Viejo
and Rancho Santa Margarita, and the unincorporated communities
30 Capistrano Unified School District. District Facts. Website:
http://capousd.ca.schoolloop.com/cros/page_view?d=x&piid=&vpid=1232963501986
(accessed April 24, 2019).
83 6/2/2020
31 [bid.
of Las Flores, Coto de Caza, Dove Canyon, Ladera Ranch,
Sendero/Rancho Mission Viejo, and Wagon Wheel.31
The CUSD operates 63 campuses; the closest CUSD schools to
the Project site are Del Obispo Elementary School, located at
25591 Camino Del Avion, and Marco Forster Middle School,
located at 25601 Camino Del Avion, both approximately 0.6 mile
north of the Project site.
Construction. Construction of the proposed Project, specifically
construction of the proposed signal and deceleration lane on
Stonehill Drive, may result in temporary lane closures adjacent to
the site, which may result in adverse impacts on existing CUSD
operation. However, the City would notify CUSD regarding any
temporary lane closures prior to their occurrence. Further,
construction impacts would be temporary in nature and would
cease upon project completion. Therefore, there would be no
project construction impacts related to public school services, and
no mitigation would be required.
Operation. The proposed Project would allow for the operation of a
hardware store and lumber yard, two drive-through restaurant uses,
and a vehicle storage area on the site. The proposed Project does
not include any residential uses that would increase population
growth, generate an increased demand for school facilities, or
require the construction of school facilities. Although the Project is
anticipated in increase employment by 60 to 80 positions (in
addition to employment generated by the restaurant uses and the
vehicle storage area), this amount is nominal and not expected to
significantly impact public school services within the CUSD. In
addition, because the proposed Ganahl Lumber store would
replace an existing Ganahl store approximately 0.50 mile south of
the Project site, it is anticipated that some of the employees of the
current store would resume employment at the proposed location in
San Juan Capistrano and not relocate. 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
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
84 6/2/2020
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 commercial
projects within the CUSD's jurisdictional boundaries is $0.61 per
square foot." 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. (Appendix A [Initial
Study], pp. 4-52 through 4-53.)
4. Parks
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of 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?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-54.)
Explanation: As discussed in Section 4.15, Recreation, of the Draft EIR, the City
maintains approximately 162.6 acres of parks and recreational
uses. Currently, the City has an established standard of 5 acres of
park space per 1,000 residents. The closest park to the Project site
is Creekside Park, which is located approximately 200 ft west of the
Project site.
Although the Project is anticipated to increase employment in the
City by 60 to 80 positions (in addition to employment generated by
the restaurant uses and the vehicle storage area), this amount is
negligible compared to the amount of parks and recreational space
within the City. While it is possible that employees may visit parks
and use facilities during breaks or after work hours, such visitation
would not significantly affect park performance. 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, the impact would be less
than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A
[Initial Study], p. 4-54.)
5. Other Public Facilities
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
85 6/2/2020
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for
other public facilities?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-55.)
Explanation- The Orange County Public Library (OCPL) system provides library
services to the County, including the City, and includes 33
branches.45 The San Juan Capistrano Library is the City's only
library and is located at 31495 EI Camino Real. The San Juan
Capistrano Library consists of a 12,000 sf building that holds over
45,789 volumes, CDs, and videos, and provides 23 public
computers and 3 additional resource/catalogue computers.32
Development of the proposed Project would result in an increase of
an estimated 60 to 80 employees (in addition to employment
generated by the restaurant uses and the vehicle storage area).
While it is possible that employees may visit library facilities during
breaks or after work hours, the impact would not significantly affect
OCPL system performance, and would not require the expansion of
libraries within the City. Thus, it is unlikely that the implementation
of the proposed Project would increase demand for library facilities.
In addition, 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. (Appendix A [Initial
Study], pp. 4-54 through 4-55.)
P. RECREATION
1. Increased Use
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-56.)
32 City of San Juan Capistrano, Public Services & Utilities Element (1999).
86 6/2/2020
Explanation: According to the Parks and Recreation Element of the City's
General Plan (2002), the City currently maintains approximately
162.6 acres of parks and recreational facilities within its boundaries.
The City has an established standard of 5 acres of park space per
1,000 residents. The closest park to the Project site is Creekside
Park, which is located approximately 200 ft west of the Project site.
Additionally, the San Juan Creek Trail, a multi -use pedestrian and
bicycle route which begins in San Juan Capistrano and terminates
at Doheny Beach in the City of Dana Point, is located immediately
west of the Project site.
The Project does not propose any residential uses and, therefore,
would not increase the population or demand related to parks.
Although the Project is anticipated to increase employment by 60 to
80 positions (in addition to employment generated by the restaurant
uses and the vehicle storage area), the number of employees is
minor compared to the amount of parks and recreational space
within the City. While it is possible that employees may visit parks
and recreational facilities in the City during lunch breaks or after -
work hours, it is unlikely that the use of parks by project employees
would increase the use of those parks to a level that would
contribute to substantial physical deterioration of those facilities.
Therefore, the impact is less than significant, and no mitigation
would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-56.)
2. Construction and Expansion
Threshold: 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?
Finding, No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-57.)
Explanation: The Project site encompasses an approximately 17 -acre
undeveloped gravel lot which is currently used for vehicle storage.
Construction of the proposed Project would include the
development of the Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber
yard, two drive-through restaurants, and a crushed -rock gravel area
for long-term vehicle storage.
The proposed Project would not include recreational facilities nor
develop residential uses that would require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse
effect on the environment. The project does not propose any
recreational uses which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, and no
87 6/2/2020
mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-56
through 4-57.)
Q. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC
1. Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Fines: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-13, 4.12-19.)
Explanation: Construction. As described further in Section 3.0, Project
Description, of the Draft EIR, construction equipment and vehicles
will be staged on site. Although the Project does not include any
characteristics (e.g., permanent road closure or long-term blocking
of road access) that would physically impair or otherwise interfere
with transit, roadways, bicycle facilities, and/or pedestrian facilities
in the Project vicinity, the Project would require temporary lane
closures on Stonehill Drive to allow for utility connections and the
proposed traffic signal located at the southwestern corner of the
site and Stonehill Drive.
Project construction would take up to 1.5 years. During project
construction, a total of 32 workers would be on the site per day (8
hours per day per person). Assuming 32 trucks per day, applying a
passenger car equivalent (PCE) factor of 2.5 and a uniform
arrival/departure of the trucks during an 8 -hour day, the resultant
construction truck generation (in PCEs) would be 160 ADT, 20 a.m.
peakhour trips (10 inbound and 10 outbound), and 20 p.m. peak -
hour trips (10 inbound and 10 outbound). The total construction
worker and truck trip generation (in PCEs) would be 256 ADT, 52
a.m. peak -hour trips (42 inbound and 10 outbound), and 52 p.m.
peak -hour trips (10 inbound and 42 outbound). Because the
construction trip generation would be significantly less than the net
trip generation of the proposed Project (which would generate
3,486 ADT, 312 a.m. peak -hour trips and 213 p.m. peak hour trips),
construction traffic impacts would be less than significant.
88 6/2/2020
Although construction traffic would be less than traffic generated by project operation,
the Project would be required to adhere to all applicable City requirements and would
implement recommendations outlined in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (Caltrans 2014)1 to reduce potential impacts on the local circulation
system during project construction. Among other things, this manual recommends early
coordination with affected agencies to ensure that emergency vehicle access is
maintained. Therefore, construction of the Project would result in less than significant
traffic impacts related to potential conflicts with plans, programs, ordinances, or policies
addressing the local circulation system, and no mitigation would be required. (Draft EIR,
p. 4.12-13.)
Operation. The proposed Project would be required to comply with
the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP)
(2017). The project's consistency with this plan is described in
detail below.
Conformance with the Orange County CMP — Less than
Significant Impact. A TIA is required for CMP purposes for any
proposed development generating 2,400 or more daily trips, with
the exception of developments that will directly access a CMP
Highway System roadway segment, for which the threshold for
requiring a TIA is reduced to 1,600 or more trips per day. Because
the proposed Project is estimated to generate 3,486 daily trips, a
TIA was prepared for the proposed Project in compliance with CMP
standards.
Based on CMP requirements, the study area for a project must
extend far enough to cover any CMP roadway segment on which
the Project traffic would represent 3 percent or more of the roadway
segment's LOS E capacity. Within San Juan Capistrano, the CMP
Highway System includes one arterial — Ortega Highway. The
Ortega Highway/Interstate 5 (1-5) ramp intersection is the only
CMP intersection in the City. Due to the distance of this intersection
to the Project site, project -related traffic would not represent 3
percent or more of this intersection's capacity. As such, no further
analysis of project -related impacts on CMP roadway segments
and/or intersections is required. Therefore, the proposed Project
would not result in conflicts with the Orange County CMP, and no
mitigation would be required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-19.)
2. VMT
Threshold: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3 or conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not limited to, level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other standards
89 6/2/2020
established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-20.)
Explanation: According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a), project
related transportation impacts are generally best measured by
evaluating the Project's vehicle miles traveled (VMT). VMT refers to
the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a
project.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) sets forth criteria for
analyzing transportation impacts, breaking down the methodology
based on project type and specifying other criteria for conducting
VMT analysis.
For land use projects, VMT exceeding an applicable threshold of
significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects
located within 0.5 mi of an existing high-quality transit corridor
should be considered to have a less than significant impact. State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(2) addresses VMT
associated with transportation projects and states that projects that
reduce VMT, such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit projects,
should be presumed to have a less than significant impact.
Subdivision (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.3,
acknowledges that Lead Agencies may not be able to quantitatively
estimate VMT for every project type; in these cases, a qualitative
analysis may be used. The regulation goes on to state that Lead
Agencies have the discretion to formulate a methodology that
would appropriately analyze a project's VMT. (State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4)). It is important to note that State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(c) states that while an agency
may elect to be governed by the provisions of this section
immediately, it is not required until July 1, 2020.
The Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in
CEQA (OPR 2018) includes recommended thresholds for
determining VMT impacts for land use development project.
According to the technical advisory, a net increase in total VMT
may indicate a significant transportation impact for retail projects
because retail development projects typically redistribute shopping
trips rather than creating new trips. According to the Ganahl
Lumber Development Project Traffic Impact Analysis, the proposed
Project would replace an existing Ganahl Lumber hardware store
located of 34162 Doheny Park Road in Capistrano Beach
(approximately 0.50 mile south of the Project site). In addition, the
proposed Project would include a fast-food restaurant use, which is
90 6/2/2020
intended for nearby residents of the surrounding community and
users already driving along Stonehill Drive. The project also
includes a vehicle storage lot for 399 vehicles, which will replace
the existing vehicle storage lot located on the Project site. Because
the proposed Project would replace an existing Ganahl Lumber
hardware store within close proximity to the Project site, provide
local serving retail/restaurant uses, and replace the existing vehicle
storage spaces, there would be no net increase in VMT within the
Project area as a result of project implementation.
At this time, the City has not adopted a methodology to analyze
VMT impacts within its jurisdiction. In addition, the City does not
currently have thresholds or standards in place for assessing
potential VMT impacts. Therefore, this information is provided for
disclosure purposes only, and traffic impacts in this Draft EIR for
CEQA purposes are based on the City's LOS thresholds.
CMP Facilities. As stated above, the Ortega Highway/Interstate 5
(1-5) ramp intersection is the only CMP intersection in the City. Due
to the distance of this intersection to the Project site, project -related
traffic would not represent 3 percent or more of this intersection's
capacity. As such, no further analysis of project -related impacts on
CMP roadway segments and/or intersections is required.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in conflicts with
the Orange County CMP, and no mitigation would be required.
(Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-19 through 4.12-20.)
3. Design Hazards
Threshold: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Finding: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-60.)
Ex lanation: Access to the Project site would be provided via Stonehill Drive.
Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via a
proposed signalized intersection at Stonehill Drive and the
southwestern corner of the Project site and Stonehill Drive. The
project would include internal circulation routes, including truck
traffic routes and a fire access lane. Pedestrian and bicycle access
to the Project site would be provided by sidewalks and a bicycle
route on Stonehill Drive, respectively. Vehicular traffic to and from
the Project site would utilize the existing network of regional and
local roadways that currently serve the Project site area. The
proposed Project would not introduce any new roadways or
introduce a land use that would conflict with existing urban land
91 6/2/2020
uses in the surrounding area. Design of the proposed Project,
including the internal private roadways, ingress, egress, and other
streetscape changes, would be subject to review by the City's
Department of Public Works for compliance with City regulations.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not impact traffic safety due
to a design feature (e.g., substandard roadway and/or roadway
design), and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial
Study], pp. 4-59 through 4-60.)
4. Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-60.)
Explanation, Access to the Project site would be provided via Stonehill Drive.
Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via a
proposed signalized intersection at Stonehill Drive and the
southwestern corner of the Project site and Stonehill Drive. The
project would include internal circulation routes, including truck
traffic routes and a fire access lane. Pedestrian and bicycle access
to the Project site would be provided by sidewalks and a bicycle
route on Stonehill Drive, respectively. According to the City's map
of evacuation routes, Stonehill Drive is identified as potential
evacuation route in the event of an emergency.
As part of the Project, a two-lane easement travelling north/south
from the northwestern corner of the Project site to Avenida
Aeropuerto is proposed; the easement would be located
immediately west of the mobile home park adjacent to the Project
site and would be approximately 1,270 ft in length. The purpose of
the northern easement is to provide emergency ingress/egress to
and from the Project site to the north. A second two-lane easement
travelling north/south is proposed at the southeastern corner of the
Project site; this easement would travel under the Stonehill Drive
Bridge and connect the Project site to neighboring parcels to the
south.
Project features discussed above would improve emergency
access to and from the Project site. Access to/from the Project site
must be designed to City standards and would be subject to review
by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and the Orange
County Sheriff Department (OCSD) for compliance with fire and
emergency access standards and requirements. Therefore,
approval of the Project plans would ensure that the proposed
Project's impact related to emergency access would be less than
significant, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial
Study], p. 4-60.)
92 6/2/2020
R. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources 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 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)?
Finding: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-62.)
Explanation: As discussed in Section 2.5, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR,
implementation of the proposed Project would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource, as there are no eligible resources or structures on site.
In its existing setting, the Project site is undeveloped. On
September 26, 2017, a cultural resources records search was
conducted at the South Central Coastal Archaeological Information
Center (SCCIC), located at California State University, Fullerton.
The purpose of the records search was to determine the extent of
previous cultural resources investigations within a 0.5 -mile radius of
the Project area, and whether any previously recorded historic
resources exist within or near the Project area. Materials reviewed
included reports of previous cultural resources investigations,
archaeological site records, historical maps, and listings of
resources on the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP),
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), California
Points of Historical Interest, California Landmarks, and National
Historic Landmarks.
According to the results from the records search, no previously
recorded historic properties are within the Project site. Furthermore,
according to the City's map of historic buildings and structures,
there are no historic resources on or within the vicinity of the
Project site. As a result, the Project will not cause a substantial
change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). No mitigation would be
required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-61 through 4-62.)
S. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
93 6/2/2020
1. Water Supplies
Threshold: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-19.)
Explanation: The proposed Project would allow for the development of a lumber
yard and hardware store, drive-through restaurant uses, and a
crushed -rock gravel area for long term vehicle storage. As such,
the proposed Project would increase the demand for water on-site.
As shown in Table 4.14.6 (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.14-11), the
proposed Project is estimated to demand approximately 16,190 gpd
(18.1 afy) of water. According to the City's 2015 UWMP, citywide
water supply and demand for potable water was 8,531 afy in 2015
and is expected to increase to 8,618 afy by 2020 and 8,688 afy by
2040 under a normal -year scenario. The 2015 UWMP projections
include population increases of approximately 0.3 percent per year,
as well as anticipated water conservation strategies.
According to the 2015 UWMP, the City is able to meet all water
demand with significant reserves held by MWDOC, local
groundwater supplies, and conservation under all conditions
through 2040, taking into consideration a nine percent increase
over normal demand.33 The supply and demand forecasts for the
third dry -year scenario (considered to be the worst-case scenario)
are shown above in Table 4.14.A (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.14-4).
The relatively small increase in water use, which would represent
approximately 0.2 percent of the City's 2020 projected annual water
demand, would be accounted for in the anticipated growth rates for
the City.
Moreover, the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan
designation of Quasi -Industrial for the Project site. As such, the
additional water use anticipated with the proposed development
has already been considered and planned for in the City's current
land use and water management planning documents, including the
UWMP. 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. As discussed earlier, in
the event that the City's water utilities are transferred to the SMWD,
the City's water rights would also be transferred to the SMWD
Therefore, impacts related to water supplies would be considered
less than significant. (Final EIR, p. 4.14-19.)
33 City of San Juan Capistrano. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. July 2016.
94 6/2/2020
2. Wastewater Capacity
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-65.)
Explanation: 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.
Construction. Implementation of the proposed Project would allow
for the development of a lumber yard and hardware store, drive-
through restaurant uses, and a crushed -rock gravel area for long-
term vehicle storage on a currently undeveloped site. Short-term
generation of wastewater may occur during construction activities
on site. Wastewater generated from soil watering (fugitive dust
control), cleanup, masonry, painting, and other activities would be
temporary and would cease once construction is completed.
Overall, construction activities generate minimal wastewater and
are not expected to adversely impact the wastewater treatment
provider which serves the Project. Therefore, potential project
impacts associated with short-term construction activities would be
less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
Operation. The proposed Project would have similar wastewater
service needs as the existing Ganahl Lumber store located at
95 6/2/2020
34162 Doheny Park Road. Wastewater from the proposed Project
would be directed to the City's sanitary sewer system, which
connects to trunk sewers operated by the South Orange County
Wastewater Authority (SOCWA). SOCWA is a Joint Powers
Authority with ten member agencies, consisting of local retail water
agencies and cities providing their residents. SOCWA operates
three treatment plants and two ocean outfalls, as well as multiple
programs to meet the needs of its member agencies and the
requirements of the Clean Water Act and applicable NPDES
permits.34 SOCWA's three primary treatment facilities have a
treatment capacity of 26 million gallons of wastewater per day
(mgd). 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.35
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.50
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. Further, wastewater
generated from the proposed Project would be typical of
commercial wastewater flows in the City. Therefore, the wastewater
treatment providers that serve the Project would determine that
there is adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand
in addition to the provider's existing commitments. No mitigation
would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-64 through 4-
65.)
3. Solid Waste
Threshold: Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Fid: Less than significant impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-66.)
34 South Orange County Wastewater Authority. About SOCWA. Website:
https://www.socwa.com/aboutsocwa/(accessed April 25, 2019).
35 SOCWA. Infrastructure. Website: https://www.socwa.com/infrastructure/ (accessed
April 25, 2019).
96 6/2/2020
Explanation: Construction. The Project site is currently vacant and
undeveloped, and therefore, no solid waste is generated under
existing conditions. The proposed Project would allow for the
development of a lumber yard and hardware store, drive-through
restaurant uses, and a crushed -rock gravel area for long-term
vehicle storage. Construction of the proposed Project would
generate minimal amount of demolition waste because the site is
currently vacant, and no demolition of structures would be required.
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 (tpd),
with a maximum capacity of 4,000 tpd."36 Therefore, the Prima
Deshecha Landfill is currently operating at approximately 35
percent of its daily design capacity.37 Based on this information, it is
unlikely that the proposed Project would generate enough total
solid waste at project build out to significantly impact the total
capacity of the Prima Deshecha Landfill.
The Prima Deshecha Landfill is scheduled to close in approximately
2067. The proposed Project is estimated to be completed by 2024;
the Prima Deshecha Landfill is, therefore, anticipated to be closed
43 years after the completion of project build out. Further, the
existing General Plan land use designations and zoning
classifications are consistent with the proposed Project (refer to
discussion in Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, Response 4.11
(b), for discussion on the Project's consistency with the General
Plan and Zoning requirements). As such, the proposed Project
would not alter the planned land uses as projected by the City.
Therefore, impacts related to solid waste generation are considered
36 OC Landfills Prima Deshecha Landfill. Website:
http://www.oclandfills.com/landfill/active/deshecha.(accessed April 25, 2019).
37 CalRecycle. Facility/Site Summary Details: Prima Deshecha Sanitary Landfill.
Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfaciIities/Directory/30-AB-0019 (accessed
April 25, 2019).
97 6/2/2020
less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
(Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-65 through 4-66.)
4. Solid Waste Laws
Threshold: Will the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-66.)
Explanation: 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.
Construction. Construction of the proposed Project would
generate minimal amount of demolition waste because the site is
currently vacant, and no demolition of structures would be required.
Further, 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.
Construction of the proposed Project would comply with existing or
future statutes and regulations, including waste diversion programs
mandated by City, State, or federal law. Therefore, impacts would
be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
Operation. Operation of the proposed Project would comply with
existing or future statutes and regulations, including waste diversion
programs mandated by City, State, or federal law. 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. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-66.)
T. WILDFIRE
Response Plans
Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as
very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project substantially
98 6/2/2020
impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Finding: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-68.)
Explanation: 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). According to the CAL FIRE and
Resource Assessment Program, the Project site is not within a Very
High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).38
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, Stonehill Drive is identified as 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 Program. Further, all
infrastructure improvements included as part of the Project would
occur within the boundaries of the existing site and would not
require or result in any long term or permanent lane closures on
roadways adjacent to the site. Therefore, construction impacts
related to emergency response and evacuation plans associated
with construction of the proposed Project would be less than
significant, and no mitigation would be required.
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
38 CalFire. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. San Juan Capistrano. October
2011.
Website:http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps/FHSZ/orange/c30_SanJuanC
apistrano_vhfhsz.pdf(accessed April 24, 2019).
99 6/2/2020
from various parts of a community, although emergency response
vehicles may choose to use a variety of routes to access
surrounding areas. Stonehill Drive is identified as an evacuation
route in the City. 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. In fact,
the addition of the northern emergency access road and the access
easement under Stonehill Drive Bridge would improve site access.
Further, the Project site is not located in or near state responsibility
areas or lands classified as VHFHSZ. (Appendix A [Initial Study],
pp. 4-67 through 4-68.)
2. Pollutant Concentrations
Threshold: Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the Project
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread
of wildfire?
Finding. No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-68.)
Explanation: The Project site is located in a developed portion of the City. In its
existing condition, the Project site is relatively flat and there are no
significant slopes adjacent to the site. The Project site is not
currently developed with structures; the vehicle storage area
consists of a crushed -rock gravel surface, and as such, the site
lacks the combustible materials and vegetation necessary for the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Further, the Project site is not
located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as
VHFHSZ. Therefore, due to slope, prevailing winds, location, and
other factors, the proposed Project would not exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire. No mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study],
p. 4-68.)
3. Infrastructure Risks
Threshold: Would the Project require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
100 6/2/2020
Finding: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-69.)
Explanation: The project does not require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (including roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that would exacerbate
fire risk or that would result in impacts to the environment. Although
the Project includes proposed internal circulation routes within the
development, the Project does not include any changes to public or
private roadways that would that would exacerbate fire risk or that
would result in impacts to the environment. Although utility
improvements, including natural gas,
electricity/telecommunications, domestic water, sanitary sewer, and
storm drain lines, proposed as part of the Project would be
extended throughout the Project site, these utility improvements
would be underground and would not exacerbate fire risk. Project
design and implementation of utility improvements would be
reviewed and approved by the City's Public Works Department as
part of the Project approval process to ensure the proposed Project
is compliant with all applicable design standards and regulations.
Further, the Project site is not located in or near state responsibility
areas or lands classified as VHFHSZ. Therefore, the proposed
Project would not include infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities), that would
exacerbate fire risk or that would result in impacts to the
environment. No mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial
Study], pp. 4-68 through 4-69.)
4. Runoff Risks
Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Findinq: Less than significant impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-69.)
Ex lanatioiz: In its existing condition, the Project site is relatively flat with no
slopes present on the site. According to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM),
the Project site is within the AO Zone, which includes areas subject
to inundation by 1 -percent -annual -chance shallow flooding (usually
sheet flow on sloping terrain) at a depth of 1 ft. Although the Project
site is located in an area that could be prone to flooding, the Project
site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands
classified as VHFHSZ. The nearest land classified as a VHFHSZ is
located approximately 0.5 mile southeast of the Project site.
Overall, due to the Project site's distance from the nearest
VHFHSZ, risks associated with wildfires are considered less than
101 6/2/2020
significant. Further, the Project site is not within an earthquake
induced landslide zone and is not located within an area subject to
potential seismic slope instability. Therefore, downslope flooding as
a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes are
unlikely to occur at the site, and no mitigation would be required.
(Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-69.)
SECTION III
IMPACTS THAT ARE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION
INCORPORATED
The City Council hereby finds that Mitigation Measures have been identified in
the EIR and these Findings that will avoid or substantially lessen the following
potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The
potentially significant impacts, and the Mitigation Measures that will reduce them to a
less than significant level, are as follows:
A. AESTHETIC
1. Light and Glare
Threshold: Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.1-14.)
Explanation: 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.
Section 9-3.529 of the City's Municipal Code includes lighting
regulations related to minimum and maximum illumination of
parking facilities, as well as lighting design standards for exterior
lighting displays, parking lots, and pedestrian sidewalks.
102 6/2/2020
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 from vehicles on nearby
roadways; lighting from the residential mobile home park to the
north; and pole -mounted lighting in parking areas of adjacent
developments. Sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the Project site
include the mobile home park to the north and residences and the
San Juan Creek Trail to the west.
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 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.
The proposed Project would introduce new sources of light to the
Project site that are typical of commercial uses. Outdoor lighting
proposed as part of the Project would include wall -mounted lighting,
pole -mounted street and parking lot lights, and security lighting
along pathways. The proposed Project would include lighting with
similar intensity and glare produced by street light fixtures within
adjacent developments. Lighting would be limited to on-site sources
and be directed downward onto the Project site and shielded to
minimize overspill and glare to adjacent properties in compliance
with the City's Lighting Standards (Municipal Code Section 9-
3.529).
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.
103 6/2/2020
Mitigation Measures AES -1 and AES -2 require the Project
Applicant to prepare a lighting plan and photometric study for
review and approval by the City's Development Services
Department (refer to Section 4.1.8 of the Draft EIR). These
mitigation measures 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 Mitigation Measures AES -1 and AES -2 would
ensure that impacts associated with new lighting would remain less
than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-12 through 4.1-13.)
Mitigation Measures
MM AES -1 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 (City) 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, 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.
■ 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
104 6/2/2020
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.
MM AES -2 Photometric Study. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a
Final 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.
Mitigation Measures AES -1 and AES -2 would reduce potential impacts to
excessive lighting and/or the generation of glare on the Project site to a less than
significant level. No significant unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics would
occur with implementation of these measures. After mitigation has been
implemented, all anticipated impacts related to aesthetics would be considered
less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-14.)
B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Sensitive Species
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.3-10.)
Explanation:_ The approximately 17 -acre undeveloped Project site is currently
characterized by an undeveloped gravel parking lot and ruderal
vegetation. The Project site is located within an area that is covered
by the OCSSHCP, but is located in an area identified as
"developed" and is outside of the designated habitat reserve.
Because the Project site is located outside the boundaries of the
designated habitat reserve, OCSSHCP regulatory coverage is not
provided for activities associated with the proposed Project.
Furthermore, any project activities that may result in the "take" of
sensitive species and their habitats would be subject to FESA
Section 4(d) or Section 10 permits, Section 7 consultation, a CDFW
Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement, and/or a Section
2081 CESA permit. The disturbed condition of the Project site is
generally not suitable to support special -status species, and no
known candidate, sensitive, or special -status species were
observed inhabiting the Project site during the 2017 or 2018 field
105 6/2/2020
surveys. However, three special -status plant species and six
special -status animal species have low to moderate potential to
occur on the Project site, as further discussed below.
Special -Status Plant Species. The proposed Project would
involve the grading of the entire Project site and removal of
all existing vegetation. The Biological Technical Report
determined that three special -status plant species (Catalina
mariposa lily, cliff malacothrix, and Coulter's matilija poppy)
have a low potential to occur on the southeastern portion of
the Project site in the small patches of California sagebrush
scrub (Artemesia Califomica Shrubland Alliance). However,
none of these three species have been documented within 5
miles of the Project site. Furthermore, the Project site
provides low -quality potential habitat for the three special -
status species. Therefore, the removal of the potential
habitat is not expected to contribute substantially to the
overall decline of these species. Additionally, no special -
status plant species have a moderate to high potential to
occur on the site. Therefore, the Project impacts to special
status plant species would be less than significant.
Special -Status Animal Species. Of the various special -
status wildlife species identified in the literature searches
undertaken in support of the Biological Technical Report, six
were determined to have a low -to -moderate potential to
occur on the Project site. Two of these species (burrowing
owl and California horned lark) were identified to have a low
to moderate potential to occur during the 2017 field survey,
but were presumed absent during the 2018 field survey due
to a change in habitat on the Project site. Because these two
species would no longer have a potential to occur on the
Project site, only four special -status wildlife species (white-
tailed kite, coastal California gnatcatcher, western red bat,
and San Diego desert woodrat) have a low -to -moderate
potential to occur on the site.
• White -Tailed Kite: White-tailed kite is a CDFW Fully
Protected species, and is a covered species under
the OCSSHCP. This species was determined to have
a low potential to occur on the Project site, and may
nest in the large eucalyptus trees located within 500
feet of the eastern border of the Project site on the
other side of the LOSSAN rail corridor. Although
white-tailed kite is not expected to nest on the Project
site itself, indirect impacts may occur from
construction noise and vibration if the species nest in
106 6/2/2020
trees within 500 feet of the Project site. As specified in
Mitigation Measure BI0-1, if construction activities
with the potential to disrupt white-tailed kite are
scheduled to occur during breeding season, a pre -
construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted
by a qualified biologist. With implementation of
Mitigation Measure BI0-1, impacts to white-tailed
kite would be less than significant.
• Coastal California Gnatcatcher: Coastal California
gnatcatcher is a threatened species under the FESA,
a CDFW Species of Special Concern, and is a
covered species under the OCSSHCP. Coastal
California gnatcatcher was determined to have a
moderate potential to occur on the Project site, and
may use the Project site for foraging in the existing
0.3 acre of California sagebrush scrub. However, the
California sagebrush scrub would be removed during
grading of the Project site, as would all other existing
vegetation. Additionally, construction noise and
vibration from grading and vegetation removal may
affect individual coastal California gnatcatchers. As
specified in Mitigation Measure B1O-2, pre -
construction surveys would be conducted for coastal
California gnatcatcher within all areas of potential
permanent and temporary disturbance. If coastal
California gnatcatcher are observed foraging during
preconstruction surveys, consultation between the
City and project Applicant and the appropriate agency
would be required. As specified in Mitigation
Measure B1O-3, biological monitoring during
vegetation clearing and construction activities would
ensure that individual gnatcatchers are not present
during vegetation removal. Once the vegetation
removal has taken place, no additional impacts to
coastal California gnatcatcher are anticipated to
occur, and no further mitigation would be required.
Furthermore, the removal of California sagebrush
scrub is not expected to contribute to the decline of
the coastal California gnatcatcher as designated
critical habitat for the species exists within 0.25 mile
of the Project site. With implementation of Mitigation
Measures B1O-2 and B1O-3, impacts to coastal
California gnatcatcher would be less than significant.
• Western Red Bat: The Western red bat is a CDFW
Species of Special Concern, and was determined to
107 6/2/2020
have a low potential to occur on the Project site.
Currently, two existing red willow trees (Salix
laevigata) are located on the Project site, which
provide suitable year-round roosting habitat for
western red bats. The two red willow trees would be
removed during project construction, which may result
in direct impacts to the western red bat, should they
be using the trees for roosting. However, no record of
the western red bat has been documented within 5
miles of the Project site. Additionally, the removal of
the trees would not substantially contribute to the
overall decline of the species. As specified in
Mitigation Measure B1O-2, pre -construction surveys
would be conducted for sensitive wildlife species,
including the western red bat, within all areas of
potential permanent and temporary disturbance,
including the two existing red willow trees. If western
red bats are observed during pre -construction
surveys, biological monitoring would be required, as
specified in Mitigation Measure 610-3. Therefore,
with the implementation of Mitigation Measure B10-
2 and B1O-3, impacts to the western red bat would be
less than significant.
• San Diego Desert Woodrat: The San Diego desert
woodrat is a CDFW Species of Special Concern, and
was determined to have a moderate potential to occur
on the Project site. Although the 0.3 acre of California
sagebrush scrub on the Project site provides potential
habitat for the San Diego desert woodrat, the quality
of the habitat is low. Therefore, removal of the
California sagebrush scrub would not contribute to the
substantial decline of the species, and impacts to the
San Diego desert woodrat would be less than
significant.
(Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-7 through 4.3-10.)
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO -1 Pre -Construction Surveys for Nesting Birds. Any development
activities within the Project site shall be conducted during the non -
breeding season for birds (approximately September 1 through
February 15). This will avoid violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503,
3503.5 and 3513. If activities with the potential to disrupt nesting
birds, including the white-tailed kite, are scheduled to occur during
the bird breeding season (February through August for raptors and
108 6/2/2020
March through August for songbirds), a pre -construction nesting
bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The project
Applicant shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct a
preconstruction presence/absence survey for nesting birds no more
than 3 days prior to site disturbance and submit the survey results
to the Director of the City of San Juan Capistrano (City)
Development Services Department, or designee. If nesting birds
are not detected, no further action is necessary.
The nest surveys shall include the Project site and adjacent areas
where project activities have the potential to cause nest failure. If
no nesting birds are observed during the survey, site preparation
and construction activities may begin. If nesting birds (including
nesting raptors) are found to be present, then avoidance or
minimization measures shall be undertaken in consultation with the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and prior to
issuance of any grading or construction permits. Measures shall
include establishment of an avoidance buffer until nesting has been
completed. The width of the buffer will be determined by the Project
biologist. Typically this is a minimum of 300 feet from the nest site
in all directions (500 feet is typically recommended by CDFW for
raptors), until the juveniles have fledged and there has been no
evidence of a second attempt at nesting. The monitoring biologist
will monitor the nest(s) during construction and document any
findings to be confirmed by the Director of the City of San Juan
Capistrano Development Services Department, or designee.
MM BI0-2 Pre -Construction Sensitive Wildlife Surveys. The Project
Applicant shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct pre -construction
surveys for sensitive wildlife species within all areas of potential
permanent and temporary disturbance. Preconstruction surveys
shall take place a maximum of 14 days prior to the start of ground -
disturbing activities. The pre -construction surveys shall take place
regardless of breeding season timing and shall focus on identifying
the presence of coastal California gnatcatcher and other special -
status wildlife species potential to occur within the Project site. The
Project biologist shall submit the survey results to the Director of
the City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services
Department, or designee. Should special -status species be
identified during pre -construction surveys, the monitoring biologist
shall develop suitable avoidance and minimization measures with
the appropriate agency (i.e., USFWS, CDFW) for implementation
prior to and/or during construction. If coastal California gnatcatcher
is observed during pre -construction surveys, consultation between
the City and project Applicant and the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) is required. The consultation process
shall identify mitigation measures to be implemented prior to and/or
109 6/2/2020
during construction activities for any coastal California gnatcatchers
or other sensitive wildlife present. These measures include, but are
not limited to, the following:
If vegetation removal or other ground -disturbing activities are
scheduled to occur during the coastal California gnatcatcher
breeding season (February 15 through August 30), then all
areas containing coastal sage scrub located outside of the
Project impact area shall be identified with temporary fencing
or other markers clearly visible to construction personnel. No
project -related activities shall occur in the coastal sage scrub
outside of the Project impact area.
• A monitoring biologist that has been approved by USFWS,
shall be on site during ground -disturbing activities, including
the clearing of coastal sage scrub, within the Project impact
area. The monitoring biologist shall perform a clearance
sweep of the coastal sage scrub immediately prior to
ground -disturbing activities to determine if coastal California
gnatcatcher is occupying the coastal sage scrub within the
Project impact area. If the species is present, then ground -
disturbing activities shall not commence until the individual
has left the Project impact area, as determined by the
monitoring biologist. If California gnatcatcher is not observed
during the clearance sweep, then ground -disturbing activities
may commence. Once the vegetation removal has taken
place, no additional impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher
or other sensitive wildlife specifies are anticipated and no
further measures would be required.
MM BIO -3 Biological Monitoring. The Project Applicant shall hire a qualified
biologist to monitor all vegetation clearing activities both during and
outside of the breeding season. A biological monitor shall perform
biological clearance surveys at the start of each work day that
vegetation clearing takes place to minimize impacts on sensitive
wildlife species. The monitor will be responsible for ensuring that
impacts to sensitive species will be avoided to the fullest extent
possible. The biological monitor shall be present during the
initiation of vegetation clearing activities and their presence should
continue as necessary to maintain protective measures and to
monitor for species in harm's way. These protection measures may
include redirecting wildlife or capturing and relocating wildlife to
areas outside the work area. Any captured species shall be
relocated out of harm's way to adjacent appropriate habitat that is
outside of project impact areas. Biological monitoring shall take
place until the Project site has been completely cleared of any
vegetation. The monitoring biologist will document any findings to
110 6/2/2020
be confirmed by the Director of the City of San Juan Capistrano
Development Services Department, or designee.
Potential impacts to biological resources from the proposed Project would be mitigated
to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures B10-1, B10-
2, and B10-3. Therefore, the Project would have no significant and unavoidable adverse
impacts related to biological resources. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-10 through 4.3-14.)
C. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Archaeological Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines, section 15064.5?
Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.4-5.)
Explanation: The records search and field search did not identify any recorded
archaeological resources on or in the immediate vicinity of the
Project site. However, the Project site is located adjacent to San
Juan Creek, and 1 mile from the coast in an area near recorded
prehistoric and historic resources. The archaeological sensitivity of
the Project vicinity is high, as indicated by the presence of
numerous prehistoric archaeological sites along the east bank of
San Juan Creek. However, these cultural resource sites are at a
higher elevation than the Project area itself, which is on a low
terrace directly adjacent to San Juan Creek, suggesting a slightly
lower chance of cultural resource sites directly within the Project
area which may reflect avoidance of areas along the creek that
were likely to flood. As a result, it remains possible that buried,
previously unrecorded cultural resources could be present in native
soils on the Project site and disturbed during project construction.
Mitigation Measure CUL -1 is proposed and requires monitoring by
both a qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor. The
measure includes procedures for recovering any significant or
unique archaeological resource and for preparation of a report that
documents any cultural resource recovery at the Project site. All
procedures conducted as part of Mitigation Measure CUL -1 would
comply with the applicable provisions for the management of
historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources as described
in City Council Policy 601. With implementation of Mitigation
Measure CUL -1, impacts to previously unrecorded cultural
111 6/2/2020
resources would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-5
through 4.4-6.)
Mitigation Measures
MM CULA Cultural Resources Monitoring and Accidental Discovery. Prior
to the issuance of grading permits, and in adherence to the
recommendations of the cultural resources survey, the Project
Applicant shall retain, with approval of the City of San Juan
Capistrano (City) Development Services Director, or designee, a
qualified archaeological monitor. A monitoring plan should be
prepared by the archaeologist and implemented upon approval by
the City. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant,
with City approval, shall also retain a Native American monitor to be
selected by the City after consultation with interested tribal and
Native American representatives. Both monitors 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, both 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.
If cultural materials are discovered during site preparation, grading,
or excavation, the construction contractor shall divert all
earthmoving activity within and around the immediate discovery
area until a qualified archaeologist can assess the nature and
significance of the find. 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 Historical Resources. 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: 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
112 6/2/2020
historical societies on the findings and significance of the site and
recovered archaeological materials. 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.
2. Human Remains
Threshold: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.4-6.)
Explanation: Although no human remains are known to be on the Project site or
are anticipated to be discovered during project construction, the
archaeological sensitivity of the Project vicinity is high. There is
always a possibility of encountering unanticipated cultural
resources, including human remains. Precautionary mitigation is
required to ensure that the proposed Project does not impact or
disturb any human remains.
Mitigation Measure CUL -2 requires compliance with CCR Section
15064.5(e) in the unlikely event that human remains are
encountered during project grading. Upon discovery of the remains,
the Orange County (County) Coroner would be notified
immediately, and no further disturbance would occur until the
County Coroner makes a determination of origin and disposition
pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to
be Native American, the County Coroner would notify the NAHC,
which would then determine and notify the MLD. With permission
from the City, the MLD would complete inspection within 48 hours
of notification by the NAHC. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
CUL -2 would reduce potential impacts related to the discovery of
human remains on the Project site to a less than significant level,
and no additional mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-6.)
Mitiaation Measures
MM CUL -2 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 within 25 feet of the discovery shall be
redirected and the Orange County (County) Coroner notified
113 6/2/2020
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). 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.
D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1. (b) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.6-10.)
Explanation: As with all of Southern California, the Project site is subject to
strong ground motion resulting from earthquakes on nearby faults.
There are several faults near the Project site that are capable of
producing strong ground motion, including the Newport- Ing lewood-
Rose Canyon Fault and the San Joaquin Hills Fault. During an
earthquake along any of these faults, seismically induced ground
shaking would be expected to occur. The severity of the shaking
114 6/2/2020
would be influenced by the distance of the site to the seismic
source, the soil conditions, and the depth to groundwater.
The USGS Unified Hazard Tool was used in the Geotechnical
Investigation in order to determine how seismicity would affect the
Project site. Based on the site-specific evaluation that was
performed, the peak horizontal ground acceleration for the Project
site was calculated to be approximately 0.55 g (acceleration due to
gravity) with a two percent probability of exceedance in 50 years
(recurrence interval of 2,475 years). These accelerations are
consistent with other sites in this region of central California and
indicate that strong seismic ground shaking generated by seismic
activity is considered a potentially significant impact that may affect
the proposed Project. Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2
require the City to comply with the recommendations of the Project
Geotechnical Investigation and the most current CBC, which
stipulates appropriate seismic design provisions that shall be
implemented with project design and construction. With
implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2,
potential project impacts related to seismic ground shaking would
be reduced to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-9
through 4.6-10.)
Mitiaation Measures
MM GEO-1 Incorporation of and Compliance with the Recommendations
in the Geotechnical Investigation. All grading operations and
construction shall be conducted in conformance with the
recommendations included in the geotechnical report on the
proposed Project site that has been prepared by Willdan
Engineering Geotechnical Group, titled Geotechnical Investigation
Report and Response to Third Party Review, Proposed Ganahl
Lumber Facility Development San Juan Capistrano, California
(Geotechnical Investigation) (November 2018). Design, grading,
and construction shall be performed in accordance with the
requirements of the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) Building
Code and the California Building Code (CBC) applicable at the time
of grading, appropriate local grading regulations, and the
recommendations of the Project geotechnical consultant as
summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the
Director of the City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services
Department, or designee, prior to commencement of grading
activities.
Recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation are
summarized below.
115 6/2/2020
• Site Grading/Earthwork. Prior to grading activities on the
site, organics and debris shall be removed and hauled off-
site. Undocumented fill within the Project limits shall be over -
excavated to a minimum depth of 12 feet (ft). The bottom of
the excavated area shall be underlain by a layer of filter
fabric (which will prevent contamination of crushed
aggregate from underlying fine soils) and overlain by a
minimum of 2 ft of crushed rock and a geogrid layer(which
will minimize the manifestation of vertical settlements to the
surface). The excavated layer shall be backfilled with
engineered fill, which shall be compacted to at least 90
percent. Compaction shall be verified by observation,
probing, and testing by a Geotechnical Consultant.
Fill Material. On-site soils with an Expansion Index (EI) less
than 35 and free of organic materials, debris, and cobbles
larger than 3 inches may be used for backfilling. Imported
granular soils may be used in compacted fills within the
Project limits. All imported soil shall contain binder material.
Imported materials shall also be non -expansive and free of
organic materials, debris, and cobbles larger than 3 inches,
with no more than 25 percent passing No. 200 Sieve. All fill
materials within the upper 2 ft shall be free of particles
greater than 2 inches in size. A bulk sample of import
material, weighing at least 30 pounds, shall be submitted to
the Geotechnical Consultant for approval at least 48 hours
prior to fill operations.
Utility Trenching. Bedding materials consisting of sand,
gravel, or crushed aggregate shall be used to backfill around
utility pipes. On-site soils having a Sand Equivalent (SE) of
30 or greater can also be used as bedding material. Prior to
placing pipes, the pipe trench subgrade shall be observed by
the Geotechnical Consultant. If exposed subgrade is loose
or unstable, unsuitable subgrade shall be excavated and
replaced with bedding material. Trenches in pavement areas
shall be capped with at least 1 ft of compacted, on-site soil
and shall be compacted to at least 95 percent relative
compaction.
• Temporary Excavations. All temporary excavations shall
be properly sloped or shored. Excavation of 3.5 ft or less in
depth may be performed with vertical sidewalls. Deeper
excavations up to a depth of 10 ft can be accomplished with
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
requirements for Type C soils and may be laid back 1 H: 1.5V
116 6/2/2020
gradient, or 1H:1V upon review by the Geotechnical
Consultant.
■ Shoring. Shoring systems feasible for the site are expected
to include cantilever shoring, such as soldier piles. All
shoring shall be designed in accordance with the latest
edition of the Trenching and Shoring Manual (Caltrans
2011), and shall be approved by the Geotechnical
Consultant. A licensed surveyor shall be retained to
establish monuments on the shoring and surrounding area.
These monuments shall be monitored for movement during
construction.
■ Spread/Strip Footing Foundations. Upon completion of
the grading (cutting) required to establish the proposed
building pad elevations, the proposed structures may be
supported by a spread/strip footing foundation system.
Spread/strip footings shall be at least 24 and 18 inches wide,
respectively, and embedded at least 18 inches below the
lowest adjacent grade in the engineered fill. The slab -on -
grade should be at least 5 inches thick and reinforced with
rebar. Footings shall be deepened as necessary in order to
maintain adequate support for the foundations adjacent to
utility trenches.
• Matt Foundations: Upon completion of the grading (cutting)
required to establish the proposed building pad elevations,
the proposed structures may be supported by a matt
foundation system in areas where settlements cannot be
tolerated by spread/strip footings. The mat should be at least
10 inches thick and embedded at least 18 inches below the
lowest adjacent grade in the engineered fill.
■ Concrete Flatworks. Frequent construction or control joints
shall be provided in all concrete slabs where cracking is
objectionable. Contraction or weakened plane joints shall
extend deeper than one-quarter of the slab thickness.
Control joints shall be spaced a minimum of 10 ft intervals.
Exterior concrete slab-ongrade may be subjected to drying
due to the fluctuation of moisture content in subgrade soils.
Deepened edge sections will aid in reducing the potential for
the shrinkage and swelling of underlying soils.
• Retaining Walls. The proposed development is expected to
require various types of earth -retaining structures:
freestanding cantilever retaining wall, temporary shoring,
and below grade walls for several of the proposed
117 6/2/2020
structures. In general, retaining structures planned at the site
shall be backfilled with compacted soil and be constructed
with a backdrain.
■ Corrosive Soils. A representative bulk sample of soils in
contact with concrete and pipes shall be collected and tested
or pH, minimum resistivity, soluble chloride content, and
soluble sulfate content. The test results shall be used to
determine the chemical properties of on-site soils and
appropriate recommendations. Recommendations for
corrosion protection may include, but are not limited to,
sacrificial metal, the use of protective coatings, and/or
cathodic protection.
Geotechnical Review and Future Testing. Additional site
testing and final design evaluation shall be conducted by the
Project Geotechnical Consultant to refine and enhance these
recommendations. Grading plan review shall also be
conducted by the Geotechnical Consultant and the Director
of the City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services
Department, or designee, prior to the start of grading to
verify that the recommendations developed during the
geotechnical design evaluation have been appropriately
incorporated into the Project plans. Final design shall be
based on testing and analyses of the near -surface soils
following the completion of grading. Design, grading, and
construction shall be conducted in accordance with the
specifications of the Geotechnical Consultant as
summarized in a final report based on the CBC applicable at
the time of grading and building and the City of San Juan
Capistrano Building Code. On-site inspection during grading
shall be conducted by the Geotechnical Consultant and the
City Building Official to ensure compliance with geotechnical
specifications as incorporated into project plans.
MM GEO-2 California Building Code Compliance and Seismic
Standards. Structures and retaining walls shall be designed
in accordance with the seismic parameters presented in the
Geotechnical Investigation (Willdan Engineering
Geotechnical Group, November 2018) and applicable
sections of Section 1613 of the 2007 California Building
Code (CBC). Prior to issuance of building permits for
planned structures, the Project soils engineer and the
Director of the San Juan Capistrano Development Services
Department, or designee, shall review building plans to verify
that structural design conforms to the recommendations of
118 6/2/2020
the Geotechnical Investigation and the City of San Juan
Capistrano Building Code.
1. (c) Seismic -Related Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction
Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving seismic -related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.6-10.)
Explanation: Liquefaction commonly occurs when three conditions are present
simultaneously: (1) high groundwater; (2) relatively loose,
cohesionless (sandy) soil; and (3) earthquake -generated seismic
waves.
The Project site is located with a State -designated Liquefaction
Hazard Zone for the Dana Point Quadrangle. In addition, testing
performed as part of the Geotechnical Investigation found that sand
and sandy silt layers within alluvial deposits on the site would likely
liquefy during earthquake. Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-
2 require the City to comply with the recommendations of the
Project Geotechnical Investigation and the most current CBC,
which stipulates appropriate design provisions (including provisions
related to foundation design) that shall be implemented with project
design and construction. With implementation of Mitigation
Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, potential project impacts related to
seismically induced ground failure, including liquefaction, would be
reduced to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-10.)
2. Unstable Soils
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft
EIR, pp. 4.6-11 through 4.6-13.)
Explanation'.
119 6/2/2020
Landslides. Both the existing Project site and the surrounding area
are relatively flat and are not subject to slope instability or
landslides. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-20.)
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. It is estimated that the groundwater on the Project site
was encountered at depth of approximately 18 to 22 ft below
ground surface. However, 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. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-20.)
Slope Stability. No existing landslides are present on or adjacent
to the property. Geologic mapping for the site does not indicate that
the site is susceptible to landslide. In addition, the Project site is in
a generally flat area with no evidence of historic landslides.
Therefore, the potential for seismically induced landslides on site is
considered low.
Due to the topography of the Project site and the design of the
proposed Project, grading would entail cut -and -fill slopes, and
construction of earth -retaining structures, such as freestanding
cantilever retaining walls and below -grade walls would be
necessary in some areas. In addition, shoring would be required
during excavation. Unstable cut -and -fill slopes and could create
significant short-term and long-term hazards. Mitigation Measure
GEO-1 requires planned grading and shoring to conform to the
recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation, which contains
specific recommendations for addressing potential slope instability.
With implementation of these recommendations, potential impacts
related to slope instability would be reduced below a level of
significance. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-11.)
Unsuitable Soils.
Corrosive Soils and Soluble Sulfate Content.
Corrosive soils contain 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
120 6/2/2020
weakening the structural integrity of the concrete and metal
used to construct the building and could potentially lead to
structural instability. Structural damage and foundation
instability caused by corrosive soils is a potentially significant
impact.
As required by Mitigation Measure GEO-1, on-site soils
anticipated to come into contact with pipes or concrete on
the site shall be tested for pH, minimum resistivity, soluble
chloride content, and soluble sulfate content. Where
corrosive soils are identified, corrosion protection measures
shall be implemented. Corrosion protection may include, but
is not limited to, sacrificial metal, the use of protective
coatings, and/or cathodic protection. With implementation of
Mitigation Measure GEO-1, potential impacts related to
corrosive soils would be reduced to a less than significant
level.
Settlement Potential.
The amount of settlement for a site is dependent on the
thickness of design fills, the loading conditions, and the
nature of the native materials underlying the fill. Potential
ground settlement may be separated into three types: (1)
hydroconsolidation of alluvium left in place above the water
table, (2) consolidation settlement of compressible alluvium
left in place below the water table, and (3) liquefaction -
induced settlement of a few loose, granular layers below the
water table.
The site is underlain by sand and sandy silt layers within
alluvial deposits, which are likely to liquefy during an
earthquake. As such, these layers will likely experience a
loss of shear strength resulting in ground deformation and
settlement. In total, the Geotechnical Investigation found that
seismic settlements due to liquefaction could be up to 2
inches on the Project site. Compliance with the
recommendations contained in the Geotechnical
Investigation for the proposed Project, including those
related to earthwork activities and foundation design, would
be required reduce potential impacts related to ground
settlement. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1
would reduce potential impacts with respect to ground
settlement to a less than significant level.
Subsidence.
121 6/2/2020
The phenomenon of widespread land sinking, or subsidence,
is generally related to substantial overpumping of
groundwater or petroleum reserves from deep underground
reservoirs. Overpumping and excessive groundwater
withdrawal have not occurred in the Project area. In addition,
the Project does not have an oil, gas, or water pump on site
and none are located near the site and has not been used
for the extraction of either resource. Subsidence is therefore
not considered a potential constraint or a potentially
significant impact of the Project, and no mitigation is
required.
Lateral Spreadinq.
Lateral spreading typically occurs as a form of horizontal
displacement of relatively flat -lying alluvial material toward
an open or "unconfined" face such as an open body of
water, channel, or excavation. In soils, this movement is
generally due to failure along a weak plane and may often
be associated with liquefaction. According to the
Geotechnical Investigation, lateral spreading at the Project
site is not a concern because the proposed final ground
surface would be relatively flat and the recently constructed
sheet pile system along the San Juan Creek levee (a
separate project), which penetrates below the lowest
liquefiable layer identified within the Project site for
protection of the creek levee, would prevent lateral motion
from occurring. Therefore, the soils on the Project site are
not subject to lateral spreading. Therefore, lateral spreading
is not considered a potential constraint or a potentially
significant impact of the Project, and no mitigation is
required.
(Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-11 through 4.6-13.)
3. Expansive Soils
Threshold: Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to
life or property?
Fin_ _ding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.6-13.)
Explanation: 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
122 6/2/2020
can cause uplift or heave of the ground when they become wet or,
less commonly, cause settlement when they dry out.
Upper layers of soil on the site consist of Artificial Fill. The
expansion potential for on-site soils is unknown at this time;
however, undocumented fill on the site includes clay at varying
moisture contents, and as such, may be potentially expansive. The
Geotechnical Investigation contains specific construction
recommendations to reduce project impacts associated with
expansive soils to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure
GEO-1 incorporates the recommendations in the Geotechnical
Investigation related to expansive soils, including a requirement
that all imported materials be non -expansive. Therefore, adherence
to Mitigation Measure GEO-1 will reduce project impacts related
to expansive soils to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-
13.)
4. Paleontological Resources
Threshold- Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft
EIR, pp. 4.6-13 through 4.6-14.)
Explanation: The Project site is located on sediments mapped as Quaternary
Alluvium, but is underlain by older estuarine deposits of the San
Juan Creek floodplain. There are no known localities on the Project
site but, based on the locality search conducted for the proposed
Project, sensitive sediments that may contain fossil remains do
exist within the Project areas. As such, there is the potential to
encounter paleontological resources during any ground -disturbing
activities for the proposed Project. Mitigation is required to reduce
potential adverse impacts to unknown (buried) paleontological
resources.
Mitigation Measure GEO-3 requires the Project Applicant to
prepare a Paleontological Resources Assessment to evaluate the
potential for project implementation to significantly impact unknown
paleontological resources on the site. In the event that the
Paleontological Resources Assessment does not identify the
potential for the Project to impact such resources, no further action
or mitigation is required. In the event that the Paleontological
Resources Assessment identifies a low potential for the Project to
impact paleontological resources, the Developer/project Applicant
shall retain a paleontologist on an on-call basis to address any
unanticipated discoveries. If the Paleontological Resources
Assessment determines that paleontological resources may be
123 6/2/2020
impacted by project development, a Paleontological Resources
Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) shall be prepared, and
paleontological monitoring, fossil collection and treatment (if
necessary), and preparation of a final monitoring report shall occur
as described in Mitigation Measure GEO-4. Implementation of
Mitigation Measures GEO-3 and GEO-4 would reduce potential
impacts to unknown paleontological resources to less than
significant, and no additional mitigation is required.
The proposed Project would result in potentially significant impacts
with respect to strong seismic ground shaking, ground failure
(including liquefaction), slope stability, corrosive soils, ground
settlement, expansive soils, and the destruction of paleontological
resources without the implementation of applicable mitigation
measures. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-13 through 4.6-14.)
Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-3 Paleontological Resources Assessment. In accordance with
City of San Juan Capistrano Council Policy 601, a paleontologist
certified by the County of Orange shall prepare a Paleontological
Assessment that includes the following information: a clear map
delineating the Project boundaries, the results of a field survey of
the Project area, the results of background research and sources
for that background information, criteria for evaluation of
paleontological sensitivity of the property, and a determination of
whether development of the Project has the potential to impact
paleontological resources. If the Paleontological Resources
Assessment determines that project activities will not impact
paleontological resources, no further paleontological resource
impact mitigation is required. If the Paleontological Resources
Assessment determines that there is a low possibility for project
activities to impact paleontological resources, the Developer/project
Applicant shall retain a paleontologist on an on-call basis to
address any unanticipated discoveries. If the Paleontological
Resources Assessment determines that paleontological resources
may be impacted by project development, a Paleontological
Resources Impact Mitigation Program shall be prepared, and
paleontological monitoring, fossil collection and treatment (if
necessary), and preparation of a final monitoring report shall occur
as described in Mitigation Measure GEO-4.
MM GEO-4 Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program. In the
event the Project specific Paleontological Resources Assessment
determines that paleontological resources may be impacted by
project development, a Paleontological Resources Impact
Mitigation Program (PRIMP) shall be prepared prior to
124 6/2/2020
commencement of any grading activity on site, and approved by the
Director of Planning, or designee.
The PRIMP shall be prepared by a paleontologist who is listed on
the County of Orange list of certified paleontologists, and shall
include the methods that will be used to protect paleontological
resources that may exist within the Project site, as well as
procedures for monitoring, fossil preparation and identification,
curation into a repository, and preparation of a report at the
conclusion of grading. The PRIMP shall be consistent with the
guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010).
The paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall attend one pre -
construction meeting in order to explain the mitigation measures
associated with the Project, the potential for encountering
paleontological resources, and the types of resources that may be
found.
Ground -disturbing activities in deposits with high paleontological
sensitivity shall be monitored by a paleontological monitor following
the PRIMP. Spot check monitoring is required for ground
disturbance in deposits with low paleontological sensitivity, and no
paleontological monitoring is required for ground disturbance in
deposits with no paleontological sensitivity. The monitor shall be
equipped to salvage fossils and/or matrix samples as they are
unearthed in order to avoid construction delays. The monitor shall
be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment in the area of
the find in order to allow removal of abundant or large specimens.
In the event that paleontological resources are encountered when a
paleontological monitor is not present, work in the immediate area
of the find shall be redirected and a paleontologist shall be
contacted to assess the find for significance.
Sediments shall be occasionally be spot -screened through one-
eighth to one twentieth- inch mesh screens to determine whether
microfossils exist. If microfossils are encountered, additional
sediment samples (up to 6,000 pounds) shall be collected and
processed through one -twentieth -inch mesh screens to recover
additional fossils.
Collected resources shall be prepared to the point of identification,
identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, cataloged, and
curated into the permanent collections of a scientific institution.
At the conclusion of the monitoring program, a report of findings
shall be prepared to document the results of the monitoring
program. When submitted to the City of San Juan Capistrano
125 6/2/2020
Director of Development Services,
inventory would signify completion
impacts to paleontological resources.
E. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. Accident or Upset
or designee, the report and
of the program to mitigate
Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.8-9.)
Explanation: The purpose of the Phase I ESA is 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.
According to the Phase I ESA, no RECs were observed on the
Project site during the site survey. Historically, the Project site and
surrounding properties were undeveloped until as early as 1938.
The Project site has remained undeveloped. Review of aerial
photography of the Project site and surrounding area depict the
following: in 1967, the channelization of the San Juan Creek
immediately west of the Project site; in 1977, the development of
the mobile home park immediately north of the Project site; in 1994,
the construction of Stonehill Drive along the Project site's southern
boundary; and from 2005 to 2012, the development of multiple
automobile dealerships east of the Project site beyond the railroad.
Based on this information, historic uses of the surrounding
properties are not likely to have resulted in the potential for current
adverse impacts to the Project site's subsurface.
According to the EDR Report, the Project site was not identified on
any federal or State regulatory databases. Four Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act — Small Quantity Generators
(RCRA-SQG) sites39 were identified within the American Society of
Testing and Materials (ASTM) search radii,40 but none of the four
39 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act —Small Quantity Generators (RCRA-
SQG) database includes information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat
and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). Small quantity generators (SQGs) generate between 100 kg and
1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month.
40 Radii distances vary by database and are in accordance with American Society of
Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards.
126 6/2/2020
sites listed include violations. Other sites identified within the ASTM
search radii include the following listings: one EnviroStor Database
(ENVIROSTOR), three Underground Storage Tanks (UST), five
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST), one Statewide
Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS), one
Facility Inventory Database (CA FID UST), one Historical UST,
three Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites List (Historic
CORTESE), seven Aboveground Storage Tanks (AST), and one
Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups (SLIC). The Phase I
ESA concluded that the potential for environmental impact to the
Project site from any of the off-site facilities identified in the EDR
Report appears to be low due to several factors: distance from the
Project site; status of the case; remedial efforts that are currently
being directed by a regulatory agency; and/or the identification of
responsible parties has occurred.
Based on site reconnaissance and the above database research,
no chemicals, solvents, or petroleum products were identified on
the Project site, and historic uses do not indicate the usage of such
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). No off-site sources were
identified that had the potential of impacting the Project site.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, it was determined that the
presence of VOCs is not likely.
Construction. Construction activities associated with the proposed
Project would include site preparation activities, building
construction, paving, and planting of ornamental landscaping.
Additionally, an above-ground diesel tank, designed with double
walls and a containment vessel, would be installed on-site and
provide fuel for the vehicle fleet. During operation of the proposed
Project, the diesel fueling station would be required to be operated
in compliance with all applicable State and federal regulations
governing the handling of diesel fuels. In addition, the station would
meet all NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) requirements and incorporate Structural Source Control
BMPs in the fueling area.
In the unlikely event that unknown hazardous materials are
discovered on site during project construction, the Project
contractor would be required to notify the OCFA, who would then
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.
127 6/2/2020
The Project site is occasionally used as an illegal dump site for
trash and construction debris. As such, there is potential that site
demolition and grading could expose construction personnel to
hazardous materials and release hazardous materials into the
environment unless proper procedures to minimize risks are
implemented. Due to the unknown nature of potentially occurring
hazardous materials on site, their discovery during construction
could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
The project would be constructed in compliance with proper
responses, procedures, and best practices to minimize risks to
construction personnel and to the environment in the unlikely event
debris and waste encountered on the Project site are determined to
be hazardous. However, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, Contingency
Plan, is proposed to ensure that procedures for handling unknown
hazardous materials during construction are incorporated in the
Project. The contingency plan would minimize the risk of a
potentially adverse impact to construction personnel on site and to
the environment in the event hazardous materials are encountered
during construction. Adherence to this mitigation measure will
reduce project -related hazardous materials impacts to a less than
significant level. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-9 through 4.8-10.)
Mitigation Measures
MM HAZA Construction Contingency Plan. Prior to commencement of site
preparation or 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 grading 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,
and prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Project Applicant
shall submit written notification of the approval to the Director of the
City of San Juan Capistrano's Development Service Department, or
designee.
128 6/2/2020
Impacts related to the discovery of unknown hazardous materials during construction
would be less than significant after implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.
F. NOISE
1. Noise Standards
Threshold: Would the Project result in the generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
Finding, Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.11-11.)
Explanation: Construction Noise Impacts. Construction noise associated with
the proposed Project would be temporary and would vary
depending on the nature of the activities being performed. Noise
generated would primarily be associated with the operation of off-
road equipment for on-site construction activities as well as
construction vehicle traffic on surrounding roadways. Construction
noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the
nature or phase of construction (e.g., land clearing, grading,
excavation, paving). Other primary sources of acoustical
disturbance would be random incidents, such as dropping large
pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts.
During construction, exterior noise levels could negatively affect
residences in the vicinity of the construction site. The closest
residences are located adjacent to the northern boundary of the
Project site. Noise levels associated with individual construction
equipment are summarized in Table 4.11.G (found at Draft EIR, p.
4.11-11).
As depicted in Table 4.11.G (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.11-11), noise
levels generated by individual pieces of construction equipment
typically range from approximately 70.0 dBA Leq to 82.0 dBA Lea
at 50 feet. Noise levels associated with construction projects can
vary, depending on the activities performed. Short-term increases
in vehicle traffic, including worker commute trips and haul truck
trips, may also result in temporary increases in ambient noise
levels.
During project construction, exterior noise levels could affect
sensitive receptors in the vicinity. The residential mobile home park
to the north of the site could be exposed to temporary and
intermittent noise levels of 82 dBA Leq with Lmax events even
129 6/2/2020
louder (the nearest residence at the mobile home park is
approximately 60 feet from the proposed construction area).
The City of San Juan Capistrano General Plan contains Noise
Element Policy 1.2, which requires noise control measures in areas
of new construction and Noise Element Policy 3.1, which requires
the reduction of noise associated with noise -producing activities,
such as construction activities on noise -sensitive land uses. Project
construction activities would occur within San Juan Capistrano and
the City's Municipal Code exempts construction noise from noise
standards provided that construction is limited to the hours of 7:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between the hours of
8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction noise occurring
on Sundays or federal holidays is not exempt from noise standards.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure N01-1, which requires
compliance with the construction hours specified in the City's Noise
Ordinance (Section 9-3.531, Noise Standards [Residential and
Nonresidential]), would reduce construction noise impacts.
Additionally, Mitigation Measure N0I-2 includes noise attenuation
measures to reduce construction noise generated at sensitive
receivers. With implementation of Mitigation Measure N01-1 and
N0I-2, construction noise impacts would be reduced to a less than
significant level. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-10 through 4.11-11.)
Mitigation Measures
MM N0I-1 Construction Hours. Prior to issuance of demolition or grading
permits, the Project Applicant shall submit grading and construction
plans for review and approval by the City of San Juan Capistrano's
(City) Director of Development Services, or designee. The plans
shall include a condition that the construction contractor shall limit
all construction -related activities between the hours of 7:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m., Monday 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.
MM N0I-2 Short -Term Construction Noise. Prior to issuance of construction
permits, the Project Applicant shall submit project improvement and
building plans for review and approval by the City's Director of
Development Services, or designee. These construction plans shall
include the following requirements for construction activities.
Construction contracts must specify that all construction
equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly
operating and maintained mufflers and other State -required
noise attenuation devices.
130 6/2/2020
A sign, legible at a distance of 50 feet, shall be posted at the
Project construction site providing a contact name and a
telephone number where residents can inquire about the
construction process and register compiaints. This sign shall
indicate the dates and duration of construction activities. In
conjunction with this required posting, a noise disturbance
coordinator will be identified to address construction noise
concerns received. The coordinator shall be responsible for
responding to any local complaints about construction noise.
When a complaint is received, the disturbance coordinator shall
notify the City within 24 hours of the complaint and determine
the cause of the noise complaint (starting too early,
malfunctioning muffler, etc.) and shall implement reasonable
measures to resolve the complaint, as deemed acceptable by
the City. All signs posted at the construction site shall include
the contact name and the telephone number for the noise
disturbance coordinator. Construction equipment shall be
prohibited from idling for longer than 5 minutes. After five
minutes of idling equipment shall be shut off.
• In order to maximize the distance between construction
equipment staging areas and the sensitive noise receivers north
of the Project site, all equipment staging areas and material
storage areas shall be placed within the southern portion of the
site, as far from these receivers as possible.
• The use of electric air compressors and similar power tools shall
be employed to the maximum extent feasible.
• During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be
placed such that emitted noise is directed away from the
sensitive noise receivers north of the Project site and the use of
temporary acoustic barriers around stationary equipment shall
be implemented at all times.
• The temporary storage of earth material excavated from the site
shall be positioned in a manner to function as a noise barrier
between the sensitive noise receivers north of the Project site
and the active portions of the construction site, to the extent
feasible.
Proposed project "Pole Shed 6B" and "L -Shed 7B" shall be the
first buildings constructed on site in order to provide a barrier
between the sensitive noise receivers north of the Project site
and the rest of the construction site. When built, these buildings
would collectively be approximately 500 feet long and reach
approximately 20 feet in height.
131 6/2/2020
G. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources 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 resource
determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth
in Public Resources Code section 5024.1?
Finding: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.13-5.)
Explanation: As noted above, a Cultural Resources Survey, a SLF through the
NAHC, and AB 52 Native American consultation were conducted
for the proposed Project. The purpose of these efforts was to
identify known tribal cultural resources on or near the Project site.
No cultural resources were identified as part of the records search
and field survey conducted as part of the Cultural Resources
Survey. Similarly, the SLF search and the AB 52 consultation
process did not present any evidence that the proposed Project
would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, as defined in PRC section 21074. Although
there is no evidence of tribal cultural resources on the City, the City
requires monitoring for development projects in culturally sensitive
areas. Due to the location of the Project site in an area near the
San Juan Creek, which was previously occupied by the Juanefio
village of Toovannga, the Project area is considered potentially
sensitive for tribal cultural resources. As such, monitoring by an
archaeological monitor under the supervision of an Orange County
Certified Archaeologist and by a Native American representative is
required (see Mitigation Measure CUL -1 in Section 4.4., Cultural
Resources, of the Draft EIR). Mitigation Measures CUL -1 and
CUL -2 would reduce any potential impacts to previously
undiscovered tribal cultural resources to a less than significant
level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-6.)
H. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
1. Wastewater Treatment Requirements
132 6/2/2020
Threshold: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Fi_ndiriLess than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.14-18.)
Explanation: The proposed Project would allow for the development of a lumber
yard and hardware store, drive-through restaurant uses, and a
crushed rock gravel area for long-term vehicle storage. As part of
the Project, water, wastewater, storm drain, electricity, natural gas,
and telecommunications improvements would be implemented at
the Project site and immediate vicinity. As such, the proposed
Project may create the need for new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
Water. The City would provide domestic water service; however, an
annexation of the City's water utilities to the SMWD is pending. The
proposed Project would connect to an existing 12 -inch water main
within Stonehill Drive. This water main would not need to be
relocated. As part of the proposed Project, water lines would be
installed throughout the Project site and would connect with the
existing main in Stonehill Drive. These water lines would provide
domestic water service. The proposed Project would increase
demand for water as compared to existing conditions, and on-site
infrastructure is required for project implementation.
Construction. Short-term demand for water may occur during
excavation, grading, and 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 completion of construction. Overall water demand during
construction activities would be minimal and is not expected to
have any adverse impacts on the existing water system and
available water supplies. Therefore, impacts associated with short-
term construction activities would not require or result in the
construction of new water treatment facilities or the expansion of
existing facilities, and construction of the proposed Project would
not require the need for new or expanded water entitlements. No
mitigation is required.
Operation. An increase in long-term demand for water is
anticipated to occur during operation of the proposed Project. Due
133 6/2/2020
to the undeveloped nature of the site, there is no current water
demand. As shown in Table 4.14.8 of the Draft EIR, the proposed
Project would result in a demand of approximately 16,190 gpd
(5,908,985 gpy or 18.1 afy) of water, which is 16,190 gpd greater
than the current water usage on site.
Because the proposed Project would result in a relatively low
increase in overall water demand in the City, it could result in the
need to provide new or expanded water facilities.
The proposed Project includes the installation of water
infrastructure which would be constructed by the developer, built to
the City's Utility Department standards and dedicated to the Utility
Department. The proposed Project would include a connection to
the existing 12-inch public water line located in Stonehill Drive,
which is owned and operated by the City. In order to confirm that
there is sufficient water distribution infrastructure to accommodate
the Project's water needs and fire flow requirements, Mitigation
Measure UTLA is proposed and requires preparation of a Water
Capacity Study. 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. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure
UTLA, impacts to water are considered less than significant.
In its existing condition, the Project site does not contain any fire
suppression facilities, such as fire hydrants or fire lanes. Fire
suppression facilities, including dedicated pipes for fire service, fire
department connectors, six on-site fire hydrants, and a fire riser
would be installed as part of the proposed Project. In accordance
with Chapter 10, Section 2808.12, Water Availability, of the City's
Municipal Code„ minimum fire flow would be no less than 500 gpm
at 20 psi for a minimum of 1 hour duration for pile heights up to 6
feet and 2 hour duration for pile heights1 over 6 feet.
As 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
(Regulatory Compliance Measure UTL-1). Incorporation of these
water conservation measures would reduce the water demands of
the proposed Project. The project would also be required to comply
with Regulatory Compliance Measure UTL-2, which requires the
Project Applicant to pay a Domestic Water Fee to further reduce
impacts related to water demand.
134 6/2/2020
Therefore, given that the proposed Project would comply with the
State's standard requirements for water facility and infrastructure
planning, existing water entitlements, project compliance with
recommendations in the Water Capacity Study (via implementation
of Mitigation Measure UTL-1), the City's Utility Department or the
SMWD (whichever agency is providing water utility service at the
time) would be able to accommodate the Project -generated
increase in water demand. The project's impacts related to water
conveyance and distribution would be less than significant with
mitigation incorporated.
Wastewater. Wastewater collection for the proposed Project
would be provided by the City's sanitary sewer system,
which connects to trunk sewers operated by the South
Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA). It should
be noted that an annexation of the City's wastewater utilities
to the SMWD is pending. Wastewater generated by the
proposed Project would be delivered to and treated at the
J.B. Latham Plant in the City of Dana Point. As discussed
above, the J.B. Latham Treatment Plant has a total design
capacity of 13 mgd and currently treats an average
wastewater flow of 6.7 mgd. Therefore, the plant is currently
operating at approximately 52 percent of its daily design
capacity. Implementation of the proposed Project would
result in the extension of sewer lines. Sewer pipes and
sewer cleanout systems would be installed within the
boundaries of the Project site and within the public right-of-
way along Stonehill Drive.
The Project site is currently undeveloped and does not
generate any wastewater in its existing condition. A sewer
line would be installed within the proposed northern
easement, beginning on the adjacent mobile home park
property, traversing the Project site, and terminating at Area
A. In addition, sewer improvements may require a pump
system due to the length and lack of fall. An 8 -inch sewer
pipe would be installed within the public right-of-way in
Stonehill Drive and connected to sewer lines installed within
the Project site.
Construction. No significant increase in wastewater
flow is anticipated as a result of construction activities
on the Project site. Sanitary services during
construction would be provided by portable toilet
facilities, which transport waste off-site for treatment
and disposal. Therefore, during construction, potential
impacts to wastewater treatment and wastewater
135 6/2/2020
conveyance infrastructure would be less than
significant, and no mitigation would be required.
Operation. Project development would include the
construction of lumber yard and hardware store,
drive-through restaurant uses, and a crushed -rock
gravel area for long-term vehicle storage.
Implementation of the proposed Project is anticipated
to result in an increase in wastewater generation
during operation. In its existing condition, the Project
site is undeveloped and does not generate
wastewater. As shown in Table 4.14.0 (found at Draft
EIR, p. 4.14-14), the proposed Project is estimated to
generate approximately 22,584 gpd (8,243,160 gpy)
of wastewater. The estimated increase in wastewater
associated with the proposed Project would represent
0.17 percent of the J.B. Latham Plant's daily
capacity41 and 0.4 percent of the Plant's daily
remaining capacity.42 The increase of wastewater
generated by the proposed Project is a small
percentage, and would be accommodated within the
existing design capacity of the Treatment Plant, which
currently accepts 52 percent of its daily capacity.
The J.B. Latham Plant operates in compliance with
the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB)'s treatment requirements and has the
capacity to accommodate the increased wastewater
flows from the proposed Project. Furthermore, as
required on Mitigation Measure UTL-2, preparation
of a Sewer Feasibility Study is required so that the
City or SIVIWD (whichever agency is providing
wastewater utility service at the time) can confirm and
ensure that there is sufficient capacity in the local and
trunk lines existing in Stonehill Drive to accommodate
the wastewater (Mitigation Measure UTL-2). In the
unlikely event that the public sewer has insufficient
capacity, the Project Applicant would be required to
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
41 22,584 gpd = 0.023 mgd; 0.023 mgd / 13 mgd = 0.17 percent of daily total capacity
42 0.023 mgd / 6.7 mgd = 0.35 or 0.4 percent of daily remaining capacity
136 6/2/2020
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 less than significant. The
proposed Project would also be required to adhere to
Regulatory Compliance Measure UTL3, which
requires the Project 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 existing facilities which would cause
significant environmental impacts. Project impacts
related to expansion and operation of wastewater
treatment facilities would, therefore, be less than
significant with implementation of Mitigation
Measure UTL-2.
Stormwater Drainage. The capacity of the downstream
storm drain network is dependent on peak discharge rates
entering the system. As discussed further in Section 4.9,
Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, the Project
site is currently undeveloped and consists of pervious
surfaces. In its existing condition, stormwater runoff from the
Project site currently outflows to San Juan Creek, which is
immediately west of the site. From there, receiving waters
include the San Juan Groundwater Basin and the Pacific
Ocean. The San Juan Groundwater Basin collects
stormwater runoff, and has a capacity of 41,375 of of water
per year.43
Implementation of the proposed Project would increase the
impervious surface area on the Project site, which would
contribute to an increase in stormwater runoff as compared
to existing conditions. The proposed Project would include
the installation of a stormwater runoff system, permeable
paving, and a swale to support stormwater management on
the Project site. Pervious areas of the Project site would
contain landscaping that would minimize on-site erosion and
siltation by stabilizing the soil.
Stormwater improvements would include installation of a
storm drain line to allow for the continued conveyance of
stormwater from the railroad property to the east of the
Project site to the existing on-site storm drain outfall, and to
43 Wildermuth Environmental Inc. 2015. Analysis of Storage in the San Juan
Groundwater Basin. November 18, 2015.
137 6/2/2020
ultimately be conveyed into the San Juan Creek Channel.
Because the City has indicated that this storm drain line
should not be a public line, a private line easement would be
required. Installation of the deceleration lane on Stonehill
Drive would require relocation of the existing catch basin
along Stonehill Drive near the existing Project site driveway.
A storm drain would be constructed within the proposed
northern utility easement, beginning at Avenida Aeropuerto,
traversing the Project site, and terminating at Area A.
As specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure WQ-4,
the Project would be required to prepare a Final Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which would specify the
Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be
implemented to target pollutants of concern in runoff from
the Project site. Because the proposed BMPs would also
reduce stormwater runoff, the Project would not exceed the
capacity of the downstream storm drain lines or result in off-
site flooding. Additionally, as specified in Regulatory
Compliance Measure WQ-5, a Final Hydrology and
Hydraulics Analysis would be prepared for the Project to
confirm that the on-site storm drains, on-site detention
systems, and any other drainage structures are appropriately
sized to accommodate stormwater runoff from the Project
site so that the capacity of downstream storm drain facilities
would not be exceeded. Therefore, development of the
Project would not require or result in the construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities or the expansion of existing
facilities which would cause significant environmental
impacts. Project impacts related to expansion and operation
of wastewater treatment facilities would, therefore, be less
than significant.
Electricity. The proposed Project includes connection to the
existing SDG&E lines surrounding the Project site and
extension of the surrounding electrical system throughout
the site. Electrical utility lines would be connected to existing
boxes located at the perimeter of the Project site along
Stonehill Drive. Installation of the deceleration lane on
Stonehill Drive would require relocation of the existing utility
lines. In compliance with the City's Municipal Code (Section
9-4.529 Utility Undergrounding), all proposed electrical
utilities would be undergrounded. A discussion of electricity
use during construction and operation of the proposed
Project is included below.
138 6/2/2020
Construction. Short-term construction activities
would be limited to providing power to the staging
area and portable construction equipment and would
not substantially increase demand for electricity.
Heavy equipment used for construction is primarily
powered by diesel fuel. Temporary electric power
would be provided via an existing utility pole located
Stonehill Drive along the Project site's current access
driveway. Given the limited potential demand for
electricity during construction, impacts to regional
electricity supplies would be less than significant.
Operation. Operation of the proposed Project would
increase on-site electricity demand compared to
existing conditions. Due to the undeveloped nature of
the Project site in its existing condition, there is no
current electricity usage on the Project site.
As discussed in Section 4.5, Energy, of the Draft EIR,
the proposed Project is estimated to consume a total
of 1,840,033 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year.
Therefore, the proposed Project would require an
increase of approximately 1,840,033 kwh of electricity
per year compared to existing conditions.
The proposed Project will reduce electricity
consumption by incorporating the following energy
efficiency measures in the design:
■ Increased insulation values in walls
• Controlling energy losses in the HVAC system
(specifying high SEER rated equipment and
reducing duct leakage)
• Incorporate high efficiency windows and doors
• Installing highly efficient lighting and lighting
control systems
In February 2018, the California Energy Commission
(CEC) published the final California Energy Demands
for 2018 through 2030.44 Electricity consumption (and
supply) in the SDG&E service area is projected to
reach between 21,500 gigawatt -hours (gWh) in the
low -demand scenario and 22,000 gWh in the high -
44 California Energy Commission. 2018c. California Energy Demand, 2018-2030
Revised Forecast. February.Website:
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=223244 (accessed July 9, 2019).
139 6/2/2020
demand scenario by 2020. Based on the CEC's
projections for the SDG&E service area in 2020, the
maximum project -related annual consumption of 1.8
gWh45 of electricity per year would represent
approximately 0.01 percent46 of the forecasted
average energy load in the year 2020. Therefore, the
proposed Project's maximum project -related annual
electric consumption would be within the SDG&E
forecasted demand. Moreover, the proposed Project
is consistent with the General Plan designation of
Quasi -Industrial for the Project site. As such,
projections for future electricity demand anticipated
the proposed land use. The relationship between
supply and demand involves the availability of energy
resources and the net incremental demand generated
by a given project or service area. Service providers
utilize demand forecasts in order to provide an
adequate supply or plan for surplus in the service
area. Due to the inability of service providers to store
electricity for future demand, the supply and delivery
of electricity to customers is directly based on
demand projections. Therefore, because the
proposed Project would only represent a small
fraction of projected demand, and because the
Project would be consistent with the General Plan
land uses anticipated for the site, the proposed
Project would be within the projected SDG&E
electrical power demand and supply.
The supply and distribution network within the area
surrounding the Project site would remain unchanged,
and would be expanded throughout the Project site.
The proposed Project would not increase electrical
demand beyond existing projections from the CEC
and SDG&E. The Project site is in an area with
existing demand, and the demand generated by the
proposed Project is typical of the area and within the
normal capabilities of SDG&E. Therefore, the
proposed Project would not require the construction of
any physical improvements related to the provision of
electricity service that would result in significant
environmental impacts and the Project's potential
45 1,840,033 kilowatt = 1.840033 gigawatt (gWh) or approximately 1.8 gWh.
46 The average peak electricity demand in 2020 would be 20,000 gWh. 1.8 gWh /
20,000 gWh = 0.00009 or 0.01 percent.
140 6/2/2020
impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation
is required.
Natural Gas. Gas distribution services would be extended
through the Project site and would be responsible for
construction connections to these distribution facilities.
Construction. Short-term construction activities
would not result in demand for natural gas since
construction activities/equipment would not require
natural gas supplies. Therefore, construction activities
would have no impact related to natural gas services,
and the proposed Project would not require new or
physically altered gas transmission facilities. No
mitigation is required.
Operation. Operation of the proposed Project would
result in increased demand for natural gas compared
to existing conditions. Due to the undeveloped nature
of the site, there is no existing natural gas usage on-
site. The estimated natural gas demands of the
proposed Project as provided in Section 4.5, Energy
is 19,536 therms/year. Therefore, the proposed
Project would require an increase of approximately
19,536 therms of natural gas per year compared to
existing conditions. A natural gas line would be
installed within the proposed northern easement,
beginning at Avenida Aeropuerto, traversing the
Project site, and terminating at Area A. Electrical
conduits, transformers, switch pads, capacity pads,
emergency transformer diesel generators, and pull
boxes would be constructed throughout the Project
site.
Based on CEC projections for the SDG&E service
area, the 2024 forecasted low -demand and high -
demand scenarios were approximately 540 million
therms and 560 million therms, respectively.47 By
2030, the forecasted low -demand scenario is
anticipated to be approximately 560 million therms
and the high -demand scenario is anticipated to be
approximately 600 million therms. Service providers
47 California Energy Commission. 2018c. California Energy Demand 2018-2030 Revised
Forecast. Figure 73, https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=223244
(accessed July 9, 2019).
141 6/2/2020
utilize demand forecasts in order to provide an
adequate supply or plan for surplus in the service
area. Because natural gas demand for the SDG&E
service area is expected to increase overall, and
because the proposed Project would only represent a
small fraction of projected demand for natural gas, the
proposed Project would be within the projected
demand for through all forecasted years.
Furthermore, the proposed Project would be
consistent with the General Plan designation of
Quasi -Industrial for the site. As such, projections for
future natural gas demand anticipated the proposed
land use. Existing natural gas facilities are expected
to have adequate capacity to serve the proposed
Project.
Therefore, the supply and distribution network within
the area surrounding the Project site would remain
unchanged, with the exception of standard on-site
improvements. Levels of service to off-site users
would not be adversely affected. Natural gas service
to the Project would be provided and maintained by
SDG&E through existing and extended gas facilities.
The Project site is in an area with existing demand,
and the demand generated by the proposed Project is
typical of the area and within the normal capabilities
of SDG&E. The proposed Project would not increase
natural gas demand beyond existing projections. The
estimated increase in natural gas demand associated
with the proposed Project would represent a very
small fraction of the forecast natural gas demand.
With the incorporation of Regulatory Compliance
Measure UTL-1, which would require the Project to
comply with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards (Title 24), project -related impacts to natural
gas generation would be further minimized.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not require the
construction of any physical improvements related to
the provision of natural gas service that would result
in significant environmental impacts and the Project's
potential impacts would be less than significant. No
mitigation is required.
Telecommunications Facilities. Telephone, cable, and
internet services existing within the Project area would be
extended into the Project site at the Project site's main
entrance driveway along Stonehill Drive. As part of the
142 6/2/2020
proposed Project, a telephone line with associated riser pull
box will be installed per telephone company requirements
within the Project site near the access driveway on Stonehill
Drive. Telecommunication utility lines would be connected to
existing boxes located at the perimeter of the Project site
along Stonehill Drive. Installation of the deceleration lane on
Stonehill Drive would require relocation of the existing utility
lines. The project Applicant will be responsible for
constructing adequate telecommunication facility extensions
to the various structures on the Project site. Additionally,
cable box locations will be carefully planned and coordinated
with the utility company, the landscape architect, and the
Developer to be unobtrusive and screened from public view
where possible.
The construction and expansion of these facilities would
occur on site during the site preparation and earthwork
phase and are not expected to impact any off-site telephone,
cable, or internet services that serve the surrounding areas.
Therefore, the proposed impacts associated with the
relocation or construction of new or expanded
telecommunication facilities, and impacts would be less than
significant. No mitigation is required. (Final EIR, pp. 4.14-11
through 4.14-19.)
Reaulatory Comoliance Measures
RCM UTL-1 Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Prior to
issuance of building permits, the City of San Juan Capistrano (City)
Director of Development Services, or designee, shall ensure that
the Project design complies with the 2019 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations
[CCR]) energy conservation and green building standards.
RCM-UTL-2 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.
RCM-UTL-3 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.
143 6/2/2020
Mitigation Measures
MM UTLA Water Capacity Study. Prior to issuance of a grading or building
permit, the Project Applicant shall submit a Water Capacity Study
prepared by a qualified civil engineer to the City of San Juan
Capistrano City Engineer or the Santa Margarita Water District
Engineer (whichever agency is providing water utility service at the
time), or designee, for review and approval. The Water Capacity
Study shall include a review of the existing water distribution
system that would serve the Project site to confirm that it has
available capacity to convey the water required by the proposed
Project's uses. Any required improvements shall be identified in the
Water Capacity Study. The analysis, conclusions, and
recommendations in the Water Capacity Study shall be based on
final design plans and shall be consistent with all applicable City (or
Santa Margarita Water District) requirements. In the event a water
supply line deficiency is identified in the Water Capacity Study, the
Project Applicant shall pay a fair -share portion of the cost to
improve or replace water lines to ensure sufficient capacity.
MM UTL-2 Sewer Feasibility Study. Prior to issuance of a grading or building
permit, the Project Applicant shall submit a Sewer Feasibility Study
prepared by a qualified civil engineer to the City of San Juan
Capistrano City Engineer or the Santa Margarita Water District
Engineer (whichever agency is providing sewer service at the time),
or designee, for review and approval. The Sewer Feasibility Study
shall include a review of the existing sewer system that would serve
the Project site to confirm that it has available capacity to accept
the wastewater flow generated by the proposed Project's uses. Any
required improvements shall be identified in the Sewer Feasibility
Study. The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations in the
Sewer Feasibility Study shall be based on final design plans and
shall be consistent with all applicable City (or Santa Margarita
Water District) requirements. In the event that the Sewer Feasibility
Study identifies insufficient sewer capacity to serve the proposed
Project, the Project Applicant would be required to pay a fair -share
portion of the cost to improve or replace sewer lines to ensure
sufficient capacity.
SECTION IV
IMPACTS THAN CANNOT BE FULLY MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
LEVEL
144 6/2/2020
The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of Mitigation
Measures identified in the EIR and in these Findings, the following environmental
impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations is therefore included herein:
A. TRANSPORTATION
1. Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-19.)
Explanation:
Operation. The proposed Project would be required to comply with
General Plan policies addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The Project
would also be required to comply with City Council Policy No. 310,
which establishes metrics for determining traffic impacts, and
consistent transportation related goals and policies in the City's
General Plan. The project's consistency with these plans is
described in detail below.
Conformance with the General Plan. The proposed
Project would be required to comply with transportation
related goals and policies in the City's General Plan (refer to
Section 4.12.3.4, of the Draft EIR, for a list of goals and
policies applicable to the proposed Project) as described
below.
Vehicle access to the Project site will be provided via a
proposed signalized driveway at Stonehill Drive and the
southwestern corner of the Project site.48 Due to the
proximity of the proposed signal to the existing signal at
Camino Capistrano/Stonehill Drive, the signal would be
coordinated to minimize vehicle delays, stops, and queuing.
A deceleration lane in the westbound direction would be
constructed on Stonehill Drive to enhance safety and traffic
flow for right -turn access to the Project site. An LOS analysis
was conducted at the proposed traffic signal at Stonehill
481installation of the proposed signal is included as part of the project because of the
results of a peak -hour traffic signal warrant analysis, which concluded installation of a
traffic signal would be warranted under the Existing Plus Project condition.
145 6/2/2020
Drive and the southwestern corner of the Project site, which
confirmed that this intersection would operate at LOS C or
better during both peak hours using the ICU and HCM
methodologies.
In addition to adding a signal at the intersection of the
Project Driveway and Stonehill Drive, the Project would also
connect the Project site to nearby sidewalks and bicycle
routes on Stonehill Drive through the installation of new
sidewalks that would travel from Stonehill Drive to the
Project Driveway and internal parking areas. The Project
would also allow for the continuation of existing on -street
(Class II) bike lanes provided on Camino Capistrano (east of
the Project site), Stonehill Drive (west of the Project site),
and Del Obispo Street (west of the Project site). These
existing bicycle lanes also serve to connect the Project area
with the San Juan Creek Trail (west of the site) and
surrounding residential, employment, commercial, and
recreational destinations. As such, the Project would be
consistent with the City's goals of proving a circulation
system that meets the needs of the community and
minimizing conflict between vehicles, pedestrians,
equestrians, and bicycles (Circulation Element Goals 1 and
4). In addition, the installation of the proposed signal would
be consistent with the City's intention of installing street
improvements within areas where necessary to improve
safety and improving the circulation system in concert with
land development (Circulation Element Policies 1.1 and 4.3).
As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with
applicable provisions in the City's General Plan Circulation
Element.
Conformance with Administration Policy No. 310. City
Council Policy No. 310 requires development projects to
conduct a transportation impact analysis to analyze
conformance with the transportation strategies, goals, and
policies in the General Plan and address adverse impacts to
the transportation system.
In order to assess the Project's consistency with City
Administrative Policy 310, a trip generation analysis was first
conducted to determine the number of trips that would occur
following implementation of the Project. As shown in Table
4.12.D (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.12-14), the Project has the
potential to generate approximately 3,486 ADT, including
312 trips (168 inbound and 144 outbound) in the a.m. peak
146 6/2/2020
hour and 219 trips (103 inbound and 116 outbound) in the
p.m. peak hour.
In order to determine impacts at roadway intersections
associated with implementation of the Project (i.e., the
Existing Plus Project condition), the results of the trip
generation analysis for the proposed Project were added to
existing baseline traffic volumes at the study area
intersections. Tables 4.12.E and 4.12.E (found at Draft EIR,
pp. 4.12-16 through 4.12-17) summarize the results of the
Existing Plus Project peakhour LOS analysis using the ICU
and HCM methodologies, respectively. As shown in Table
4.12.E, all study area intersections, including the hot -spot
intersections, are anticipated to operate at satisfactory LOS
based on the ICU methodology. As shown in Table 4.12.F,
all study area intersections, including the hot -spot
intersections, are anticipated to operate at satisfactory LOS
based on the HCM methodology. Therefore, a significant
impact would not occur at any study area intersection based
on the ICU and HCM methodologies. No mitigation would be
required.
In addition to assessing project impacts on roadway
intersections, project -related impacts to roadway segments
were also evaluated for conformance with City
Administrative Policy No. 310. As part of this assessment,
the trip generation results for the proposed Project were
added to existing baseline traffic volumes at study area
roadway segments. Existing Plus Project roadway segment
ADT volumes, v/c ratios, and LOS are presented in Table
4.12.G (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.12-17). As Table 4.12.G
indicates, all study area roadway segments, including the
hot -spot roadways, are anticipated to operate at satisfactory
LOS with the Project, with the exception of Stonehill Drive
between Camino Capistrano and the Project Driveway (LOS
E), Stonehill Drive between the Project Driveway and Del
Obispo Street (LOS D), and Valle Road between San Juan
Creek Road and the 1-5 northbound ramps (LOS F). The v/c
ratios for Stonehill Drive between Camino Capistrano and
the Project Driveway and between the Project Driveway and
Del Obispo Street would increase by 0.069 and 0.017,
respectively, in the Existing Plus Project condition. These
are considered significant unavoidable impacts because
there is no available right-of-way as a feasible improvement
to widen Stonehill Drive to provide additional roadway
capacity. However, the v/c ratio does not increase by 0.01 or
greater for Valle Road between San Juan Creek Road and
147 6/2/2020
the 1-5 northbound ramps in the Existing Plus Project
condition. Although a significant project impact would occur
at two study area roadway segments (Stonehill Drive
between Camino Capistrano and the Project Driveway and
between the Project Driveway and Del Obispo Street), a
peak -hour link analysis shows that each segment would
operate at satisfactory LOS in both directions during the
peak hours.
In summary, the Project would result in conflicts with City
Administrative Policy No. 310 due to project -related
significant unavoidable impacts to roadway segments in the
Existing Plus Project Condition. No mitigation is available to
reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore,
impacts to roadway segments would remain significant and
unavoidable following implementation of the proposed
Project. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-13 through 4.12-19.)
SECTION V
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Regarding the Project's potential to result in cumulative impacts, the City hereby
finds as follows:
A. AESTHETICS
As defined in Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the
incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of
past, current, and probable future projects within the cumulative impact area for
aesthetics. The cumulative impact area for aesthetics related to the proposed Project is
the City of San Juan Capistrano. Several residential and commercial development
projects are approved and/or pending within the City. Each of these projects, as well as
all proposed development in the City, would be subject to its own consistency analysis
for policies and regulations governing scenic quality and would be reviewed for
consistency with General Plan goals and policies and Zoning Code development
standards. If there were any potential for significant impacts to aesthetics, appropriate
mitigation measures would be identified to reduce and/or avoid impacts related to
aesthetics.
For the reasons outlined in Section 4.1.6, Project Impacts, of the Draft EIR,
implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a significant cumulative
impact related to aesthetics. The proposed Project and all related projects are required
to adhere to City and State regulations designed to reduce and/or avoid impacts related
to aesthetics. With compliance with these regulations, cumulative impacts related to
aesthetics would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed
Project would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to aesthetics. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.1-14.)
148 6/2/2020
B. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
The Project would have no impact on agriculture and forestry resources. (Appendix A
[Initial Study], pp. 4-6 through 4-8.) As a result, no cumulative impact would occur.
C. AIR QUALITY
As defined in Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the
incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of
past, current, and probable future projects within the cumulative impact area for air
quality. The cumulative impact area for air quality related to the proposed Project is the
Basin.
Air pollution is inherently a cumulative impact measured across an air basin. The
discussion under Threshold 4.2.2, of the Draft EIR, includes an analysis of the proposed
Project's contribution to cumulative air impacts. To summarize the conclusion with
respect to that analysis, the incremental effect of projects that do not exceed the
Project -specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively considerable
per SCAQMD guidelines. The proposed Project's construction- and operation -related
regional daily emissions are less than the SCAQMD significance thresholds for all
criteria pollutants. In addition, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations on a
project -by -project basis would substantially reduce potential impacts associated with the
related projects and basin wide air pollutant emissions. Therefore, the proposed Project
would not have a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions, and the proposed
Project's cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is
required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-21 through 4.2-22.)
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
As defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental
effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past,
current, and probable future projects within the cumulative impact area for biological
resources. The Project site is undeveloped and is located in the City of San Juan
Capistrano; therefore, the cumulative area for biological impacts is the City. The Project
site is located within Subarea 4 of the Orange County Southern Subregion Habitat
Conservation Plan (OCSSHCP), which consists of 33,550 acres in the cities of Rancho
Santa Margarita, Mission Viejo, San Juan Capistrano, and San Clemente.
Approximately 106 acres within Subarea 4 remain undeveloped. The Project site is
located in an area of the OCSSHCP that is identified as "developed" and is outside of
the designated habitat reserve. Therefore, the proposed Project would not contribute to
the loss of natural habitat in the City. Furthermore, as the Project site is located outside
the boundaries of the designated habitat reserve, OCSSHCP regulatory coverage is not
provided for activities associated with the proposed Project. The development of the
proposed Project would not result in the removal of any sensitive habitat species
identified in the OCSSHCP and would not conflict with the provisions outlined in the
OCSSHCP. Therefore, the proposed Project would not contribute to the cumulative loss
149 6/2/2020
of biological resources and impacts on biological resources would be less than
cumulatively significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-14 through 4.3-15.)
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
As defined in Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the
incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of
past, current, and probable future projects within the cumulative impact area for cultural
resources. The cumulative impact area for cultural resources for the proposed Project is
the City of San Juan Capistrano.
Potential impacts of the proposed Project to unknown cultural resources, when
combined with the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the
City of San Juan Capistrano, could contribute to a cumulatively significant impact due to
the overall loss of archaeological artifacts and fossil remains unique to the region.
However, each development proposal received by the City is required to undergo
environmental review pursuant to CEQA. If there were any potential for significant
impacts to archaeological resources, an investigation would be required to determine
the nature and extent of the resources and identify appropriate mitigation measures.
When resources are assessed and/or protected as they are discovered, impacts to
these resources are less than significant.
As such, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -1 and CUL -2 would ensure that
the proposed Project, together with cumulative projects, would not result in a significant
cumulative impact to unique archaeological resources and previously undiscovered
buried human remains. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-8.)
F. ENERGY
The geographic area for electricity is that of the SCE boundaries, while the geographic
area for natural gas service is that of the SoCalGas boundaries. The proposed Project
would result in an increased services demand in electricity and natural gas. Although
the proposed Project would result in a net increase in electricity, this increase would not
require SCE to expand or construct infrastructure that could cause substantial
environmental impacts. The total annual electricity consumption the SCE service area in
2017 was 84,291.6 GWh. By 2030, consumption is anticipated to increase by
approximately 12,000 GWh for the low -demand scenario and by 22,000 GWh for the
high -demand scenario.49 While this forecast represents a large increase in electricity
consumption, the proposed Project's percent of cumulative consumption would
negligible. The proposed Project, in combination with cumulative development, is well
within SCE's system -wide net annual increase in electricity supplies over the 2018 to
49 California Energy Commission. 2018c. California Energy Demand, 2018-2030
Revised Forecast. Publication Number: CEC-200-2018-002-CMF. February. Website
https://efiIing.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=223244 (accessed October 24,
2019)
150 6/2/2020
2030 period, and there are sufficient planned electricity supplies in the region for
estimated net increases in energy demands.
Similarly, additional natural gas infrastructure is not anticipated due to cumulative
development. Total natural gas consumption in the SoCalGas service area in 2018 was
5,156.1 million therms. Between 2018 and 2035, total natural gas consumption in the
SoCalGas service area is forecast to remain steady for the low- and mid -demand
scenarios and to increase by approximately 650 million therms in the high -demand
scenario due to intense energy efficiency efforts.50 The proposed Project's percent of
cumulative consumption of natural gas in the SoCalGas service area would be
negligible. It is anticipated that SoCalGas would be able to meet the natural gas
demand of the related projects without additional facilities. In addition, both SCE and
SoCalGas demand forecasts include the growth contemplated by the proposed Project
and the related projects. Increased energy efficiency to comply with building energy
efficiency standards will reduce energy consumption on a per -square -foot basis. In
addition, utility companies are required to increase their renewable energy sources to
meet the Renewable Portfolio Standards mandate of 60 percent renewable supplies by
2030. SCE and SoCalGas plan to continue to provide reliable service to its customers
and upgrade their distribution systems as necessary to meet future demand.
Transportation energy use would also increase; however, this transportation energy use
would not represent a major amount of energy use when compared to the amount of
existing development and to the total number of vehicle trips and VMT throughout
Orange County and the region. The proposed Project and related projects are required
to comply with various federal and State government legislation to improve energy
efficiency in buildings, equipment, and appliances, and reduce VMT.
Compliance with Regulatory Compliance Measure E-1 would ensure that the
proposed Project does not result in an inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary
consumption of energy. Therefore, the proposed Project's contribution to impacts
related to the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy would not
be cumulatively considerable, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-11
through 4.5-12.)
G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
As defined in Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the
incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of
past, current, and probable future projects within the cumulative impact area for geology
and soils.
For geology and soils, the cumulative study area consists of the area that could be
affected by proposed Project activities and the areas affected by other projects whose
activities could directly or indirectly affect the geology and soils of the Project site. The
50 Ibid,
151 6/2/2020
analysis above indicated no rare or special geological features or soil types on the
Project site that would be affected by project activities and no other known activities or
projects with activities that affect the geology and soils of this site. In addition, the
proposed Project, as with all foreseeable projects, would be required to comply with the
applicable state and local requirements, including the City of San Juan Capistrano
Building Code. Therefore, the Project's contribution to cumulative geotechnical and soil
impacts is less than significant.
For paleontological resources, the cumulative study area is the geographical area of the
City, which is the geographical area covered by the City's General Plan, including all
goals and policies included therein. Future development in the City could include
excavation and grading that could potentially affect paleontological resources. The
cumulative effect of the proposed Project is the continued loss of these resources. The
proposed Project, in conjunction with other development in the City, has the potential to
cumulatively impact paleontological resources; however, it should be noted that each
development proposal received by the City that requires discretionary approval would
be required to undergo environmental review pursuant to CEQA. If there is a potential
for significant impacts to paleontological resources, an investigation would be required
to determine the nature and extent of the resources and identify appropriate mitigation
measures. If subsurface cultural resources are assessed and/or protected as they are
discovered, impacts to these resources would be less than significant. In addition, the
City's General Plan policies would be implemented as appropriate to reduce the effects
of additional development within the City. Therefore, the Project's contribution to the
cumulative destruction of known and unknown paleontological resources throughout the
City would be reduced to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-19.)
H. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
As defined in Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the
incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of
past, current, and probable future projects within the cumulative impact area for GHG
emissions. GHG emissions are global pollutants, and therefore, result in cumulative
impacts by nature. Consequently, it is speculative to determine how an individual
project's GHG emissions would impact California. As such, impacts identified under
Section 4.7.6, Project Impacts, are not project -specific impacts to GCC, but are the
proposed Project's contribution to this cumulative impact. The impact of project -related
GHG emissions would not result is a reasonably foreseeable cumulatively considerable
contribution to GCC. Additionally, the proposed Project, in conjunction with other
cumulative projects, would be subject to all applicable regulatory requirements which
would further reduce GHG emissions. Further, the proposed Project would not conflict
with SCAG's 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. Therefore, the Project's cumulative contribution of
GHG emissions would be less than significant and the Project's cumulative GHG
impacts would also be less than cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-13.)
I. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
As defined in Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the
incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of
152 6/2/2020
past, current, and probable future projects within the cumulative impact area for hazards
and hazardous materials. The cumulative impact area for hazardous materials consists
of: (1) the area that could be affected by proposed Project activities, such as the release
of hazardous materials, and (2) the areas affected by other projects whose activities
could directly or indirectly affect the presence or fate of hazardous materials on the
Project site. Typically, only projects adjacent to or abutting the Project site are
considered because of the limited potential impact area associated with the release of
hazardous materials into the environment. No other projects adjacent to the Project site
are currently under consideration or have been proposed.
The contribution of hazardous materials use and hazardous waste disposal with
implementation of the Project is minimal, and combined hazardous materials effects
from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects within the City and immediate
area would not be significant. The project operation would involve the use of potentially
hazardous materials (e.g., solvents, cleaning agents, paints, pesticides, and diesel and
petroleum fuels), that when used correctly and in compliance with existing laws and
regulations, would not result in a significant hazard to visitors or workers in the vicinity of
the proposed Project. Impacts associated with the potential to encounter unknown
hazardous debris and waste that may exist on site during construction would be
reduced to a less than significant level through adherence to Mitigation Measure HAZ-
1.
Furthermore, the proposed Project and all other projects in the cumulative area are
required to be consistent with the existing regulations related to hazards and hazardous
materials. Consistency with federal, State, and local regulations would prevent the
proposed Project as well as other projects from creating cumulative impacts in terms of
hazards and hazardous materials.
Impacts associated with hazardous soils, hazardous groundwater, and use of
hazardous materials on site would be controlled through application of regulatory
compliance measures. For the reasons outlined above, implementation of the proposed
Project would not result in an incremental contribution to cumulative impacts related to
hazards and hazardous materials that are cumulatively considerable; therefore,
cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts are considered less than
significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-11 through 4.8-12.)
J. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Cumulative development in the San Juan Creek Watershed is a continuation of the
existing urban pattern of development that has already resulted in extensive
modifications to watercourses in the area. The area's watercourses have been
channelized and drainage systems have been put into place to respond to the past
urbanization that has occurred in this area. For the cumulative analysis related to
hydrology and water quality, the cumulative projects being considered include the
related projects, which all discharge to the same watershed as the proposed Project
(i.e., the San Juan Creek Watershed). Each of these related projects could potentially
153 6/2/2020
increase the volume of stormwater runoff and contribute to pollutant loading in
stormwater runoff reaching both the City's storm drain system and the San Juan Creek
Watershed, thereby resulting in cumulative impacts to hydrology and surface water
quality.
New development and redevelopment can result in increased stormwater runoff and
increased urban pollutants in stormwater runoff from Project sites. Each related project
must include BMPs to reduce impacts to water quality and hydrology in compliance with
local ordinances and plans adopted to comply with requirements of the various NPDES
permits. Specifically, all projects that disturb 1 acre or more of soil must comply with the
requirements of the Construction General Permit, the South Orange County MS4
Permit, and the City of San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code. The preparation and
approval of a SWPPP and pollution control plan, construction BMP plan, and/or erosion
and sediment control plan (for construction), and a WQMP (for operation) would be
required for each related project to determine appropriate BMPs to minimize water
quality impacts. In addition, the preparation and approval of a hydrology study would be
required to determine the hydrologic control required to minimize increases in runoff
from each site so they do not exceed regulatory requirements or exceed the capacity of
downstream stormdrain systems. In addition, the City's Building Official reviews all
development projects on a case-by-case basis to ensure that sufficient local and
regional drainage capacity is available.
Each related project must consider impaired receiving waters and TMDLs for receiving
waters. The TMDL program is designed to identify all constituents that adversely affect
the beneficial uses of water bodies and then identify appropriate reductions in pollutant
loads or concentrations from all sources so that the receiving waters can maintain/attain
the beneficial uses in the Basin Plan. Thus, by complying with TMDLs, a project's
contribution to overall water quality improvement in the San Juan Creek Watershed in
the context of the regulatory program is designed to account for cumulative impacts.
Regional programs and BMPs such as TMDL programs and the MS4 Permit Program
have been designed under an assumption that the San Juan Creek Watershed would
continue their pattern of urbanization. The regional control measures contemplate the
cumulative effects of proposed development. The proposed Project would be required
to comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and the South
Orange County MS4 Permit and implement construction and operational BMPs to
reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff. Compliance with these regional programs and
permits constitutes compliance with programs intended to address cumulative water
quality impacts. As stated above, each related project would be required to develop a
SWPPP; pollution control plan, construction BMP plan, and/or erosion and sediment
control plan; a WQMP; and a hydrology study, and would be evaluated individually to
determine appropriate BMPs and treatment measures to reduce impacts to surface
water quality and hydrology. Because the proposed Project and other related projects
would comply with applicable NPDES requirements and would include BMPs to reduce
the volume of stormwater runoff and pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff, the
cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts of the proposed Project and the related
projects would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Project's incremental
154 6/2/2020
hydrology and water quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft
EIR, pp. 4.9-27 through 4.9-28.)
K. LAND USE AND PLANNING
As defined in Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the
incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of
past, current, and probable future projects within the cumulative impact area for land
use. The cumulative impact area for land use for the proposed Project is the City of San
Juan Capistrano. Several residential and commercial development projects are
approved and/or pending within the City. Each of these projects, as well as all proposed
development in the City, would be subject to its own General Plan consistency analysis
and would be reviewed for consistency with adopted land use plans and policies.
The majority of the Project site is designated Quasi- Industrial on the City's General
Plan Land Use Map, with the northernmost portion of the property (where the utility
easement is proposed) designated as Industrial Park. In addition, the majority of the
Project site is classified as Commercial Manufacturing zone with the northernmost
portion of the Project site is zoned Mobile Home Park Senior Overlay. The northernmost
portion of the property is not proposed for development, and therefore, uses included as
part of the Project would not conflict with the land use designation and zoning
classification for this portion of the site. Uses proposed as part of the Project would be
consistent with both the existing General Plan land use designation of Quasi -Industrial
and zoning classification of Commercial Manufacturing for the site. No General Plan
Amendment or Zoning Amendment would be required. Therefore, cumulative land use
impacts with respect to consistency with local land use plans would be considered less
than significant.
The proposed Project would include land uses that are consistent with the surrounding
neighborhoods, and therefore would not contribute to a pattern of development that
adversely impacts adjacent land uses or conflicts with existing or planned development.
As discussed further above, proposed on-site improvements would be consistent with
the long-range planning goals of local and regional governing plans and policies for the
surrounding area.
There are no incompatibilities between the proposed Project and planned future
projects in the City, which primarily include residential and commercial developments.
All identified City -related projects would be reviewed for consistency with adopted land
use plans and policies by the City. For this reason, the related projects are anticipated
to be consistent with applicable General Plan and zoning requirements, or would be
subject to allowable exceptions; further, they would be subject to CEQA, mitigation
requirements, and design review as applicable. Therefore, the proposed Project would
not contribute a significant cumulative land use compatibility impact in the study area,
and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-25 through 4.10-26.)
155 6/2/2020
L. MINERAL RESOURCES
The Project would have on impact on mineral resources because there are no known
mineral resources are present on the Project site nor is the Project site located within an
area known to contain locally important mineral resources. No cumulative impacts
would occur. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-42 through 4-43.)
M. NOISE
Construction Noise. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project and
other construction projects in the area may overlap, resulting in construction noise in the
area. However, construction noise impacts primarily affect the areas immediately
adjacent to each construction site. Construction noise for the proposed Project was
determined to be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure
N01-1, which requires compliance with the construction hour restrictions in the City's
Municipal Code. Cumulative development in the vicinity of the Project site could result in
elevated construction noise levels at sensitive receptors in the Project area. However,
each project would be required to comply with the applicable City's Municipal Code
limitations on construction. Therefore, cumulative construction noise impacts would be
less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure N01-1.
Operational Stationary Source Noise. Long-term stationary noise sources associated
with the development at the proposed Project, combined with other cumulative projects,
could cause local noise level increases. Noise levels associated with the proposed
Project and related cumulative projects together could result in higher noise levels than
considered separately. On-site noise sources associated with the proposed Project
would not exceed any applicable noise standards. Additionally, related cumulative
projects would be required to comply with the City's noise level standards and include
mitigation measures if standards are exceeded. Therefore, cumulative noise impacts
from stationary noise sources would be less than significant.
Operational Traffic Source Noise Impacts. According to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), cumulative noise impacts represent the
combined and incremental effects of human activities that accumulate over time. While
the incremental impacts may be insignificant by themselves, the combined effect may
result in a significant impact. Conversely, although there may be a significant noise
increase due to the proposed Project in combination with other related projects
(combined effects), it must also be demonstrated that the Project has an incremental
effect. In other words, a significant portion of the noise increase must be due to the
proposed Project.
Cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local
roadways due to operation of the Project and other projects in the vicinity. A project's
contribution to a cumulative traffic noise increase could be considered significant when
the combined effect exceeds the perception level (i.e., auditory level increase)
threshold. The combined effect compares the "Cumulative Plus Project" condition to
"Existing" conditions. This comparison accounts for the traffic noise increase generated
by a project combined with the traffic noise increase generated by projects in the area.
156 6/2/2020
The incremental effect compares the "Cumulative Plus Project" condition to the
"Cumulative No Project" condition. The following combined effect and incremental effect
criteria have been utilized to evaluate the overall effect of the cumulative noise increase.
• Combined Effect. The Cumulative With Project noise level ("Cumulative Plus
Project) would cause a significant cumulative impact if a 3.0 dB increase over
Existing Conditions occurs and the resulting noise level exceeds the applicable
Existing g
exterior standard at a sensitive use. Although there may be a significant noise
increase due to the proposed Project in combination with other related projects
(combined effects), it must also be demonstrated that the Project has an
incremental effect. In other words, a significant portion of the noise increase must
be due to the proposed Project.
and
Incremental Effects. The "Cumulative Plus Project" causes a 1.0 dBA increase
in noise over the "Cumulative No Project" noise level.
A significant impact would result only if both the combined and incremental effects
criteria have been exceeded at a single roadway segment, since such would indicate
that there is a significant noise increase due to the proposed Project in combination with
other related projects and a significant portion of the noise increase is due to the
proposed Project. Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon and reduces as
distance from the source increases. Consequently, only the proposed Project and
growth due to occur in the Project site's general vicinity would contribute to cumulative
noise impacts. Table 4.11.E (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.11-20) lists the traffic noise effects
along roadway segments in the Project vicinity for "Existing," "Cumulative No Project,"
and "Cumulative Plus Project," conditions, including incremental and net cumulative
impacts.
As shown in Table 4.111, no significant cumulative traffic noise impact would result.
While traffic noise at the segment of La Novia Avenue east of the Valle Road/La Novia
Avenue roundabout would surpass the combined effect threshold of 3.0 dBA over
Existing Conditions, there is no increase in noise beyond the Cumulative No Project
scenario as a result of the Project, and thus no incremental effect. Therefore,
cumulative operational mobile source noise impacts would be less than significant. No
mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-18 through 4.11-20.)
N. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The Project will have less than significant impacts on population and housing.
(Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-46 through 4-47.) The Project would supply
employment opportunities to people already residing in the area, and the Project would
not provide or remove housing on the Project site. As such, the Project would not
induce substantial population growth or accelerate development in an underdeveloped
157 6/2/2020
area, and any impacts to population growth would be less than significant. Thus, no
cumulative impacts would occur.
O. PUBLIC SERVICES
The Project will have less than significant impacts on public services. (Appendix A
[Initial Study], pp. 4-48 through 4-55.) Although implementation of the Project in
conjunction with other related projects in the area would increase the demand for public
services, the Project alone would marginally increase the necessity of public services.
Moreover, each cumulative project, when adopted, would be consistent with state and
local regulations and would require the payment of fees for public services such as
police, school, and library services. Similar to the Project, the related projects would be
required to demonstrate the availability of services or mitigate accordingly; as such no
cumulative impacts would occur.
P. RECREATION
The Project would not include recreational facilities nor develop residential uses that
would require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an
adverse effect on the environment and therefore would not have impacts. (Appendix A
[Initial Study], pp. 4-56 through 4-57.) No cumulative impacts would occur.
Q. TRANSPORTATION
As defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental
effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past,
current, and probable future projects. The cumulative impact area for
traffic/transportation is the City of San Juan Capistrano. A list of approved/pending
projects provided by the City was reviewed to determine whether projects in the vicinity
of the Project site (if any) should be included in the cumulative condition. With
concurrence from the City, the approved/pending projects listed in Table 4.12.1-1 (found
at Draft EIR, p. 4.12-22) were identified as cumulative projects.
Project Plus Cumulative (Opening Year 2024) Condition
Significant Unavoidable Impact. According to the Project Applicant, the Project will
open in 2024. To develop a Year 2024 condition, an ambient growth rate of 0.5 percent
per year (i.e., 3 percent total growth) was applied to the existing 2018 traffic counts.
This condition also included the proposed Project trips and manually assigned trips
generated by approved and/or pending projects. Application of a 0.5 percent per year
growth rate to the existing traffic volumes is considered conservative and would account
for any additional future development in the Project vicinity.
Table 4.12.H (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.12-22) summarizes the list of approved/pending
projects provided by City staff. This list was reviewed to identify projects in the vicinity of
the Project site that would contribute traffic in the study area beyond the ambient growth
already assumed.
158 6/2/2020
Tables 4.12.1 and 4.12.J (found at Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-24 and 4.12-25, respectively)
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 Table 4.12.1, all study area intersections, including the hot -
spot intersections, are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS based on the ICU
methodology, with the exception of Del Obispo Street/Stonehill Drive (LOS D in the a.m.
peak hour). The proposed Project would add more than 0.01 to the v/c ratio at this
intersection (0.012). This is considered a significant unavoidable impact because there
is no available right-of-way as a feasible improvement to widen Del Obispo Street or
Stonehill Drive. In addition, this intersection is located within the City of Dana Point and
mitigation cannot be enforced within another jurisdiction outside the City of San Juan
Capistrano. Therefore, a significant project impact would occur at one study area
intersection based on the ICU methodology.
As shown in Table 4.12.1, all study area intersections, including the hot -spot
intersections, are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS based on the HCM
methodology. Therefore, a significant project impact would not occur at any study area
intersection based on the HCM methodology.
Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative roadway segment ADT volumes, v/c ratios, and
LOS are presented in Table 4.12.K (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.12-26). As Table 4.12.K
indicates, all study area roadway segments, including the hotspot roadways, are
forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS, with the exception of San Juan Creek Road
between Valle Road and Camino Capistrano (LOS E), Stonehill Drive between Camino
Capistrano and the Project Driveway (LOS E), Stonehill Drive between the Project
Driveway and Del Obispo Street (LOS E), and Valle Road between San Juan Creek
Road and the 1-5 northbound ramps (LOS F). The v/c ratios for Stonehill Drive between
Camino Capistrano and the Project Driveway and between the Project Driveway and
Del Obispo Street would increase by 0.069 and 0.017, respectively. These are
considered significant unavoidable impacts because there is no available right-of-way
as a feasible improvement to widen Stonehill Drive to provide additional roadway
capacity. However, the v/c ratios do not increase by 0.01 or greater for San Juan Creek
Road between Valle Road and Camino Capistrano and for Valle Road between San
Juan Creek Road and the 1-5 northbound ramps and therefore impacts at these
locations are not considered significant. Although a significant project impact would
occur at two study area roadway segments (Stonehill Drive between Camino Capistrano
and the Project Driveway and between the Project Driveway and Del Obispo Street), a
peak -hour link analysis shows that each segment would operate at satisfactory LOS in
both directions during the peak hours.
General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) Condition
Significant Unavoidable Impact. The General Plan Buildout (2040) condition includes
all planned circulation improvements consistent with the City's General Plan and all
known cumulative projects in the Project vicinity.
159 6/2/2020
Tables 4.12.E and 4.12.M (found at Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-28 and 4.12-29, respectively)
summarize the results of the General Plan Buildout (2040) peak -hour LOS analysis for
the study area intersections using the ICU and HCM methodologies, respectively. As
shown in Table 4.121, all study area intersections, including the hot -spot intersections,
are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS based on the ICU methodology, with the
exception of Del Obispo Street/Stonehill Drive (LOS D in the a.m. peak hour). The
project would add more than 0.01 to the v/c ratio at this intersection (0.012). This is
considered a significant unavoidable impact because there is no available right-of-way
as a feasible improvement to widen Del Obispo Street or Stonehill Drive. In addition,
this intersection is located within the City of Dana Point and mitigation cannot be
enforced within another jurisdiction outside the City of San Juan Capistrano. Therefore,
a significant impact would occur at one study area intersection based on the ICU
methodology. As shown in Table M, all study area intersections, including the hot -spot
intersections, are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS based on the HCM
methodology. Therefore, a significant project or buildout impact would not occur at any
study area intersection based on the HCM methodology.
Buildout roadway segment ADT volumes, v/c ratios, and LOS are presented in Table
4.12.N. As Table 4.12.N indicates, all study area roadway segments, including the hot -
spot roadways, are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS with the exception of San
Juan Creek Road between Valle Road and Camino Capistrano (LOS E), Stonehill Drive
between Camino Capistrano and the Project Driveway (LOS E), Stonehill Drive between
the Project Driveway and Del Obispo Street (LOS E), and Valle Road between San
Juan Creek Road and the 1-5 northbound ramps (LOS F). The v/c ratios for Stonehill
Drive between Camino Capistrano and the Project Driveway and between the Project
Driveway and Del Obispo Street would increase by 0.069 and 0.017, respectively.
These are considered significant unavoidable impacts because there is no available
right-of-way as a feasible improvement to widen Stonehill Drive to provide additional
roadway capacity. However, the v/c ratios do not increase by 0.01 or greater for San
Juan Creek Road between Valle Road and Camino Capistrano and for Valle Road
between San Juan Creek Road and the 1-5 northbound ramps and therefore impacts at
these locations are not considered significant. Although a significant impact would occur
at two study area roadway segments (Stonehill Drive between Camino Capistrano and
the Project Driveway and between the Project Driveway and Del Obispo Street), a peak -
hour link analysis shows that each segment would operate at satisfactory LOS in both
directions during the peak hours. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-21 through 4.12-30.)
R. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
As defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental
effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past,
current, and probable future projects within the cumulative impact area for tribal cultural
resources. The cumulative study area for tribal cultural resources is the geographical
area of the City of San Juan Capistrano, which is the geographical area covered by the
160 6/2/2020
City's General Plan, including all goals and policies therein. Future development in the
City could include excavation and grading that could potentially impact tribal cultural
resources. The cumulative effect of the proposed Project would be the continued loss of
these resources. The proposed Project, in conjunction with other development in the
City, has the potential to cumulatively impact tribal cultural resources; however, it should
be noted that each development proposal requiring a discretionary approval received by
the City would undergo environmental review pursuant to CEQA. If there is a potential
for significant impacts to tribal cultural resources, an investigation would be required to
determine the nature and extent of the resources and to identify appropriate mitigation
measures. If subsurface cultural resources are assessed and/or protected as they are
discovered, impacts to these resources would be less than significant. In addition,
applicable City ordinances and General Plan policies would be implemented as
appropriate to reduce the effects of additional development to tribal cultural resources
within the City. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-8.)
S. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
As defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental
effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past,
current, and probable future projects within the cumulative impact area for public
services and utilities. The Project site is a currently undeveloped lot in the City of San
Juan Capistrano that does not contain any permanent structures. The Project site is not
currently served by any utility providers.
Wastewater
The geographic area for the cumulative analysis for wastewater treatment is defined as
the City of San Juan Capistrano Utilities Department service area and SOCWA's service
area. Project compliance with the recommendations of the Sewer Feasibility Study
(Mitigation Measure UTL-2) and all applicable City requirements would ensure that
project impacts on City sewer facilities and sewer capacity would not be cumulatively
considerable. The proposed Project would not generate wastewater above the current
capacity of SOCWA's J.B. Latham Regional Treatment Plant. Further, it is anticipated
that SOCWA's existing and planned wastewater treatment capacity would be sufficient
to accommodate the growth forecasted within its service area, and development that is
generally consistent with this forecast can be adequately served by the SOCWA
facilities. The proposed Project would not induce significant population, employment or
housing growth, either directly or indirectly. SOCWA operates two other wastewater
treatment facilities in addition to the J.B. Latham Regional Treatment Plant, for a total
treatment capacity of 26 mgd within its jurisdiction. In addition, the proposed Project
would not contribute wastewater that would exceed the service capacity of J.B. Latham
Regional Treatment Plant. Therefore, the proposed Project's contribution to wastewater
generation in the SOCWA service area would not be cumulatively considerable, and no
mitigation is required.
161 6/2/2020
Potable Water
The geographic area for the cumulative analysis of water infrastructure is the City's
Utilities Department service area. The project -generated increase in water demand
represents approximately 0.2 percent of the City's projected 2020 supply. This increase
is considered to be minimal and is unlikely to impact the City's existing water supply
commitments. Furthermore, the UWMP indicated that sufficient water supplies are
available. The UWMP took into consideration cumulative development planned for in
the City's General Plan and, therefore, cumulative water demand in the City has already
been accounted for in the UWMP projections. Therefore, the proposed Project's
contribution to water demand in the City would not be cumulatively considerable, and no
mitigation is required.
Stormwater Drainage
The geographic area for the cumulative analysis of impacts to the provision of
stormwater drainage facilities is the San Juan Creek Watershed. The construction and
expansion of stormwater drainage facilities for the proposed Project would occur on site
and is not expected to impact any off-site stormwater drainage facilities that serve the
surrounding areas. As specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure WQ-5, a Final
Hydrology Report and Hydraulics Analysis would be prepared for the Project to confirm
that the on-site storm drains, on-site detention systems, and any other drainage
structures are appropriately sized to accommodate stormwater runoff from the Project
site so that the capacity of downstream storm drain facilities would not be exceeded.
Implementation of the proposed Project would not impact the ability of the existing
stormwater drainage system to serve the surrounding area. Therefore, cumulative
impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater
drainage facilities would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Electricity
The geographic area for the cumulative analysis of impacts to the provision of electricity
is the service territory of SDG&E. SDG&E's service area covers approximately 4,100
square miles in two counties and provides power to 1.4 million business and residential
customers. The projections of statewide electricity supply capacity demand rates are
cumulative in nature. They are based on population and economic growth and General
Plan projections, in addition to such physical variables as average temperature and
water supplies (important to hydroelectric generation) in a given year. The proposed
Project would increase electrical demand in the area. However, any increase in
electrical demand resulting from the proposed Project as it would be incremental
compared to an increase in regional electrical demand. Therefore, electric power and
infrastructure capacity are available, or have already been planned, to serve past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects.
Title 24 of the California Administrative Code regulates energy and water consumption
in new construction and regulates building energy consumption for heating, cooling,
ventilation, water heating, and lighting. Therefore, in relation to the cumulative study
area, the proposed Project would not generate a significant cumulative increase in
162 6/2/2020
demand for electricity or a significant disruption in service or service level. Therefore,
the proposed Project's contribution to electricity impacts would not be cumulatively
considerable, and no mitigation is required.
Natural Gas
The geographic area for the cumulative analysis of impacts to the provision of natural
gas is the service territory for SDG&E. As discussed above, according to the CEC 2018-
2030 Revised Forecast, SDG&E projects total gas demand to increase overall in the
low -demand and high -demand scenarios, due to projected population growth in the
SDG&E service area. Therefore, sufficient gas supplies and infrastructure capacity are
available, or have already been planned, to serve past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable projects. Furthermore, like the proposed Project, all future projects would
be subject to Title 24 requirements and would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to
determine the need for specific distribution improvements. As the natural gas provider
has identified adequate capacity and additional development within the SDG&E service
area and because the planning area has taken into account population growth and
because the proposed Project would comply with Title 24, the proposed Project's
contribution to natural gas impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, and no
mitigation is required.
Telecommunications Facilities
The geographic area for the cumulative analysis of impacts to the provision of
telecommunications is the service area of telecommunication providers. The
construction and expansion of telecommunication facilities for the proposed Project
would occur on site and is not expected to impact any off-site telephone, cable, or
internet services that serve the surrounding areas. Therefore, impacts associated with
the relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunication facilities would be
less than cumulatively significant. No mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.14-21
through 4.14-23.)
T. WILDFIRE
The Project would have no impacts on wildfire risks, and therefore no cumulative
impacts would occur. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-67 through 4-69.)
SECTION VI
FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL
C:I AMr.FR
Sections 15126(c) and 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, require that an EIR
address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur should the
163 6/2/2020
Project be implemented. Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible
environmental changes if any of the following would occur:
• The project would involve a large commitment of non-renewable
resources;
The primary and secondary impacts of the Project would generally commit
future generations to similar uses;
• The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from
any potential environmental accidents; or
■ The proposed consumption of resources is not justified.
The types and level of development associated with the proposed Project would
consume limited, slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources. This consumption
would occur during construction of the proposed Project and would continue throughout
the operational lifetime of the proposed Project. The development of the proposed
Project would require a commitment of resources that would include (1) building
materials, (2) fuel and operational materials/resources, and (3) the transportation of
goods and people to and from the Project site.
Construction of the proposed Project would require consumption of resources
that are not replenishable or that may renew so slowly as to be considered
nonrenewable. These resources would include certain types of lumber and other forest
products (e.g., hardwood lumber), aggregate materials used in concrete and asphalt
(e.g., sand, gravel, and stone), metals (e.g., steel, copper, and lead), petrochemical
construction materials (e.g., plastics), and water. Fossil fuels (e.g., gasoline and oil)
would also be consumed in the use of construction vehicles and equipment. Water,
which is a limited, slowly renewable resource, would also be consumed during
construction of the proposed Project. However, given the temporary nature of
construction activities, water consumption during construction would result in a less than
significant impact on water supplies. Furthermore, the use of construction vehicles and
equipment would require the consumption of nonrenewable fossil fuels such as natural
gas and oil. As with other resources consumed during construction, the consumption of
nonrenewable fossil fuels for energy use would occur on a temporary basis during
construction of the proposed Project.
Operation of the proposed Project would continue to expend similar
nonrenewable resources that are currently consumed within San Juan Capistrano.
These include energy resources such as electricity, petroleum-based fuels, fossil fuels,
and water. Energy resources would be used for heating and cooling buildings,
transportation within the Project site, and building lighting. Fossil fuels are primary
energy sources for project construction and operation. This existing, finite energy
source would thus be incrementally reduced. Under Title 24, Part 6 of the California
Code of Regulations (CCR), conservation practices limiting the amount of energy
consumed by the proposed Project would be required during operation. Nevertheless,
164 6/2/2020
the use of such resources would continue to represent a long-term commitment of
essentially nonrenewable resources.
The proposed Project would result in the limited use of potentially hazardous
materials contained in typical cleaning agents and pesticides for landscaping on the
Project site and storage of potentially hazardous materials associated with a
construction and lumber supply store. A -6,000 -gallon aboveground diesel tank,
designed with double walls and a containment vessel, would be installed on-site and
provide fuel for the vehicle fleet that would complete customer deliveries during project
operation. Such materials would be used, handled, stored, and disposed of in
accordance with applicable government regulations and standards that would serve to
protect against a significant and irreversible environmental change resulting from the
accidental release of hazardous materials.
In summary, construction and operation of the proposed Project would commit
the use of slowly renewable and nonrenewable resources and would limit the availability
of these resources on the Project site for future generations or for other uses during the
life of the proposed Project. However, the continued use of such resources during
operation would be on a relatively small scale and consistent with regional and local
urban design and development goals for the area. As a result, the use of nonrenewable
resources in this manner would not result in significant irreversible changes to the
environment under the proposed Project. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-4 through 6-5.)
SECTION VII
GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a Draft EIR to discuss
the ways the Project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of
additional housing, directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. In accordance
with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d), a Project would be considered to have
a growth -inducing effect if it would:
• Directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction
of additional housing in the surrounding environment;
• Remove obstacles to population growth (e.g., construction of an infrastructure
expansion to allow for more construction in service areas);
® Tax existing community service facilities, requiring the construction of new
facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; or
• Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the
environment, either individually or cumulatively.
In addition, CEQA Guidelines that that growth inducement must not be assumed.
Removal of Obstacles to, or Otherwise Foster, Population Growth
165 6/2/2020
The area surrounding the Project site is already highly urbanized and developed with a
mix of residential, automobile dealerships, hotel, and commercial uses, so limited
population growth is feasible within the vicinity of the Project site. In any event, the
proposed Project would not remove impediments to population growth in the area
surrounding the Project site. While the proposed Project may require water, sewer,
electricity, and natural gas lines on site and in the immediate vicinity of the Project site,
such improvements would be intended primarily to meet project -related demand and
would not necessitate substantial utility infrastructure improvements. In addition, the
private road easement to Avenida Aeropuerto is intended to provide emergency access
in the immediate project vicinity, and would not foster off-site population growth.
The construction of the proposed Project would generate a substantial number of
construction related jobs. However, the proposed Project would not promote
construction workers relocating their places of residence as a direct consequence of
working on the proposed Project. The work requirements of most construction projects
are highly specialized so construction workers remain at a job site only for the limited
time in which their specific skills are needed to complete a particular phase of the
construction process. In addition, the supply of general construction labor in the region
has been stable over recent years and is 29 percent above Orange County's 10 -year
average, suggesting a well-functioning construction job market and available regional
labor pool.51 Therefore, given the availability of construction workers, the proposed
Project would not induce material population growth from a short-term employment
perspective.
A Ganahl Lumber store is currently located at 34162 Doheny Park Road, approximately
0.5 mile south of the Project site in the neighboring City of Dana Point. Implementation
of the proposed Project would result in the closure and relocation of the existing Ganahl
Lumber store in Dana Point to the Project site. Because of this, it is anticipated that the
majority of the customer base that would patronize the proposed Ganahl Lumber store
already shop at the existing Ganahl location in Dana Point. With respect to the drive-
through restaurants, most of the customer base comes from traffic that is already
passing through the area. Customers would not be expected to change their places of
residence in order to be closer to the goods and services offered by the proposed
Project's businesses. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not lead
to the growth of a new customer base that would directly foster population growth in the
Project vicinity or elsewhere.
Upon completion of the proposed Project, the Ganahl Lumber Store, potential drive-
through restaurants, and parking area would not generate any new permanent residents
on the Project site. The Ganahl Lumber store and potential drive-through restaurants
would provide goods and services to nearby residents and workers. Although some
51 State of California Employment Development Department. 2019. Industry
Employment — Official Estimates, Anaheim -Santa Ana -Irvine Metropolitan Division
(Orange County), 2000—Present. Website:
https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/employment-by-industry.html (accessed
October 20, 2019).
166 6/2/2020
local businesses that provide goods and services to nearby residents may hire a small
number of additional employees to accommodate the minor increase in clientele
associated with the proposed Project, this additional hiring is not expected to induce
material population growth because most of these new employees are not expected to
change their place of residence. Due to the limited number of jobs induced and the
available labor pool within San Juan Capistrano and the region, it is unlikely that the
employment offered by the Project would cause people to move or relocate to the area
solely for the purpose of being close to the Project site. Therefore, although the
proposed Project would provide employment opportunities, it would not result in
substantial indirect growth or create a significant demand for housing or services in the
Project vicinity.
Therefore, given that the employment opportunities generated by construction and
operation of the proposed Project would be filled by people who would commute to the
Project site, the potential population growth associated with project employees would be
minimal.
Foster Economic Growth
In its existing condition, the Project site is used for the short-term storage of vehicles
from nearby car dealerships in the City of San Juan Capistrano (City). Therefore, the
Project site currently generates a minimal amount of revenue for the City. The proposed
Project would provide additional sales tax revenues to the City as compared to the
existing uses on the Project site. Further, the City's sale of the Project site would return
it to the property tax rolls, thereby increasing the local property tax base. The Ganahl
Lumber store and the potential drive-through restaurant space would be considered net
revenue generators for the City. Because the proposed Project would replace the
existing parking lot for nearby auto dealers on the Project site with a slightly smaller
parking lot, the proposed Project could result in an indirect reduction in City sales tax
revenue by slightly reducing the storage area available for additional vehicle stock,
thereby potentially reducing sales volumes and decreasing sales tax generation for the
City.
The construction of the proposed Project would generate a substantial number of
construction related jobs in San Juan Capistrano during the construction period. The
Ganahl Lumber store and potential drive-through restaurants would also provide long-
term employment opportunities. At this time, number of employees and tenant -specific
details are not known. However, as the Project site currently does not provide any long-
term employment opportunities, implementation of the proposed Project would foster
economic growth as compared to the existing uses on the Project site.
Other Characteristics
The proposed Project includes the development of a Ganahl Lumber store, drive-
through restaurants, and a parking area. Because the Project does not propose to
amend the existing General Plan land use designations and zoning classifications to
167 6/2/2020
residential, and would not add any permanent residents to the Project site, the Project
would not directly increase the City's population beyond existing levels. The proposed
property sale, proposed development agreement and, and proposed amendment of
deed restrictions/easements affecting the Project site would not have any growth -
inducing impacts. The proposed Project would provide a private emergency access
easement along the western portion of the Project site. This potential easement would
connect with Avenida Aeropuerto to the north to provide a secondary emergency
evacuation route to residents to the north of the Project site, who currently rely on an at -
grade railroad crossing for access. This potential easement would not serve as a public
roadway connection between Stonehill Drive and Avenida Aeropuerto. Access would be
limited to emergency situations only. The emergency access easement would not cause
a future increase in density or land use. Any future growth in the City is likely to occur
regardless of whether or not the Project is approved. Approval of the Project would not
involve some characteristic that may encourage and facilitate other activities that could
significantly affect the environment. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-1 through 6-4.)
SECTION VIII
ALTERNATIVES
A. BACKGROUND
The Draft EIR analyzed three alternatives to the Project as proposed and
evaluated these alternatives for their ability to avoid or reduce the Project's significant
environmental effects while also meeting the majority of the Project's objectives. The
City finds that it has considered and rejected as infeasible the alternatives identified in
the EIR and described below. This section sets forth the potential alternatives to the
Project analyzed in the EIR and evaluates them in light of the Project objectives, as
required by CEQA.
Where significant impacts are identified, section 15126.6 of the State CEQA
Guidelines requires EIRs to consider and discuss alternatives to the proposed actions.
Subsection (a) states:
(a) An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the
Project, or to the location of the Project, which would feasibly attain
most of the basic objectives of the Project but would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project, and
evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not
consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must
consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that
will foster informed decision-making and public participation. An EIR
is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead
agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for
examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting
those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or
scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of
reason.
168 6/2/2020
Subsection 15126.6(b) states the purpose of the alternatives analysis:
(b) Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the
significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public
Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives
shall focus on alternatives to the Project or its location which are
capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects
of the Project, even if these alternatives would impede to some
degree the attainment of the Project objectives, or would be more
costly.
In subsection 15126.6(c), the State CEQA Guidelines describe the selection
process for a range of reasonable alternatives:
(c) The range of potential alternatives to the proposed Project shall
include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic
objectives of the Project and could avoid or substantially lessen one
or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the
rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR
should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead
agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process
and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's
determination. Additional information explaining the choice of
alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the
factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed
consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic
project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant
environmental impacts.
The range of alternatives required is governed by a "rule of reason" that requires
the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The
EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful
evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed Project. Alternatives are limited
to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the
Project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the
lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project.
B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The following objectives have been established for the Project (Draft EIR, pp. 5-2
through 5-3):
1. Develop a lumber store that provides building supplies and hardware to
professional contractors and the public, while also providing casual restaurant
uses and automobile storage facilities.
2. Develop a project that balances the development potential of the Project site with
environmental considerations.
169 6/2/2020
3. Revitalize the vacant site with a well-designed and landscaped mixed-use project
that is compatible with the surrounding community.
4. Allow the continuation of parking/automobile storage for nearby car dealerships.
5. Increase the City's tax base generating revenue for the City through increased
retail sales.
6. Invigorate the local economy by providing new employment and business
opportunities in the City.
7. Provide an easement for future private emergency access from the Project site to
Avenida Aeropuerto along the westernmost boundary of the Capistrano Valley
Mobile Estates (CVME).
8. Develop a project that will promote sustainability and energy efficiency,
incorporating design features that would exceed the California's Title 24 Energy
Code requirements.
C. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED FROM DETAILED
ANALYSIS
Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines specifies that an EIR should
(1) identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were eliminated
from detailed consideration because they were determined to be infeasible during the
scoping process; and (2) briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's
determination. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from
detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project
objectives; (ii) infeasibility; and/or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.
The following alternatives were considered but rejected as part of the
environmental analysis for the Project:
g Reduced Ganahl Lumber Store Project Alternative: This alternative
would have reduced the size of the proposed Ganahl Lumber store and
lumber yard. Physical impacts under this alternative would have been
reduced due to the smaller development area. A smaller Ganahl Lumber
store would have reduced traffic and transportation impacts by reducing
vehicle trips associated with the proposed Project.
However, this alternative would not have achieved one of the stated
project objectives, including increasing the City's tax base generating
revenue for the City through increased retail sales to the same extent as
the proposed Project because a smaller hardware store and lumber yard
would likely generate less sales tax. Additionally, a smaller Ganahl Store
would not be economically viable and would not meet the needs of Ganahl
Lumber to provide a wide range of building supplies. This is supported by
the fact that the existing Ganahl Store, located approximately a half a mile
south of the Project site in Dana Point, is not sufficiently sized to stock
170 6/2/2020
many of the building materials and supplies that are requested by its
customers. This is one of the key reasons why Ganahl Lumber is
proposing to relocate and replace its existing Dana Point hardware store
and lumber yard with a new facility at the Project site in San Juan
Capistrano. (Draft EIR, p. 5-4.)
■ Ganahl Lumber Site in Dana Point: The project Applicant currently
owns an approximately 1.5 -acre site at 34162 Doheny Park Road in Dana
Point, where it operates a hardware store and drive-through lumber yard.
The existing Ganahl Lumber store in Dana Point is bordered by Doheny
Park Road to the west, commercial uses to the south, a mobile home
park to the north and east and is fully developed. As such, the existing
Ganahl Lumber store cannot be expanded without acquiring and
redeveloping one or more of the adjacent properties. It should be noted
that several components of the proposed Project (the drive-through
restaurants and vehicle storage for the City's car dealerships) are
required by the City as a condition of developing the Project site, which is
currently owned by the City. Therefore, for purposes of analysis, it is
reasonable to assume those uses would not be developed on the existing
Ganahl Lumber site or surrounding properties in Dana Point.
According to the City of Dana Point's Zoning Map, the adjacent properties
to the south of the existing Ganahl Lumber store are located within the
Community Commercial/Pedestrian (CC/P) District. According to Section
9.11.020(b) of the City of Dana Point's Zoning Code, the CC/P District
allows building materials sales and service uses as a permitted use.
The City of Dana Point's Zoning Map indicates that the adjacent properties
to the south of the existing Ganahl Lumber store are located within the
Commercial/Residential (C/R) District. According to Section 9.13.020(c) of
the City of Dana Point's Zoning Code, building materials sales and service
uses are not permitted uses within the C/R District. Therefore, a Zone
Change would be required to accommodate the development of an
expanded Ganahl Lumber store and lumber yard on the mobile home park
properties to the north and east of the Ganahl Lumber site in Dana Point.
It is not clear whether an amendment to the City of Dana Point's General
Plan would be required.
Given the fact that the properties to the south of the Ganahl Lumber site in
Dana Point are currently developed with businesses that are still
operating, and the properties to the north and east of the Ganahl Lumber
site in Dana Point are developed with a large mobile home park that is
presumed to be subject to long-term ground leases, it is not reasonable to
assume that the Project Applicant/Developer can acquire or control any of
these adjacent properties in a timely fashion that would allow for the
implementation of a project with similar uses and square footage. Further,
171 6/2/2020
as discussed above, a Zone Change would be required to allow a building
materials sales and service use on the properties adjacent to the Ganahl
Lumber site in Dana Point. As noted above, the Project
Applicant/Developer would also not be required to develop drive-through
restaurants and vehicle storage for the City of San Juan Capistrano's car
dealerships in a neighboring city.
While development of the proposed Ganahl Lumber hardware store and
lumber yard at the Ganahl Lumber site and adjacent properties in Dana
Point could potentially reduce some of the proposed Project's
environmental impacts because it would result in reduced trip generation
and related traffic, air quality, and noise impacts in comparison to the
proposed Project, many of the environmental impacts of this alternative
would be similar to or greater than those of the proposed Project,
especially considering that the Ganahl Lumber site in Dana Point is
bordered by sensitive residential uses to the north and east. The addition
of drive-through restaurant space and vehicle storage would increase the
potential environmental impacts at that location.
It should also be noted that development of an expanded Ganahl Lumber
hardware store and lumber yard on the Ganahl Lumber site and
surrounding properties in Dana Point would fail to meet most of the Project
objectives. Moving the proposed Project to Dana Point would not revitalize
the Project site (Objective 3), increase the City of San Juan Capistrano's
tax base (Objective 5), invigorate the local economy by providing new
employment and business opportunities in the City of San Juan
Capistrano (Objective 6), or provide an emergency access easement to
Avenida Aeropuerto through the Project site (Objective 7). This alternative
may allow the continuation of automobile storage for nearby car
dealerships in San Juan Capistrano on the Project site (Objective 4);
however, no improvements to the existing parking area on the Project site
would be provided.
Therefore, an alternative site at the Ganahl Lumber site and surrounding
properties in Dana Point was not considered feasible because the Project
Applicant/Developer would be required to acquire additional properties in
Dana Point, a Zone Change (and possibly a General Plan amendment)
would be required, the Dana Point site would not achieve the underlying
purpose and objectives of the proposed Project, and development of an
expanded Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard on the Ganahl
Lumber site and surrounding properties in Dana Point would likely result in
many of the same environmental impacts as development of the proposed
Project on the Project site. Therefore, this alternative was rejected from
further consideration. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-5 through 5-6.)
172 6/2/2020
• Ganahl Lumber Site in Other Properties Within San Juan Capistrano:
The City has reviewed the inventory of vacant properties that have the
potential to support a similarly sized development. Due to the developed
nature of the City, there are no available properties that are of sufficient
size to accommodate the proposed Project. The City is currently
processing development applications on the few vacant or
underdeveloped properties in the City that are large enough to potentially
accommodate the proposed Project (the proposed Farm Specific Plan
property at the southeast corner of Del Obispo Street and Via Vermeulen,
the proposed Tirador Residential Project at the terminus of Calle Arroyo).
Furthermore, an alternative site smaller than the proposed location would
not be economically viable and would not meet the needs of the Project
Applicant/Developer to provide a wide range of building supplies. This is
supported by the fact that Ganahl Lumber is seeking to vacate its existing
hardware store and lumber yard in Dana Point, which is located on a 1.5 -
acre site approximately 0.5 mile south of the Project site, because it no
longer meets the company's business needs in terms of the amount of
product inventory that it can keep on hand to serve its customers.
The project Applicant/Developer does not own or control any other
property within the City that would be suitable for development of the
proposed Project. Moreover, the Project Applicant/ Developer cannot
reasonably acquire or control an alternative site in the City in a timely
fashion that would allow for the implementation of a project with similar
uses and square footage.
In addition, development of the proposed Project at an alternative site in
the City (assuming one was available) could potentially result in some
environmental impacts that would be similar to or greater than those of the
proposed Project's environmental impacts, depending on the proximity of
the alternate site to sensitive uses or a circulation system where the
existing level of service and roadway capacity could accommodate the
proposed uses.
The development of the proposed Project on an alternative site in the City
would also fail to meet several of the Project objectives. Moving the
proposed Project would not revitalize the Project site (Objective 3), nor
would it provide an emergency access easement to Avenida Aeropuerto
through the Project site (Objective 7). Moving the proposed Project to
another part of San Juan Capistrano would meet the Project objective to
provide automobile storage for the City's car dealerships (Objective 4);
however, doing so would result in some operational inefficiencies because
an alternate site would not be located as close to the City's car
dealerships along Camino Capistrano.
For these reasons, no alternative site is considered feasible because the
Project Applicant does not own or control another vacant site in the
173 6/2/2020
Project area, no suitable alternative site is available that would achieve the
underlying purpose and objectives of the Project, and an alternative site
would likely not reduce environmental impacts as compared to the
development of the proposed Project on the Project site. Therefore, no
alternative locations to undertake the proposed Project are analyzed in the
Draft EIR. This alternative was rejected from further consideration. (Draft
EIR, pp. 5-6 through 5-7.)
Finding: The City Council rejects the Reduced Ganahl Lumber Store Project,
Ganahl Lumber Site in Dana Point, and Ganahl Lumber Site in other properties within
San Juan Capistrano alternatives, on the following grounds, each of which individually
provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternatives do not
avoid any significant and unavoidable impacts, (2) the alternatives would likely not
further reduce any of the proposed Project's significant impacts; (3) the alternatives do
not meet most of the Project objectives; and (4) the alternatives are technically,
financially, and legally infeasible. Therefore, these alternatives are eliminated from
further consideration.
D. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS
The alternatives selected for further detailed review within the EIR focus on
alternatives that could the Project's significant environmental impacts, while still meeting
most of the basic Project objectives. Those alternatives include:
Alternative 1: No Project/No Development (Draft EIR, pp. 5-12 through
5-14.)
• Alternative 2: No Restaurant Use (Draft EIR, pp. 5-10 through 5-11.)
• Alternative 3: 2,000 Square Feet of Restaurant Uses (Draft EIR, p. 5-
11.)
• Alternative 4: 4,000 Square Feet of Restaurant Uses (Draft EIR, p. 5-
11.)
1. Alternative 1: No Project/No Development
Description_ Consistent with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the
No Project/No Development Alternative assumes the existing land uses and
condition of the Project site at the time the NOP was published (May 22, 2019)
would continue to exist without changes. The setting of the Project site at the
time the NOP was published is described throughout Chapter 4.0 of this EIR with
respect to individual environmental issues, and forms the baseline of the impact
assessment of the proposed Project. The No Project/No Development Alternative
represents the environmental conditions that would exist if no new development
of any kind were to occur on the Project site. The No Project/No Development
Alternative anticipates that the Project site would remain primarily as a vehicle
174 6/2/2020
storage area on the crushed -rock gravel surface area and vacant in the northern
portion of the Project site.
The existing General Plan land use designation for the Project site is Quasi -
Industrial and Industrial Park. The base land use designation of Quasi -Industrial
and Industrial Park allows for a variety of light industrial and manufacturing uses,
including limited regional commercial activities that are non-polluting and are
compatible with surrounding land uses. The base land use designation of
Industrial Park allows light industrial and manufacturing uses.
The existing zoning designation for a majority of the Project site is Commercial
Manufacturing (CM). The Commercial Manufacturing zone allows industrial and
non -retail commercial uses, including wholesaling, limited manufacturing, eating
establishments, and indoor recreational uses. The northernmost portion of the
Project site (where the northern access easement is proposed) is zoned Mobile
Home Park Senior Overlay, which allows mobile home uses for seniors 55 years
of age and older.
The No Project/No Development Alternative would allow for the existing vehicle
storage uses on the Project site to continue to operate as they currently do into
the foreseeable future. There would be no improvements implemented on the
Project site. The No Project/No Development Alternative would allow existing
conditions on the Project site to remain unchanged. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-12 through
5-13.)
Impacts: The Project site is currently undeveloped and the northern portion of
the site is vacant. A vehicle storage area, located on the central and southern
portions of the Project site, is secured by a chain-link fence. The vehicle storage
area consists of a crushed -rock gravel surface and is not paved. The Project site
is occasionally used as an illegal dump site for trash and construction debris,
which contributes to the degraded nature of the Project site. This alternative
assumes that the use of the Project site as a vehicle storage area and occasional
illegal dump site would continue into the future. It is assumed that no renovations
or new construction would occur at the site.
The Project site is generally bounded to the south by Stonehill Drive, to the west
by San Juan Creek Channel and Trail, to the east by the BNSF rail line, and to
the north by the Capistrano Valley Mobile Estates (CVME) mobile home park.
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the visual setting of the
Project site would not be altered. However, continued use of the Project site as
an occasional illegal dump site would continue to contribute to the degraded
nature of the Project site. No new air pollutant emissions or greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions would be generated by new visitors or short-term construction
since no new construction is proposed. Unknown potential subsurface
archaeological and paleontological resources would remain undisturbed. There
would be no impacts related to geology, soils, and hazardous materials. There
175 6/2/2020
would be no change to the Project site with regard to the percentage of the site
that would remain pervious or the volume of runoff during a storm event and
runoff treatment from best management practices (BMPs) that are included in the
proposed Project. The existing land uses would continue to be consistent with
the City's General Plan and zoning documents, and no General Plan or Zoning
Amendments would be required. No short-term construction noise impacts or
long-term operational noise impacts would occur to the surrounding area.
Further, no additional vehicle trips would be generated by construction or
operations at the site, no new sources of solid waste would be created, and no
increase in demand for energy would occur as a result of development.
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not result in any physical
changes to the Project site and there would not be a potential for new
environmental impacts to occur. Overall, the No Project/No Development
Alternative would result in fewer environmental impacts than the proposed
Project because no construction or development would be take place. (Draft EIR,
pp. 5-13 through 5-14.)
Attainment of Project Objectives: The No Project/No Development Alternative
would achieve only 1 of the 8 project objectives (the No Project Alternative would
allow the continuation of parking/automobile storage for nearby car dealerships).
Without the proposed Project, the Project site would not be developed with the
proposed drive through restaurant and Ganahl Lumber hardware store and
lumber yard uses. The No Project/No Development Alternative would not provide
new employment opportunities within the City, nor would it expand the City's
economic base. (Draft EIR, p. 5-14.)
Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative
because the alternative fails to meet most of the Project objectives for the
reasons outlined above. This reason alone provides sufficient justification for
rejection of this alternative.
2. Alternative 2: No Restaurant Use
Description: This alternative would include the Ganahl Lumber store as
proposed but would eliminate the 6,000 square feet (sf) of drive-through
restaurant uses. This would result in no restaurant tenant and would reduce daily
traffic trips to/from the site. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-10 through 5-11.)
Impacts:
Aesthetics
Alternative 2 would allow for the future construction of a 161,385 -square -
foot (sf) Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard and a 399 -space
vehicle storage facility; however, no drive-through restaurant uses would
be developed. Alternative 2 represents a reduction in 6,000 sf of drive
176 6/2/2020
through restaurant use as compared to the proposed Project. Under
Alternative 2, Area A would provide 150 parking spaces, compared to 62
parking spaces provided in Area A as part of the proposed Project.
Most components of the proposed Project, such as outdoor lighting,
circulation and access, signage, utilities and drainage, sustainability
features, landscaping, and construction phasing, and grading, would not
significantly change with the implementation of Alternative 2. Components
specific to Area A, such as the location of walkways, retaining walls
fences, and gates, would also not change under Alternative 2. The
modification and installation of existing and new utilities and infrastructure
associated with the proposed Project would still occur under Alternative 2.
Although Alternative 2 would not involve the development of structures on
Area A as the proposed Project would, the entirety of Area A would still be
cleared, excavated, graded, and paved to accommodate surface parking.
Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would have less than
significant impacts related to scenic vistas, scenic resources, light, glare,
and the existing visual character of the Project site and its surroundings.
Additionally, both the proposed Project and Alternative 1 would have no
impact associated with State Scenic Highways because no official State
Scenic Highways are located in the vicinity of the Project.
Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would require the
preparation of a lighting plan and photometric study, which would be
approved by the City. Mitigation Measures AES -1 and AES -2 would still
be applicable under Alternative 2 to ensure that new sources of light and
glare do not impact adjacent land uses; additionally, nighttime lighting
would be limited to lighting necessary for security, and lighting would be
shielded to reduce glare and spill lighting effects on adjacent sensitive
uses. Therefore, the overall visual impacts of Alternative 2 would be less
than significant and similar to those of the proposed Project. With the
incorporation of Mitigation Measures AES -1 and AES -2, Alternative 2
would have less than significant impacts with respect to aesthetics.
Overall, impacts to aesthetics under Alternative 2 are reduced but similar
to impacts associated with the proposed Project.
Because impacts related to aesthetics for Alternative 2 would be less than
those associated with the proposed Project, cumulative impacts would
also be less than cumulatively significant, and no mitigation would be
required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-15.)
Air QualL
Alternative 2 would allow for the future construction of a 161,385 -square -
foot (sf) Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard and a 399 -space
177 6/2/2020
vehicle storage facility, but no drive-through restaurant uses would be
developed. Alternative 2 represents a reduction in 6,000 sf of drive
through restaurant use as compared to the proposed Project. Under
Alternative 2, Area A would provide 150 parking spaces, compared to 62
parking spaces provided in Area A as part of the proposed Project.
Most components of the proposed Project, such as outdoor lighting,
circulation and access, signage, utilities and drainage, sustainability
features, landscaping, and construction phasing, and grading, would not
significantly change with the implementation of Alternative 2. Components
specific to Area A, such as the location of walkways, retaining walls
fences, and gates, would also not change under Alternative 2. The
modification and installation of existing and new utilities and infrastructure
associated with the proposed Project would still occur under Alternative 2.
Although Alternative 2 would not involve the development of structures on
Area A as the proposed Project would, the entirety of Area A would still be
cleared, excavated, graded, and paved to accommodate surface parking.
For the reasons stated above, it can be assumed that construction -related
criteria air pollutant emissions generated under Alternative 2 would be
similar, but slightly less, than emissions expected under the proposed
Project. As discussed in Section 4.2.6, Project Impacts, of the Draft EIR,
the proposed Project would generate construction emissions below both
SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds and SCAQMD's LSTs.
Therefore, the reduced development intensity of Alternative 2 would also
result in construction emissions below these thresholds.
Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the long-term emission of
ROG, NOx, SO2, CO, PMio, and PM2.5. Table 4.2.1 (found at Draft EIR, p.
4.2-23) compares the maximum daily regional operations emissions of
Alternative 2 and the proposed Project.
As shown in Table 4.2.1 (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.2-23), Alternative 2 would
result in fewer operational criteria air pollutants than the proposed Project.
Therefore, because Alternative 2 results in fewer operational emissions as
compared to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would not exceed the
significance thresholds of criteria pollutants for which the Project region is
nonattainment under the CAAQS or NAAQS.
Alternative 2 has also been evaluated for localized pollutant emissions. In
order to provide a conservative assessment, the emissions shown in
Table 4.2.J (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.2-23) include all on-site project -
related stationary sources, as well as 10 percent of the Project -related
mobile sources. Table 4.2.J shows the maximum daily emissions for
operational activities under Alternative 2 as compared to the proposed
Project.
178 6/2/2020
As seen in Table 4.2A Alternative 2 would result in fewer on-site
generated localized pollutants when compared to the proposed Project.
Therefore, because Alternative 2 would result in fewer localized
operations emissions as compared to the proposed Project, Alternative 2
would not exceed the LSTs established by the SCAQMD, and localized
emissions from operation of Alternative 2 would not expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would be required to comply
with the SCAQMD's AQMP. In order to determine consistency with
SCAQMD's air quality planning two main criteria must be addressed. The
first criterion involves consistency with the State's ambient air quality
standards and the NAAQS, which is determined based on whether a
project exceeds regional and localized thresholds of significance. The
second criterion relates to a project's consistency with regional growth
projections, which are used to develop future air quality forecasts for the
AQMP. Alternative 2 would be below the SCAQMD regional and localized
thresholds for construction and operations and is consistent with the land
use designation and development density presented in the City's General
Plan. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 is consistent with these
two criteria, and therefore, would not conflict with the SCAQMD AQMP.
Alternative 2 would not result in the development of any substantial
sources of air toxics. Alternative 2 would not involve any stationary
sources associated with operations and would not attract substantial
amounts of heavy-duty trucks that spend long periods queuing and idling
at the Project site. Alternative 2 has been evaluated against SCAQMD's
operational phase LST protocol, and on-site project emissions would
result in slightly less concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive
receptors as compared to the proposed Project.
Overall, Alternative 2 would have less than significant impacts with respect
to air quality, and impacts would be further reduced with the incorporation
of Regulatory Compliance Measures AQ -1 through AQ -3, which would
also be required for Alternative 2. Overall, impacts to air quality under
Alternative 2 are reduced, but similar to impacts associated with the
proposed Project. Because impacts related to air quality for Alternative 2
would be less than those associated with the proposed Project, cumulative
impacts would also be less than cumulatively significant. (Draft EIR, pp.
4.2-23 through 4.2-24.)
Biological Resources
Alternative 2 would allow for the future construction of a 161,385 -square -
foot (sf) Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard and a 399 -space
vehicle storage facility but no drive-through restaurant uses would be
developed. The reduction of drive-through restaurant use square footage
179 6/2/2020
on Area A would allow for Area A to accommodate additional parking as
compared to the proposed Project. Area A would provide approximately
150 parking spaces, whereas the proposed Project would provide 62
parking spaces on Area A. Components of the proposed Project, such as
outdoor lighting, circulation and access, signage, utilities and drainage,
sustainability features, landscaping, and construction phasing and grading
would not change under the implementation of Alternative 2.
Components specific to Area A, such as the location of walkways,
retaining walls, fences, and gates would not vary between the proposed
Project and Alternative 2. Unlike the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would
involve the grading and paving of Area A for surface parking but no
building pads for drive-through restaurant uses would be constructed.
Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would remove all existing
vegetation on the Project site. Although Alternative 2 would not involve the
construction of a building pad or drive-through restaurant on Area A, the
Project site would be cleared, excavated, graded, and paved, as under the
proposed Project. The area of disturbance would be the same under the
proposed Project and Alternative 2. Therefore, Mitigation Measures 1310-
1, B10-2, and B10-3 would still be applicable under Alternative 2 to ensure
that potential impacts to biological resources are reduced to a less than
significant level. Therefore, biological impacts associated with Alternative
2 are considered to be less than significant with mitigation and similar to
those of the proposed Project.
Because impacts related to biological resources for Alternative 2 would be
less than those associated with the proposed Project, cumulative impacts
would also be less than cumulatively significant, and no mitigation would
be required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-15.)
ultural Resources
Alternative 2 would allow for the future construction of a 161,385 -square -
foot (sf) Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard and a 399 -space
vehicle storage facility, but no drive-through restaurant uses would be
developed. This alternative represents a reduction of 6,000 sf of drive
through restaurant use as compared to the proposed Project. Under
Alternative 2, Area A would provide 150 parking spaces, compared to 62
parking spaces provided in Area A as part of the proposed Project.
Most components of the proposed Project, such as outdoor lighting,
circulation and access, signage, utilities and drainage, sustainability
features, landscaping, and construction phasing, and grading, would not
significantly change with the implementation of Alternative 2. Components
specific to Area A, such as the location of walkways, retaining walls
180 6/2/2020
fences, and gates, would also not change under Alternative 2. The
modification and installation of existing and new utilities and infrastructure
associated with the proposed Project would still occur under Alternative 2.
Although Alternative 2 would not involve the development of structures on
Area A as the proposed Project would, the entirety of Area A would still be
cleared, excavated, graded, and paved to accommodate surface parking.
Although Alternative 2 would not involve the construction of restaurant
structures, the area of disturbance is the same as under the proposed
Project and potential impacts to unknown cultural resources would be
similar for Alternative 1 as to those of the proposed Project. Mitigation
Measures CULA and CUL -2 would still be applicable under Alternative 2
to protect any unknown archaeological resources and previously
undiscovered buried human remains. Overall, impacts to cultural
resources under Alternative 2 would be similar to the proposed Project's
impacts. With the incorporation of mitigation, Alternative 2 would have less
than significant impacts to archaeological resources and previously
undiscovered buried human remains.
Because impacts related to cultural resources for Alternative 2 would be
less than those associated with the proposed Project, implementation of
Mitigation Measures CUL -1 and CUL -2 would also ensure that
Alternative 2, together with cumulative projects, would not result in a
significant cumulative impact to unique archaeological resources and
previously undiscovered buried human remains. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-9.)
Energy
Alternative 2 would allow for the future construction of a 161,385 -square -
foot (sf) Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard and a 399 -space
vehicle storage facility, but no drive-through restaurant uses would be
developed. This alternative represents a reduction of 6,000 sf of drive
through restaurant use as compared to the proposed Project. Under
Alternative 2, Area A would provide 150 parking spaces, compared to 62
parking spaces provided in Area A as part of the proposed Project.
Most components of the proposed Project, such as outdoor lighting,
circulation and access, signage, utilities and drainage, sustainability
features, landscaping, and construction phasing, and grading, would not
significantly change with the implementation of Alternative 2. Components
specific to Area A, such as the location of walkways, retaining walls
fences, and gates, would also not change under Alternative 2. The
modification and installation of existing and new utilities and infrastructure
associated with the proposed Project would still occur under Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 would involve the grading and paving of Area A for surface
parking; however, no construction of a drive through restaurant uses
would occur. Although Alternative 2 would not involve the development of
181 6/2/2020
structures on Area A as the proposed Project would, the entirety of Area A
would still be cleared, excavated, graded, and paved to accommodate
surface parking.
Construction. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would require
gasoline -powered haul trucks for construction activities. However, as
Alternative 2 would result in a reduction of 6,000 sf of drive-through
restaurant use, fuel consumption under this alternative would be slightly
less than estimated for the proposed Project, as shown in Table 4.5.B
(found at Draft EIR, p. 4.5-13).
Operation. Under Alternative 2, daily trips would decrease approximately
37 percent as compared to the proposed Project, and would therefore
reduce operational fuel consumption. As shown in Table 4.5.B (found at
Draft EIR, p. 4.5-13), Alternative 2 would result in the use of 160,697 less
gallons of fuel per year during operations as compared to the proposed
Project. Additionally, natural gas consumption would be reduced by
approximately 80 percent, and electricity consumption would be reduced
by approximately 12 percent during operation as compared to the
proposed Project.
Summary. Electricity, natural gas, and operational fuel consumption
would be reduced under Alternative 2. However, construction -related fuel
consumption would remain unchanged. Overall, impacts to energy under
Alternative 2 are reduced, but similar to impacts associated with the
proposed Project. Regulatory Compliance Measure E-1 would still be
applicable under Alternative 2 to ensure that the Project would not result in
the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources
during project construction or operation. With incorporation of Regulatory
Compliance Measure E-1, Alternative 2 would have less than significant
impacts with respect to energy. Because impacts related to energy for
Alternative 2 would be less than those associated with the proposed
Project, cumulative impacts would also be less than cumulatively
significant, and no mitigation would be required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-12
through 4.5-13.)
Geology and Soils
Alternative 2 would allow for the future construction of a 161,385 -square -
foot (sf) Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard and a 399 -space
vehicle storage facility, but no drive-through restaurant uses would be
developed. This alternative represents a reduction of 6,000 sf of drive
through restaurant use as compared to the proposed Project. Under
Alternative 2, Area A would provide 150 parking spaces, compared to 62
parking spaces provided in Area A as part of the proposed Project.
182 6/2/2020
Most components of the proposed Project, such as outdoor lighting,
circulation and access, signage, utilities and drainage, sustainability
features, landscaping, and construction phasing, and grading, would not
significantly change with the implementation of Alternative 2. Components
specific to Area A, such as the location of walkways, retaining walls
fences, and gates, would also not change under Alternative 2. The
modification and installation of existing and new utilities and infrastructure
associated with the proposed Project would still occur under Alternative 2.
Although Alternative 2 would not involve the development of structures on
Area A as the proposed Project would, the entirety of Area A would still be
cleared, excavated, graded, and paved to accommodate surface parking.
Although Alternative 2 would construct fewer structures than the proposed
Project, it would be located on the same soils with the same geological
conditions and would therefore result in potentially significant impacts with
respect to strong seismic ground shaking, ground failure (including
liquefaction), slope stability, corrosive soils, ground settlement, expansive
soils, and the destruction of paleontological resources, similar to the
proposed Project. Therefore, Mitigation Measures GEO-1, GEO-2, GEO-
3, and GEO-4 as stated above would be applicable to Alternative 2, similar
to the proposed Project. With the implementation of the mitigation
measures, potential impacts for Alternative 2 with respect to geology and
soils would be less than significant and similar to those of the proposed
Project.
Because impacts related to geology and soils for Alternative 2 would be
less than those associated with the proposed Project, implementation of
Mitigation Measures CULA and CUL -2 would also ensure that
Alternative 2, together with cumulative projects, would not result in a
significant cumulative impact to unique archaeological resources and
previously undiscovered buried human remains. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-19
through 4.6-20.)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 2 would allow for the future construction of a 161,385 -square -
foot (sf) Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard and a 399 -space
vehicle storage facility, but no drive-through restaurant uses would be
developed. Alternative 2 represents a reduction in 6,000 sf of drive
through restaurant use as compared to the proposed Project. Under
Alternative 2, Area A would provide 150 parking spaces, compared to 62
parking spaces provided in Area A as part of the proposed Project.
Most components of the proposed Project, such as outdoor lighting,
circulation and access, signage, utilities and drainage, sustainability
features, landscaping, and construction phasing, and grading, would not
significantly change with the implementation of Alternative 2. Components
183 6/2/2020
specific to Area A, such as the location of walkways, retaining walls
fences, and gates, would also not change under Alternative 2. The
modification and installation of existing and new utilities and infrastructure
associated with the proposed Project would still occur under Alternative 2.
Although Alternative 2 would not involve the development of structures on
Area A as the proposed Project would, the entirety of Area A would still be
cleared, excavated, graded, and paved to accommodate surface parking.
For the reasons stated above, it can be assumed that construction -related
GHG emissions generated under Alternative 2 would be similar, but
slightly less, than emissions expected under the proposed Project. As
discussed in Section 4.7.6, Project Impacts, of the Draft EIR, GHG
emissions generated during construction of the proposed Project would be
temporary and would cease upon project completion. Similarly, GHG
emissions generated during construction of Alternative 2 would be
temporary, would cease upon project completion, and would not result in a
permanent increase in emissions, and therefore, impacts would be less
than significant.
Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in long-term operational GHG
emissions. Table 4.7.E (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.7-15) compares the long-
term operational GHG emissions of Alternative 2 and the proposed
Project.
As shown in Table 4.7.E (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.7-15), Alternative 2
would result in 1,460 MT per year fewer CO2e emissions as compared to
the proposed Project. Additionally, GHG emissions generated under
Alternative 2 would fall under the SCAQMD interim screening -level bright -
line threshold of 3,000 MT of CO2e per year. As such, impacts under
Alternative 2 would be slightly less, but similar to the proposed Project and
less than significant.
Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would not conflict with the
goals of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. Additionally, Alternative 2 would not be
considered regionally significant per State CEQA Guidelines Section
15206. Thus, the Project would not conflict with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS
targets because those targets were established and are applicable on a
regional level.
Alternative 2 would have less than significant impacts with respect to GHG
emissions. Overall, impacts to GHG emissions under Alternative 2 are
reduced, but similar to impacts associated with the proposed Project.
Because impacts related to GHG emissions for Alternative 2 would be less
than those associated with the proposed Project, cumulative impacts
would also be less than cumulatively significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-14
through 4.7-15.)
184 6/2/2020
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternative 2 would allow for the future construction of a 161,385 square -
foot (sf) Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard and a 399 -space
vehicle storage facility, but no drive-through restaurant uses would be
developed. This Alternative represents a reduction of 6,000 sf of drive
through restaurant use as compared to the proposed Project. Under
Alternative 2, Area A would provide 150 parking spaces, compared to 62
parking spaces provided in Area A as part of the proposed Project.
Most components of the proposed Project, such as outdoor lighting,
circulation and access, signage, utilities and drainage, sustainability
features, landscaping, and construction phasing, and grading, would not
significantly change with the implementation of Alternative 2. Components
specific to Area A, such as the location of walkways, retaining walls
fences, and gates, would also not change under Alternative 2. The
modification and installation of existing and new utilities and infrastructure
associated with the proposed Project would still occur under Alternative 2.
The potential for hazards and hazardous materials associated with the
proposed Project to occur on site would not change under Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 would involve the grading and paving of the entirety of Area
A for surface parking; however, no construction of a drive-through
restaurant uses would occur. Although Alternative 2 would not involve the
development of structures on Area A as the proposed Project would, the
entirety of Area A would still be cleared, excavated, graded, and paved to
accommodate surface parking.
The Project site is not located on a listed hazardous materials site, is not
within an airport land use plan, and is not within a high fire hazard/wildland
fire area. However, similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would
result in potentially significant impacts with respect to the discovery of
unknown hazardous materials during construction. Alternative 2 would
adhere to BMPs, codes, and ordinances to reduce impacts related to the
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, project -produced
hazardous emissions, and emergency access applicable to the proposed
Project.
Construction and operation would be similar under Alternative 2 as under
the proposed Project and therefore, the BMPs, codes, and ordinances that
the proposed Project would adhere to would be also applicable to
Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 would require compliance with Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.
With the incorporation of mitigation, Alternative 2 would have less than
significant impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials.
185 6/2/2020
Overall, impacts to hazards and hazardous materials under Alternative 2
are reduced, but similar to impacts associated with the proposed Project.
Because impacts with regard to hazards and hazardous materials would
be less than those associated with the proposed Project, cumulative
impacts would also be less than cumulatively significant, and no mitigation
would be required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-12 through 4.8-13.)
Hvdrologv and Water Qualit
Alternative 2 would allow for the future construction of a 161,385 -square -
foot (sf) Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard and a 399 -space
vehicle storage facility, but no drive-through restaurant uses would be
developed. This alternative represents a reduction of 6,000 sf of drive
through restaurant use as compared to the proposed Project. Under
Alternative 2, Area A would provide 150 parking spaces, compared to 62
parking spaces provided in Area A as part of the proposed Project.
Most components of the proposed Project, such as outdoor lighting,
circulation and access, signage, utilities and drainage, sustainability
features, landscaping, and construction phasing, and grading, would not
significantly change with the implementation of Alternative 2. Components
specific to Area A, such as the location of walkways, retaining walls
fences, and gates, would also not change under Alternative 2.
The modification and installation of existing and new utilities and
infrastructure associated with the proposed Project would still occur under
Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would involve the grading and paving of Area A
for surface parking; however, no construction of a drive-through restaurant
uses would occur. Although Alternative 2 would not involve the
development of structures on Area A as the proposed Project would, the
entirety of Area A would still be cleared, excavated, graded, and paved to
accommodate surface parking.
Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would change the use on the
Project site, increase impervious surface area, increase stormwater runoff,
and change the pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff. Alternative 2
would be required to comply with all NPDES regulations, including the
Construction General Permit, South Orange County MS4 Permit, and
Groundwater Discharge Permit (Regulatory Compliance Measures WQ-
1 through WQ-3). In addition, a Final WQMP and Hydrology and
Hydraulics Analysis would be required to be prepared and implemented
for Alternative 2 (Regulatory Compliance Measures WQ-4 and WQ-5).
Implementation of BMPs and drainage infrastructure would be required to
reduce pollutants of concern on the Project site and convey stormwater
runoff in compliance with NPDES and City requirements.
186 6/2/2020
Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would be constructed within
a 100 -year floodplain. Alternative 2 would comply with existing NFIP,
FEMA, and City regulations governing development within a 100 -year
floodplain. An elevation certification would be obtained from a certified
engineer or surveyor and a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR-
F) and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR-F) would be obtained from FEMA,
as required by Regulatory Compliance Measures WQ-6 and WQ-7.
With compliance with adopted regulations, Alternative 2 would result in
less than significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. With
implementation of BMPs and drainage infrastructure in compliance with
adopted regulations, the hydrology and water quality impacts of
Alternative 2 would be similar to those of the proposed Project.
Because impacts related to hydrology and water quality for Alternative 2
would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project, cumulative
impacts would also be less than cumulatively significant, and no mitigation
would be required. (Final EIR, pp. 4.9-29 through 4.9-30.)
Land Use and Planni
Alternative 2 would allow for the future construction of a 161,385 -square -
foot (sf) of Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard and a 399 -
space vehicle storage facility, but no drive-through restaurant uses would
be developed. This alternative represents a reduction of 6,000 sf of drive
through restaurant use as compared to the proposed Project. Under
Alternative 2, Area A would provide 150 parking spaces, compared to 62
parking spaces provided in Area A as part of the proposed Project.
Most components of the proposed Project, such as outdoor lighting,
circulation and access, signage, utilities and drainage, sustainability
features, landscaping, and construction phasing, and grading, would not
significantly change with the implementation of Alternative 2. Components
specific to Area A, such as the location of walkways, retaining walls
fences, and gates, would also not change under Alternative 2. The
modification and installation of existing and new utilities and infrastructure
associated with the proposed Project would still occur under Alternative 2.
Although Alternative 2 would not involve the development of structures on
Area A as the proposed Project would, the entirety of Area A would still be
cleared, excavated, graded, and paved to accommodate surface parking.
Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would have less than
significant impacts related to land use and planning. Under this
Alternative, as well as the proposed Project, there would be no impacts
related to the division of an existing community. Though Alternative 2
187 6/2/2020
would not include any drive-through restaurant use on Area A as
compared to 6,000 sf under the proposed Project, the uses of Areas B and
C would be the same under the proposed Project and Alternative 2.
Therefore, Alternative 2 would still be consistent with both the existing
General Plan land use designation of Quasi -Industrial and zoning
classification of Commercial Manufacturing. As under the proposed
Project, the implementation of Alternative 2 would not require a General
Plan Amendment or Zoning Amendment. Alternative 2 would be
consistent with the policies contained in the City's General Plan, the City's
zoning code, the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG)
2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan, and the SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS.
Therefore, impacts related to land use for Alternative 2 are considered to
be less than significant and similar to those associated with the proposed
Project.
Because impacts related to land use and planning for Alternative 2 would
be less than those associated with the proposed Project, cumulative
impacts would also be less than cumulatively significant, and no mitigation
would be required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-26 through 4.10-27.)
Noise
Alternative 2 would allow for the future construction of a 161,385 square -
foot (sf) Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard and a 399 -space
vehicle storage facility, but no restaurant uses would be developed. This
alternative represents a reduction of 6,000 sf of drive-through restaurant
use as compared to the proposed Project. Under Alternative 2, Area A
would provide 150 parking spaces, compared to 62 parking spaces
provided in Area A as part of the proposed Project.
Most components of the proposed Project, such as outdoor lighting,
circulation and access, signage, utilities and drainage, sustainability
features, landscaping, and construction phasing, and grading, would not
significantly change with the implementation of Alternative 2. Components
specific to Area A, such as the location of walkways, retaining walls
fences, and gates, would also not change under Alternative 2. The
modification and installation of existing and new utilities and infrastructure
associated with the proposed Project would still occur under Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 would involve the grading and paving of Area A for surface
parking; however, no construction of a drive through restaurant uses
would occur. Although Alternative 2 would not involve the development of
structures on Area A as the proposed Project would, the entirety of Area A
would still be cleared, excavated, graded, and paved to accommodate
surface parking.
Construction Noise and Vibration. Grading and site preparation
activities are the loudest aspects of construction, and the grading and site
188 6/2/2020
preparation involved with Alternative 2 require the same amount of ground
disturbance as the proposed Project as the location of the restaurant uses
would still be developed with parking and internal driveways. Therefore,
similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would encompass the same
amount of acreage within the same proximity to noise receptors. However,
Alternative 2 would result in the construction of less building space (6,000
fewer square feet). Therefore, construction -related noise generated under
this alternative would be produced for a slightly shorter period of time than
the proposed Project. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would
also implement Mitigation Measure NO1-1, which requires adherence to
daytime noise restrictions and Mitigation Measure NO1-2, which includes
noise control and sound attenuation measures to reduce noise impacts on
sensitive land uses.
Alternative 2 would result in the same amount of ground vibration as the
proposed Project. Similar to the proposed Project, the use of any type of
construction equipment during construction of Alternative 2 would not
result in a ground -borne vibration velocity level above 0.2 inch/sec at the
nearest off-site structures.
Operational Noise. Operational noise sources associated with Alternative
2 would include mobile and stationary sources (i.e., mechanical
equipment, lumber yard operations). Alternative 2 would generate 37
percent less traffic on vicinity roadways. The decrease in automobile trips
would equate to similar to slightly less traffic noise compared with the
proposed Project, depending on the specific roadway segments. For
instance, the greatest reduction of traffic noise would occur on the
segment of Stonehill Drive between the Project Driveway and Camino
Capistrano. Specifically, 37 percent less project traffic on the segment of
Stonehill Drive between the Project Driveway and Camino Capistrano
would result in a 0.3 dBA CNEL decrease compared with the proposed
Project. All the remaining vicinity roadway segments would experience the
same level of traffic noise with implementation of Alternative 2 compared
with the proposed Project.
Alternative 2 would include several on-site noise sources included in the
proposed Project such material handling vehicles stacking, loading and
unloading products, back-up beepers, delivery trucks, a trash compactor,
a baler, and other mechanical equipment and parking lot noise. However,
Alternative 2 would not include any fast-food restaurants. Predicted on-site
operational noise attributable to Alternative 2 would range from 3.7 dBA
below noise levels to 3.3 dBA above noise levels at the receptors as
compared to the proposed Project. Furthermore, all noise levels would
remain below the applicable daytime and nighttime noise standards.
Summary. Overall, noise impacts with respect to Alternative 2 would
result in the same significance conclusions as the proposed Project.
189 6/2/2020
Therefore, Alternative 2 impacts would be similar to the impacts
associated with implementation of the proposed Project.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOIR and N0I-2 would ensure
that construction of Alternative 2, together with cumulative projects, would
not result in a significant cumulative impact as a result of construction
noise. Because operational impacts related to noise for Alternative 2
would be less than those associated with the proposed Project, cumulative
impacts would also be less than cumulatively significant, and no mitigation
would be required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-21 through 4.11-22.)
Transportation
Alternative 2 would allow for the future construction of a 161,385 -square -
foot (sf) Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard and a 399 -space
vehicle storage facility, but would not include any restaurant uses. Based
on the same trip generation rates used for the proposed Project, Project
Alternative 2 is anticipated to generate approximately 2,073 ADT,
including 189 trips (105 inbound and 84 outbound) in the a.m. peak hour
and 121 trips (52 inbound and 69 outbound) in the p.m. peak hour.
Alternative 2 Existing Plus Project — Significant and Unavoidable
Impact. Based on results of the Alternative 2 Existing Plus Project peak -
hour LOS analysis for the study area intersections included in the TIA, all
study area intersections, including the hot -spot intersections, are
anticipated to operate at satisfactory LOS based on the ICU and the HCM
methodology. Therefore, a significant Alternative 2 impact would not occur
at any study area intersection based on either the ICU or HCM
methodologies.
In addition to evaluating project -related study area intersections, the
Existing Plus Project analysis for Alternative 2 also evaluated impacts with
respect to roadway segment ADT volumes, v/c ratios, and LOS. Results of
this analysis indicate that all study area roadway segments, including the
hotspot roadways, are anticipated to operate at satisfactory LOS with
Alternative 2, with the exception of Stonehill Drive between Camino
Capistrano and the Project Driveway (LOS E), Stonehill Drive between the
Project Driveway and Del Obispo Street (LOS D), and Valle Road
between San Juan Creek Road and the 1-5 northbound ramps (LOS F).
The v/c ratio for Stonehill Drive between Camino Capistrano and the
Project Driveway would increase by 0.040 in the Existing Plus Alternative
2 condition. This is considered a significant unavoidable impact because
there is no available right -of way as a feasible improvement to widen
Stonehill Drive to provide additional roadway capacity. However, the v/c
ratios do not increase by 0.01 or greater for Stonehill Drive between the
Project Driveway and Del Obispo Street and Valle Road between San
190 6/2/2020
Juan Creek Road and the 1-5 northbound ramps in the Existing Plus
Alternative 2 condition and therefore impacts at these locations are not
considered significant. Although a significant project impact would occur at
one study area roadway segment (Stonehill Drive between Camino
Capistrano and the Project Driveway), a peak -hour link analysis shows
that this segment would operate at satisfactory LOS in both directions
during the peak hours.
Alternative 2 Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative (Year 2024) -
Significant and Unavoidable Impact. Based on the results of the
Alternative 2 Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative peak -hour LOS
analysis included in the TIA, all study area intersections, including the hot -
spot intersections, are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS based on
the ICU methodology, with the exception of Del Obispo Street/Stonehill
Drive (LOS D in the a.m. peak hour). However, Alternative 2 would not
add 0.01 or greater to the v/c ratio at this intersection (0.006). Therefore, a
significant Alternative 2 cumulative impact would not occur at any study
area intersection based on the ICU methodology. In addition, all study
area intersections, including the hot -spot intersections, are forecast to
operate at satisfactory LOS based on the HCM methodology. Therefore, a
significant Alternative 2 cumulative impact would not occur at any study
area intersection based on the HCM methodology.
Alternative 2 Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative roadway segment ADT
volumes, v/c ratios, and LOS were also evaluated in the TIA. Results of
this analysis indicate that all study area roadway segments, including the
hot -spot roadways, are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS, with the
exception of San Juan Creek Road between Valle Road and Camino
Capistrano (LOS E), Stonehill Drive between Camino Capistrano and the
Project Driveway (LOS E), Stonehill Drive between the Project Driveway
and Del Obispo Street (LOS D), and Valle Road between San Juan Creek
Road and the 1-5 northbound ramps (LOS F). The v/c ratio for Stonehill
Drive between Camino Capistrano and the Project Driveway would
increase by 0.040. This is considered a significant unavoidable impact
because there is no available right-of-way as a feasible improvement to
widen Stonehill Drive to provide additional roadway capacity. However,
the v/c ratios do not increase by 0.01 or greater for San Juan Creek Road
between Valle Road and Camino Capistrano, Stonehill Drive between the
Project Driveway and Del Obispo Street, and Valle Road between San
Juan Creek Road and the 1-5 northbound ramps and therefore impacts at
these locations are not considered significant. Although a significant
Alternative 2 impact would occur at one study area roadway segment
(Stonehill Drive between Camino Capistrano and the Project Driveway), a
peakhour link analysis shows that this segment would operate at
satisfactory LOS in both directions during the peak hours.
191 6/2/2020
Alternative 2 Buildout (Year 2040) - Significant and Unavoidable
Impact. Based on the results of the Buildout (2040) peak -hour LOS
analysis for the study area intersections, all study area intersections,
including the hot -spot intersections, are forecast to operate at satisfactory
LOS based on the ICU methodology, with the exception of Del Obispo
Street/Stonehill Drive (LOS D in the a.m. peak hour). However, Alternative
2 would not add 0.01 or greater to the v/c ratio at this intersection (0.007).
Therefore, a significant Alternative 2 buildout impact would not occur at
any study area intersection based on the ICU methodology. All study area
intersections, including the hot -spot intersections, are forecast to operate
at satisfactory LOS based on the HCM methodology. Therefore, a
significant Alternative 2 buildout impact would not occur at any study area
intersection based on the HCM methodology.
Impacts to roadway segment ADT volumes, v/c ratios, and LOS were also
evaluated as part of the Alternative 2 Buildout (Year 2040) analysis.
Results of this analysis indicate that all study area roadway segments,
including the hot -spot roadways, are forecast to operate at satisfactory
LOS with the exception of San Juan Creek Road between Valle Road and
Camino Capistrano (LOS E), Stonehill Drive between Camino Capistrano
and the Project Driveway (LOS E), Stonehill Drive between the Project
Driveway and Del Obispo Street (LOS E), and Valle Road between San
Juan Creek Road and the 1-5 northbound ramps (LOS F). The v/c ratio for
Stonehill Drive between Camino Capistrano and the Project Driveway
would increase by 0.040. This is considered a significant unavoidable
impact because there is no available right-of-way as a feasible
improvement to widen Stonehill Drive to provide additional roadway
capacity. However, the v/c ratios do not increase by 0.01 or greater for
San Juan Creek Road between Valle Road and Camino Capistrano,
Stonehill Drive between the Project Driveway and Del Obispo Street, and
Valle Road between San Juan Creek Road and the 1-5 northbound ramps
and therefore impacts at these locations are not considered significant.
Although a significant Alternative 2 impact would occur at one study area
roadway segment (Stonehill Drive between Camino Capistrano and the
Project Driveway), a peak -hour link analysis shows that this segment
would operate at satisfactory LOS in both directions during the peak
hours.
Signal Warrant Analysis. The TIA also included a signal warrant analysis
for Alternative 2. Results of this analysis indicate that installation of a
traffic signal would not be warranted under any of the existing and
forecasted scenarios. Although a traffic signal is not warranted based on
the forecast peak -hour traffic volumes at this intersection, a traffic signal is
recommended to ensure safe inbound and outbound access to/from the
Project site along Stonehill Drive.
192 6/2/2020
Summary. Overall, transportation impacts with respect to Alternative 2
would be slightly reduced as compared to the proposed Project. Unlike the
proposed Project, Alternative 2 would not result in significant unavoidable
impacts to the intersection of Del Obispo/Stonehill Drive (in the AM peak
hour) under the Alternative 2 Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative, or the
Alternative 2 Buildout scenarios. Therefore, although Alternative 2 impacts
would significant and unavoidable, they would be less than those
associated with implementation of the proposed Project.
Although impacts related to transportation for Alternative 2 would be less
than those associated with the proposed Project, cumulative impacts
associated with Alternative 2 would be cumulatively significant and would
be considered significant unavoidable impacts. (Final EIR, pp. 4.12-31
through 4.12-33.)
Tribal Cultural Resources
Alternative 2 would allow for the future construction of a 161,385 -square -
foot (sf) Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard and a 399 -space
vehicle storage facility, but no drive-through restaurant uses would be
developed. This alternative represents a reduction of 6,000 sq of drive-
through restaurant use as compared to the proposed Project. Under
Alternative 2, Area A would provide 150 parking spaces, compared to 62
parking spaces provided in Area A as part of the proposed Project.
Most components of the proposed Project, such as outdoor lighting,
circulation and access, signage, utilities and drainage, sustainability
features, landscaping, and construction phasing, and grading, would not
significantly change with the implementation of Alternative 2. Components
specific to Area A, such as the location of walkways, retaining walls
fences, and gates, would also not change under Alternative 2. The
modification and installation of existing and new utilities and infrastructure
associated with the proposed Project would still occur under Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 would have less than significant impacts with respect to tribal
cultural resources with the incorporation of mitigation, similar to the
proposed Project. Though Alternative 2 would not involve the development
of structures on Area A as the proposed Project would, the entirety of Area
A would still be cleared, excavated, graded, and paved to accommodate
surface parking. Because the area of disturbance would be the same
under the proposed Project and Alternative 2, potential impacts to
unknown tribal cultural resources would be similar under Alternative 2 to
those of the proposed Project. Mitigation Measures CUL -1 and CUL -2
would still be applicable under Alternative 2 to reduce potential impacts to
any unknown tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level.
193 6/2/2020
Overall, impacts to tribal cultural resources under Alternative 2 would be
similar to the proposed Project's impacts.
Because impacts related to cultural resources for Alternative 2 would be
less than those associated with the proposed Project, implementation of
Mitigation Measures CUL -1 and CUL -2 would also ensure that
Alternative 2, together with cumulative projects, would not result in a
significant cumulative impact to unique archaeological resources and
previously undiscovered buried human remains. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-8
through 4.13-9.)
Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative 2 would allow for the future construction of a 161,385 -square -
foot (sf) Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard and a 399 -space
vehicle storage facility, but no drive-through restaurant uses would be
developed. Alternative 2 represents a reduction of 6,000 sf of drive
through restaurant use as compared to the proposed Project. Under
Alternative 2, Area A would provide 150 parking spaces, compared to 62
parking spaces provided in Area A as part of the proposed Project.
Most components of the proposed Project, such as outdoor lighting,
circulation and access, signage, utilities and drainage, sustainability
features, landscaping, and construction phasing, and grading, would not
significantly change with the implementation of Alternative 2. Components
specific to Area A, such as the location of walkways, retaining walls
fences, and gates, would also not change under Alternative 2. The
modification and installation of existing and new utilities and infrastructure
associated with the proposed Project would still occur under Alternative 2.
Although Alternative 2 would not involve the development of structures on
Area A as the proposed Project would, the entirety of Area A would still be
cleared, excavated, graded, and paved to accommodate surface parking.
Although Alternative 2 would not include any drive-through restaurant
uses, the Ganahl Lumber hardware store, lumber yard, and vehicle
storage facility would be constructed and all of the same utilities required
for the proposed Project would also be required for Alternative 2. Although
specific estimates for the water demand and wastewater generation
attributed to the proposed Project's drive-through restaurant uses cannot
be developed using the general land use factors supplied by the City's
Utilities Department (these factors rely on the number of acres of each
land use rather than the actual building square footage that is proposed), it
is reasonable to conclude that Alternative 2 would result in an
incrementally lower demand for water and would generate incrementally
less wastewater than the proposed Project because, unlike the proposed
Project, it would not include any drive-through restaurant uses.
Additionally, as described in Section 4.5, Energy, of the Draft EIR, natural
194 6/2/2020
gas consumption would be reduced by approximately 80 percent under
Alternative 2, and electricity consumption would be reduced by
approximately 12 percent during operation as compared to the proposed
Project.
Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would also require
compliance with Regulatory Compliance Measures UTLA through UTL-
3 and Mitigation Measures UTLA and UTL-2 because it would still be
required to comply with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
and would also connect to the City's domestic water and sewer system.
Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would change the use on the
Project site, increase impervious surface area, and increase stormwater
runoff. A Final WQMP and Hydrology and Hydraulics Analysis would be
required to be prepared and implemented for Alternative 2 (Regulatory
Compliance Measures WQ-4 and WQ-5). Implementation of drainage
infrastructure would be required to convey stormwater runoff in
compliance with and City requirements. With the incorporation of
mitigation, Alternative 2 would have less than significant impacts with
respect to utilities and service systems. Overall, impacts to utilities and
service systems under Alternative 2 are reduced, but similar to impacts
associated with the proposed Project.
Because utility and service system demands for Alternative 2 would be
less than those associated with the proposed Project, cumulative impacts
would also be less than cumulatively significant, and no mitigation would
be required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.14-23 through 4.14-24.)
Attainment of Project Objectives: Alternative 2 would only partially meet the
objective of developing a lumber store that provides building supplies and
hardware to professional contractors and the public, while also providing casual
restaurant uses and automobile storage facilities (Objective 1) because
Alternative 2 would not include any restaurant uses. Alternative 2 would allow the
continuation of parking/automobile storage for nearby car dealerships (Objective
4), provide an easement for future private emergency access from the Project
site to Avenida Aeropuerto along the westernmost boundary of the Capistrano
Valley Mobile Estates (Objective 7), and include conservation and sustainability
features to be consistent with the California's Title 24 Energy Code requirements
(Objective 8). However, this alternative would not meet the objective of
maximizing the potential of the Project site to serve as a well-designed and
landscaped mixed-use project that is compatible with the surrounding community
(Objectives 3). Additionally, by eliminating the proposed drive-through restaurant
uses, Alternative 2 would reduce the potential revenue generated for the City's
tax base by reducing the amount of new retail sales on the Project site, and
invigorate the local economy less by providing fewer new employment and
business opportunities in the City (Objectives 5 and 6) than the proposed Project.
195 6/2/2020
Therefore, this alternative would meet some of the Project objectives, but not to
the same degree as the proposed Project. (Draft EIR, p. 5-10.)
Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 2: No Restaurant Use, on the
following grounds, which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection
of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet most of the Project objectives
for the reasons outlined above; and (2) the alternative fails to avoid or reduce the
Project's significant and unavoidable impacts relating to transportation.
3. Alternative 3: 2,000 Square Feet of Restaurant Uses
Description: This alternative would include the Ganahl Lumber store as
proposed but would reduce the square footage of the restaurant uses from 6,000
square feet (sf) to 2,000 sf. This would most likely result in one restaurant tenant
and would reduce daily traffic trips to/from the site. (Draft EIR, p. 5-12.)
Impacts:
Aesthetics
Alternative 3 would allow for the future construction of a 161,385 sf
Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard, a 399 -space vehicle
storage facility, and 2,000 sf of drive-through restaurant uses, which
represents a reduction of 4,000 sq of drive-through restaurant uses as
compared to the proposed Project. Specifically, Alternative 2 would
provide 80 parking spaces, compared to 62 parking spaces provided in
Area A as part of the proposed Project.
Most components of the proposed Project, such as outdoor lighting,
circulation and access, signage, utilities and drainage, sustainability
features, landscaping, and construction phasing and grading, would not
significantly change with the implementation of Alternative 3. Components
specific to Area A, such as the location of walkways, retaining walls,
fences, and gates, would also not change under Alternative 3.
The modification and installation of existing and new utilities and
infrastructure associated with the proposed Project would still occur under
Alternative 3. Under Alternative 3, similar to the proposed Project, the
entirety of Area A would be cleared, excavated, graded, and paved to
accommodate surface parking and a building pad.
Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 3 would have less than
significant impacts related to scenic vistas, scenic resources, light, glare,
and the existing visual character of the Project site and its surroundings.
Additionally, both the proposed Project and Alternative 3 would have no
impact associated with State Scenic Highways because no official State
Scenic Highways are located in the vicinity of the Project.
196 6/2/2020
Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 3 would require the
preparation of a lighting plan and photometric study, which would be
approved by the City. Mitigation Measures AES -1 and AES -2 would still
be applicable under Alternative 3 to ensure that new sources of light and
glare do not impact adjacent land uses; additionally, nighttime lighting
would be limited to lighting necessary for security, and lighting would be
shielded to reduce glare and spill lighting effects on adjacent sensitive
uses. Therefore, the overall visual impacts of Alternative 3 would be less
than significant and similar to those of the proposed Project. With the
incorporation of Mitigation Measures AES -1 and AES -2, Alternative 3
would have less than significant impacts with respect to aesthetics.
Overall, impacts to aesthetics under Alternative 3 are reduced but similar
to impacts associated with the proposed Project.
Because impacts related to aesthetics for Alternative 3 would be less than
those associated with the proposed Project, cumulative impacts would
also be less than cumulatively significant, and no mitigation would be
required.
Air Quality
Alternative 3 would allow for the future construction of a 161,385 sf
Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard, a 399 -space vehicle
storage facility, and 2,000 sf of drive-through restaurant uses, which
represents a reduction of 4,000 sf of drive-through restaurant uses as
compared to the proposed Project. Specifically, Alternative 3 would
provide 80 parking spaces, compared to 62 parking spaces provided in
Area A as part of the proposed Project.
Most components of the proposed Project, such as outdoor lighting,
circulation and access, signage, utilities and drainage, sustainability
features, landscaping, and construction phasing and grading, would not
significantly change with the implementation of Alternative 3. Components
specific to Area A, such as the location of walkways, retaining walls,
fences, and gates, would also not change under Alternative 3. The
modification and installation of existing and new utilities and infrastructure
associated with the proposed Project would still occur under Alternative 3.
Under Alternative 3, similar to the proposed Project, the entirety of Area A
would be cleared, excavated, graded, and paved to accommodate surface
parking and a building pad.
For the reasons stated above, it can be assumed that construction -related
criteria air pollutant emissions generated under Alternative 3 would be
similar, but slightly less, than emissions expected under the proposed
Project. As discussed in Section 4.2.6, Project Impacts, of the Draft EIR,
the proposed Project would generate construction emissions below both
197 6/2/2020
SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds and SCAQMD's LSTs.
Therefore, the reduced development intensity of Alternative 3 would also
result in construction emissions below these thresholds.
Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in the long-term emission of
ROG, NOx, S02, CO, PMio, and PM2.5. Table 4.2.K compares the
maximum daily regional operations emissions of Alternative 2 and the
proposed Project.
As shown in Table 4.2.K, Alternative 3 would result in fewer operational
criteria air pollutants than the proposed Project. Therefore, because
Alternative 3 results in fewer operational emissions as compared to the
proposed Project, Alternative 3 would not exceed the significance
thresholds of criteria pollutants for which the Project region is
nonattainment under the CAAQS or NAAQS.
Alternative 3 has also been evaluated for localized pollutant emissions. In
order to provide a conservative assessment, the emissions shown in
Table 4.21 include all on-site project -related stationary sources, as well
as 10 percent of the Project -related mobile sources. Table 4.21 shows the
maximum daily emissions for operational activities under Alternative 3 as
compared to the proposed Project.
As seen in Table 4.21 of the Draft EIR, Alternative 3 would result in fewer
on-site generated localized pollutants when compared to the proposed
Project. Therefore, because Alternative 3 would result in fewer localized
operations emissions as compared to the proposed Project, Alternative 3
would not exceed the LSTs established by the SCAQMD, and localized
emissions from operation of Alternative 3 would not expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 3 would be required to comply
with the SCAQMD's AQMP. In order to determine consistency with
SCAQMD's air quality planning two main criteria must be addressed. The
first criterion involves consistency with the State's ambient air quality
standards and the NAAQS, which is determined based on whether a
project exceeds regional and localized thresholds of significance. The
second criterion relates to a project's consistency with regional growth
projections, which are used to develop future air quality forecasts for the
AQMP. Alternative 3 would be below the SCAQMD regional and localized
thresholds for construction and operations and is consistent with the land
use designation and development density presented in the City's General
Plan. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 3 is consistent with these
two criteria, and therefore, would not conflict with the SCAQMD AQMP.
Alternative 3 would not result in the development of any substantial
sources of air toxics. Alternative 3 would not involve any stationary
198 6/2/2020
sources associated with operations and would not attract substantial
amounts of heavy-duty trucks that spend long periods queuing and idling
at the Project site. Alternative 3 has been evaluated against SCAQMD's
operational phase LST protocol, and on-site project emissions would
result in slightly less concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive
receptors as compared to the proposed Project.
Overall, Alternative 3 would have less than significant impacts with respect
to air quality, and impacts would be further reduced with the incorporation
of Regulatory Compliance Measures AQ -1 through AQ -3, which would
also be required for Alternative 2. Overall, impacts to air quality under
Alternative 3 are reduced, but similar to impacts associated with the
proposed Project. Because impacts related to air quality for Alternative 3
would be less than those associated with the proposed Project, cumulative
impacts would also be less than cumulatively significant. (Draft EIR, pp.
4.2-24 through 4.2-27.)
Biological Resources
Alternative 3 would allow for the future construction of a 161,385 sf
Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard, a 399 -space vehicle
storage facility, and 2,000 sf of drive-through restaurant uses, which
represents a reduction of 4,000 sf of drive-through restaurant uses as
compared to the proposed Project. The reduction in drive-through square
footage on Area A as compared to the proposed Project would allow for
additional parking spaces. Under Alternative 3, Area A would provide
approximately 80 parking spaces, whereas the proposed Project would
provide 62 parking spaces. Components of the proposed Project, such as
outdoor lighting, circulation and access, signage, utilities and drainage,
sustainability features, landscaping, and construction phasing and grading
would not change under the implementation of Alternative 3. Components
specific to Area A, such as the location of walkways, retaining walls
fences, and gates, would not vary between the proposed Project and
Alternative 3. Alternative 3 would involve the grading and paving of Area A
for one building pad for drive-through restaurant use rather than two
building pads for two drive through restaurants.
Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 3 would remove all existing
vegetation on the Project site. The Project site, including Area A would be
cleared, excavated, graded, and paved as under the proposed Project.
The area of disturbance would be the same under the proposed Project
and Alternative 3. Therefore, Mitigation Measures B10-1, B10-2, and
B10-3 would still be applicable under Alternative 2 to ensure that potential
impacts to biological resources are reduced to a less than significant level.
Therefore, biological impacts associated with Alternative 3 are considered
to be less than significant with mitigation and similar to those of the
proposed Project.
199 6/2/2020
Because impacts related to biological resources for Alternative 3 would be
less than those associated with the proposed Project, cumulative impacts
would also be less than cumulatively significant, and no mitigation would
be required.
Cultural Resources
Alternative 3 would allow for the future construction of a 161,385 sf
Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard, a 399 -space vehicle
storage facility, and 2,000 sf of drive-through restaurant uses, which
represents a reduction of 4,000 sf of drive-through restaurant uses as
compared to the proposed Project. The reduction in drive-through square
footage on Area A as compared to the proposed Project would allow for
additional parking spaces. Under Alternative 3, Area A would provide
approximately 80 parking spaces, whereas the proposed Project would
provide 62 parking spaces.
Components of the proposed Project, such as outdoor lighting, circulation
and access, signage, utilities and drainage, sustainability features,
landscaping, and construction phasing and grading would not change
under the implementation of Alternative 3. Components specific to Area A,
such as the location of walkways, retaining walls, fences, and gates,
would not vary between the proposed Project and Alternative 3.
Alternative 3 would involve the grading and paving of Area A for one
building pad for drive-through restaurant use rather than two building pads
for two drive through restaurants.
Although Alternative 3 would involve the construction of fewer structures
than the proposed Project, the entirety of Area A would still be cleared,
excavated, graded, and paved to accommodate surface parking and one
building pad for the drive-through restaurant use. Because the area of
disturbance is the same as under the proposed Project, potential impacts
to unknown cultural resources would be similar for Alternative 3 as to
those of the proposed Project. Mitigation Measures CULA and CUL -2
would still be applicable under Alternative 3 to protect any unknown
archaeological resources and previously undiscovered buried human
remains. Overall, impacts to cultural resources under Alternative 3 would
be similar to the proposed Project's impacts. With the incorporation of
mitigation, Alternative 3 would have less than significant impacts to
archaeological resources and previously undiscovered buried human
remains.
Because impacts related to cultural resources for Alternative 3 would be
less than those associated with the proposed Project, implementation of
Mitigation Measures CULA and CUL -2 would also ensure that
Alternative 3, together with cumulative projects, would not result in a
200 6/2/2020
significant cumulative impact to unique archaeological resources and
previously undiscovered buried human remains. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-9
through 4.4-10.)
Energy
Alternative 3 would allow for the future construction of a 161,385 sf
Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard, a 399 -space vehicle
storage facility, and 2,000 sf of drive-through restaurant uses, which
represents a reduction of 4,000 sf of drive-through restaurant uses as
compared to the proposed Project. Specifically, Alternative 3 would
provide 80 parking spaces, compared to 62 parking spaces provided in
Area A as part of the proposed Project.
Most components of the proposed Project, such as outdoor lighting,
circulation and access, signage, utilities and drainage, sustainability
features, landscaping, and construction phasing and grading, would not
significantly change with the implementation of Alternative 3. Components
specific to Area A, such as the location of walkways, retaining walls,
fences, and gates, would also not change under Alternative 3. The
modification and installation of existing and new utilities and infrastructure
associated with the proposed Project would still occur under Alternative 3.
Under Alternative 3, similar to the proposed Project, the entirety of Area A
would be cleared, excavated, graded, and paved to accommodate surface
parking and a building pad.
Construction. Although Alternative 3 would result in a reduction of 4,000
sf of drive-through restaurant uses, Site A would still require grading and
site preparation, and the required construction equipment and schedule
would remain similar to the proposed Project. As shown in Table 4.5.0
(found at Draft EIR, p. 4.5-14), automotive fuel consumption during
construction would remain unchanged as compared to the proposed
Project.
Operation. Under Alternative 3, daily trips would decrease approximately
25 percent as compared to the proposed Project, and would therefore
reduce operational fuel consumption. As shown in Table 4.5.0 (found at
Draft EIR, p. 4.5-14), Alternative 3 would result in the use of 105,722 less
gallons of fuel per year during operations as compared to the proposed
Project. Additionally, natural gas consumption would be reduced by
approximately 53 percent, and electricity consumption would be reduced
by 8 percent during operation as compared to the proposed Project.
Summary. Electricity, natural gas, and operational fuel consumption
would be reduced under Alternative 3. However, construction -related fuel
consumption would remain unchanged. Overall, impacts to energy under
Alternative 3 are reduced, but similar to impacts associated with the
201 6/2/2020
proposed Project. Regulatory Compliance Measure E-1 would still be
applicable under Alternative 3 to ensure that the Project would not result in
the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources
during project construction or operation. With incorporation of Regulatory
Compliance Measure E-1, Alternative 3 would have less than significant
impacts with respect to energy. Because impacts related to energy for
Alternative 3 would be less than those associated with the proposed
Project, cumulative impacts would also be less than cumulatively
significant, and no mitigation would be required.
Geologv_and Soils
Alternative 3 would allow for the future construction of a 161,385 sf
Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard, a 399 -space vehicle
storage facility, and 2,000 sf of drive-through restaurant uses, which
represents a reduction of 4,000 sf of drive-through restaurant uses as
compared to the proposed Project. Specifically, Alternative 3 would
provide 80 parking spaces, compared to 62 parking spaces provided in
Area A as part of the proposed Project.
Most components of the proposed Project, such as outdoor lighting,
circulation and access, signage, utilities and drainage, sustainability
features, landscaping, and construction phasing and grading, would not
significantly change with the implementation of Alternative 3. Components
specific to Area A, such as the location of walkways, retaining walls,
fences, and gates, would also not change under Alternative 3. The
modification and installation of existing and new utilities and infrastructure
associated with the proposed Project would still occur under Alternative 3.
Under Alternative 3, similar to the proposed Project, the entirety of Area A
would be cleared, excavated, graded, and paved to accommodate surface
parking and a building pad.
Alternative 3 would construct less square footage than the proposed
Project, but would be located on the same soils with the same geological
conditions as the proposed Project and would therefore result in
potentially significant impacts with respect to strong seismic ground
shaking, ground failure (including liquefaction), slope stability, corrosive
soils, ground settlement, expansive soils, and the destruction of
paleontological resources without the implementation of mitigation
measures. Therefore, Mitigation Measures GEO-1, GEO-2, GEO-3, and
GEO-4 as stated above would be applicable under Alternative 3, similar to
the proposed Project. With implementation of the mitigation measures,
potential impacts for Alternative 3 with respect to geology and soils would
be less than significant and similar to those of the proposed Project. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.6-21.)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
202 6/2/2020
Alternative 3 would allow for the future construction of a 161,385 sf
Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard, a 399 -space vehicle
storage facility, and 2,000 sf of drive-through restaurant uses, which
represents a reduction of 4,000 sf of drive-through restaurant uses as
compared to the proposed Project. Specifically, Alternative 3 would
provide 80 parking spaces, compared to 62 parking spaces provided in
Area A as part of the proposed Project.
Most components of the proposed Project, such as outdoor lighting,
circulation and access, signage, utilities and drainage, sustainability
features, landscaping, and construction phasing and grading, would not
significantly change with the implementation of Alternative 3. Components
specific to Area A, such as the location of walkways, retaining walls,
fences, and gates, would also not change under Alternative 3. The
modification and installation of existing and new utilities and infrastructure
associated with the proposed Project would still occur under Alternative 3.
Under Alternative 3, similar to the proposed Project, the entirety of Area A
would be cleared, excavated, graded, and paved to accommodate surface
parking and a building pad.
For the reasons stated above, it can be assumed that construction -related
GHG emissions generated under Alternative 3 would be similar, but
slightly less, than emissions expected under the proposed Project. As
discussed in Section 4.7.6, Project Impacts, of the Draft EIR, GHG
emissions generated during construction of the proposed Project would be
temporary and would cease upon project completion. Similarly, GHG
emissions generated during construction of Alternative 3 would be
temporary, would cease upon project completion, and would not result in a
permanent increase in emissions, and therefore, impacts would be less
than significant.
Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in long-term operational GHG
emissions. Table 4.7.F (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.7-16) compares the long-
term operational GHG emissions of Alternative 3 and the proposed
Project.
As shown in Table 4.71 (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.7-16), Alternative 3
would result in 1,153 MT per year fewer CO2e emissions as compared to
the proposed Project. As such, impacts under Alternative 3 would be
slightly less, similar to the proposed Project and less than significant.
Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 3 would not conflict with the
goals of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. Additionally, Alternative 3 would not be
considered regionally significant per State CEQA Guidelines Section
15206. Thus, the Project would not conflict with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS
203 6/2/2020
targets because those targets were established and are applicable on a
regional level.
Alternative 3 would have less than significant impacts with respect to GHG
emissions. Overall, impacts to GHG emissions under Alternative 3 are
reduced, but similar to impacts associated with the proposed Project.
Because impacts related to GHG emissions for Alternative 3 would be less
than those associated with the proposed Project, cumulative impacts
would also be less than cumulatively significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-15
through 4.7-17.)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternative 3 would allow for the future construction of a 161,385 sf
Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard, a 399 -space vehicle
storage facility, and 2,000 sf of drive-through restaurant uses, which
represents a reduction of 4,000 sf of drive-through restaurant uses as
compared to the proposed Project. Specifically, Alternative 3 would
provide 80 parking spaces, compared to 62 parking spaces provided in
Area A as part of the proposed Project.
Most components of the proposed Project, such as outdoor lighting,
circulation and access, signage, utilities and drainage, sustainability
features, landscaping, and construction phasing and grading, would not
significantly change with the implementation of Alternative 3. Components
specific to Area A, such as the location of walkways, retaining walls,
fences, and gates, would also not change under Alternative 3. The
modification and installation of existing and new utilities and infrastructure
associated with the proposed Project would still occur under Alternative 3.
Under Alternative 3, similar to the proposed Project, the entirety of Area A
would be cleared, excavated, graded, and paved to accommodate surface
parking and a building pad.
The potential for hazards and hazardous materials associated with the
proposed Project to occur on site would not change under Alternative 3.
Alternative 3 would involve the grading and paving of the entirety of Area
A for surface parking and a building pad.
The Project site is not located on a listed hazardous materials site, is not
within an airport land use plan, and is not within a high fire hazard/wildland
fire area. However, similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 3 would
result in potentially significant impacts with respect to the discovery of
unknown hazardous materials during construction. Alternative 3 would
adhere to BMPs, codes, and ordinances to reduce impacts related to the
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, project -produced
hazardous emissions, and emergency access applicable to the proposed
Project.
204 6/2/2020
Construction and operation would occur to a similar degree under
Alternative 3 as for the proposed Project, therefore, the BMPs, codes, and
ordinances that the proposed Project would adhere to would also be
applicable to Alternative 3.
Alternative 3 would require compliance with Mitigation Measure HAZA.
With the incorporation of mitigation, Alternative 3 would have less than
significant impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials.
Overall, impacts to hazards and hazardous materials under Alternative 3
are reduced, but similar to impacts associated with the proposed Project.
Because impacts with regard to hazards and hazardous materials would
be less than those associated with the proposed Project, cumulative
impacts would also be less than cumulatively significant, and no mitigation
would be required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-13 through 4.8-14.)
Hvdroloav and Water Qualit
Alternative 3 would allow for the future construction of a 161,385 sf
Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard, a 399 -space vehicle
storage facility, and 2,000 sf of drive-through restaurant uses, which
represents a reduction of 4,000 sf of drive-through restaurant uses as
compared to the proposed Project. Specifically, Alternative 3 would
provide 80 parking spaces, compared to 62 parking spaces provided in
Area A as part of the proposed Project.
Most components of the proposed Project, such as outdoor lighting,
circulation and access, signage, utilities and drainage, sustainability
features, landscaping, and construction phasing and grading, would not
significantly change with the implementation of Alternative 3. Components
specific to Area A, such as the location of walkways, retaining walls,
fences, and gates, would also not change under Alternative 3.
The modification and installation of existing and new utilities and
infrastructure associated with the proposed Project would still occur under
Alternative 3. Under Alternative 3, similar to the proposed Project, the
entirety of Area A would be cleared, excavated, graded, and paved to
accommodate surface parking and a building pad.
Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 3 would change the use on the
Project site, increase impervious surface area, increase stormwater runoff,
and change the pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff. Alternative 3
would be required to comply with all NPDES regulations, including the
Construction General Permit, South Orange County MS4 Permit, and
Groundwater Discharge Permit (Regulatory Compliance Measures WQ-
1 through WQ-3). In addition, a Final WQMP and Hydrology and
205 6/2/2020
Hydraulics Analysis would be required to be prepared and implemented
for Alternative 3 (Regulatory Compliance Measures WQ-4 and WQ-5).
Implementation of BMPs and drainage infrastructure would be required to
reduce pollutants of concern on the Project site and convey stormwater
runoff in compliance with NPDES and City requirements.
Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 3 would be constructed within
a 100 -year floodplain. Alternative 3 would comply with existing NFIP,
FEMA, and City regulations governing development within a 100 -year
floodplain. An elevation certification would be obtained from a certified
engineer or surveyor and a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR-
F) and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR-F) would be obtained from FEMA,
as required by Regulatory Compliance Measures WQ-6 and WQ-7.
With compliance with adopted regulations, Alternative 3 would result in
less than significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. With
implementation of BMPs and drainage infrastructure in compliance with
adopted regulations, the hydrology and water quality impacts of
Alternative 3 would be similar to those of the proposed Project.
Because impacts related to hydrology and water quality for Alternative 3
would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project, cumulative
impacts would also be less than cumulatively significant, and no mitigation
would be required. (Final EIR, pp. 4.9-30 through 4.9-31.)
Land Use and Planning
Alternative 3 would allow for the future construction of a 161,385 sf of
Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard, a 399 -space vehicle
storage facility, and 2,000 sf of drive-through restaurant uses, which
represents a reduction of 4,000 sf of drive-through restaurant uses as
compared to the proposed Project. Specifically, Alternative 3 would
provide 80 parking spaces, compared to 62 parking spaces provided in
Area A as part of the proposed Project.
Most components of the proposed Project, such as outdoor lighting,
circulation and access, signage, utilities and drainage, sustainability
features, landscaping, and construction phasing and grading, would not
significantly change with the implementation of Alternative 3. Components
specific to Area A, such as the location of walkways, retaining walls,
fences, and gates, would also not change under Alternative 3. The
modification and installation of existing and new utilities and infrastructure
associated with the proposed Project would still occur under Alternative 3.
Under Alternative 3, similar to the proposed Project, the entirety of Area A
would be cleared, excavated, graded, and paved to accommodate surface
parking and a building pad.
206 6/2/2020
Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 3 would have less than
significant impacts related to land use and planning. Under this
Alternative, as well as the proposed Project, there would be no impacts
related to the division of an existing community. Although Alternative 3
would not include any drive-through restaurant use on Area A as
compared to 6,000 sf under the proposed Project, the uses of Sites B and
C would be the same under the proposed Project and Alternative 3.
Therefore, Alternative 2 would still be consistent with both the existing
General Plan land use designation of Quasi -Industrial and zoning
classification of Commercial Manufacturing. As under the proposed
Project, the implementation of Alternative 3 would not require a General
Plan Amendment or Zoning Amendment. Alternative 3 would be
consistent with the policies contained in the City's General Plan, the City's
zoning code, the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG)
2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan, and the SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS.
Therefore, impacts related to land use for Alternative 3 are considered to
be less than significant and similar to those associated with the proposed
Project.
Because impacts related to land use and planning for Alternative 3 would
be less than those associated with the proposed Project, cumulative
impacts would also be less than cumulatively significant, and no mitigation
would be required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-27.)
Noise
Alternative 3 would allow for the future construction of a 161,385 sf
Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard, a 399 -space vehicle
storage facility, and 2,000 sf of fast-food restaurant use, which represents
a reduction of 4,000 sf of drive-through restaurant uses as compared to
the proposed Project. Specifically, Alternative 3 would provide 80 parking
spaces, compared to 62 parking spaces provided in Area A as part of the
proposed Project.
Most components of the proposed Project, such as outdoor lighting,
circulation and access, signage, utilities and drainage, sustainability
features, landscaping, and construction phasing and grading, would not
significantly change with the implementation of Alternative 3. Components
specific to Area A, such as the location of walkways, retaining walls,
fences, and gates, would also not change under Alternative 3. The
modification and installation of existing and new utilities and infrastructure
associated with the proposed Project would still occur under Alternative 3.
Under Alternative 3, similar to the proposed Project, the entirety of Area A
would be cleared, excavated, graded, and paved to accommodate surface
parking and a building pad.
207 6/2/2020
Construction Noise and Vibration. As discussed above, grading and
site preparation activities are the loudest aspects of construction, and the
grading and site preparation involved with Alternative 3 require the same
amount of ground disturbance as the proposed Project. Therefore, similar
to the proposed Project, Alternative 3 would include the same amount of
acreage within the same proximity to vicinity noise receptors. However,
Alternative 3 would result in the construction of less building space (4,000
fewer square feet). Therefore, construction -related noise generated under
this alternative would be produced for a slightly shorter period of time than
the proposed Project.
Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 3 would also implement
Mitigation Measure NOI-1, which requires adherence to daytime noise
restrictions, and Mitigation Measure N0I-2, which includes noise control
and sound attenuation measures to reduce noise impacts on sensitive
land uses.
Alternative 3 would result in the same amount of ground vibration as the
proposed Project. As with the proposed Project, the use of virtually any
type of construction equipment during construction of Alternative 3 would
not result in a ground -borne vibration velocity level above 0.2 inch/sec at
the nearest off-site structures.
Operational Noise. Operational noise sources associated with Alternative
3 would include mobile and stationary (i.e., fast food restaurant drive
through, mechanical equipment, lumber yard operations) sources.
Alternative 3 would generate approximately 25 percent less traffic on
vicinity roadways. Such a decrease in automobile trips would equate to
similar to slightly less traffic noise compared with the proposed Project,
depending on the specific roadway segments. For instance, the greatest
reduction of traffic noise would occur on the segment of Stonehill Drive
between the Project Driveway and Camino Capistrano. Specifically, 25
percent less project traffic on the segment of Stonehill Drive between the
Project Driveway and Camino Capistrano would result in a 0.1 dBA CNEL
decrease compared with the proposed Project. All the remaining vicinity
roadway segments would experience the same level of traffic noise with
implementation of Alternative 3 compared with the proposed Project.
Alternative 3 would include several on-site noise sources included in the
proposed Project such material handling vehicles stacking, loading and
unloading products, back-up beepers, delivery trucks, a trash compactor,
a baler, and other mechanical equipment and parking lot noise. Compared
with the proposed Project, Alternative 3 levels range from 2.2 dBA below
to 0.6 dBA above noise levels at the receptors as compared to the
proposed Project. However, noise levels at these locations would still not
exceed noise thresholds for daytime, evening, or nighttime periods.
208 6/2/2020
Summary. Overall, noise impacts with respect to Alternative 3 would be
slightly reduced as compared to the proposed Project. Alternative 3 would
result in the same significance conclusions as the proposed Project.
Therefore, Alternative 3 impacts would be similar to impacts associated
with implementation of the proposed Project.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures N0I-1 and N0I-2 would ensure
that construction of Alternative 3, together with cumulative projects, would
not result in a significant cumulative impact as a result of construction
noise. Because operational impacts related to noise for Alternative 3
would be less than those associated with the proposed Project, cumulative
impacts would also be less than cumulatively significant, and no mitigation
would be required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-22 through 4.11-23.)
Transportation
Alternative 3 would allow for the future construction of a 161,385 sf
Ganahl Lumber hardware store and lumber yard, a 399 -space vehicle
storage facility, and 2,000 sf of fast-food restaurant uses. Based on the
same trip generation rates used for the proposed Project, Alternative 3 is
anticipate to generate approximately 2,544 ADT, including 230 trips (126
inbound and 104 outbound) in the a.m. peak hour and 153 trips (69
inbound and 84 outbound) in the p.m. peak hour.
Alternative 3 Existing Plus Project —Significant and Unavoidable
Impact. Based on the analysis of the Alternative 3 Existing Plus Project
peak -hour LOS analysis, all study area intersections, including the hot -
spot intersections, are anticipated to operate at satisfactory LOS based on
the ICU and the HCM methodology. Therefore, a significant Alternative 3
impact would not occur at any study area intersection based on either the
ICU or HCM methodologies.
An analysis of impacts to roadway segment ADT volumes, v/c ratios, and
LOS was also conducted for the Alternative 3 Existing Plus Project
scenario. Based on this analysis, all study area roadway segments,
including the hot -spot roadways, are anticipated to operate at satisfactory
LOS with Alternative 3, with the exception of Stonehill Drive between
Camino Capistrano and the Project Driveway (LOS E), Stonehill Drive
between the Project Driveway and Del Obispo Street (LOS D), and Valle
Road between San Juan Creek Road and the 1-5 northbound ramps (LOS
F). The v/c ratios for Stonehill Drive between Camino Capistrano and the
Project Driveway and between the Project Driveway and Del Obispo
Street would increase by 0.049 and 0.011, respectively, in the Alternative
3 Existing Plus Project condition. These are considered significant
unavoidable impacts because there is no available right -of- way as a
feasible improvement to widen Stonehill Drive to provide additional
roadway capacity. However, the v/c ratio does not increase by 0.01 or
209 6/2/2020
greater for Valle Road between San Juan Creek Road and the 1-5
northbound ramps in the Alternative 3 Existing Plus Project condition and
therefore impacts at these locations are not considered significant.
Although a significant project impact would occur at two study area
roadway segments (Stonehill Drive between Camino Capistrano and the
Project Driveway and between the Project Driveway and Del Obispo
Street), a peak -hour link analysis shows that each segment would operate
at satisfactory LOS in both directions during the peak hours.
Alternative 3 Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative (Year 2024) —
Significant and Unavoidable Impact. Based on the results of the
Alternative 3 Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative peak -hour LOS
analysis, all study area intersections, including the hot -spot intersections,
are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS based on the ICU
methodology, with the exception of Del Obispo Street/Stonehill Drive (LOS
D in the a.m. peak hour). However, Project Alternative 3 would not add
0.01 or greater to the v/c ratio at this intersection (0.008). Therefore, a
significant Project Alternative 3 or cumulative impact would not occur at
any study area intersection based on the ICU methodology.
Based on the HCM methodology, all study area intersections, including
the hot -spot intersections, are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS
based on the HCM methodology. Therefore, a significant Project
Alternative 3 or cumulative impact would not occur at any study area
intersection based on the HCM methodology.
An analysis of traffic impacts with respect to roadway segment ADT
volumes, v/c ratios, and LOS was evaluated under the Alternative 3
Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative scenario. Based on the results of
the analysis, all study area roadway segments, including the hot -spot
roadways, are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS, with the exception
of San Juan Creek Road between Valle Road and Camino Capistrano
(LOS E), Stonehill Drive between Camino Capistrano and the Project
Driveway (LOS E), Stonehill Drive between the Project Driveway and Del
Obispo Street (LOS E), and Valle Road between San Juan Creek Road
and the 1-5 northbound ramps (LOS F). The v/c ratios for Stonehill Drive
between Camino Capistrano and the Project Driveway and between the
Project Driveway and Del Obispo Street would increase by 0.049 and
0.011, respectively. These are considered significant unavoidable impacts
because there is no available right-of-way as a feasible improvement to
widen Stonehill Drive to provide additional roadway capacity. However,
the v/c ratios do not increase by 0.01 or greater for San Juan Creek Road
between Valle Road and Camino Capistrano and for Valle Road between
San Juan Creek Road and the 1-5 northbound ramps and therefore
impacts at these locations are not considered significant. Although a
significant Project Alternative 3 impact would occur at two study area
roadway segments (Stonehill Drive between Camino Capistrano and the
210 6/2/2020