Resolution Number 20-07-21-01RESOLUTION NO. 20-07-21-01
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 TIRADOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2019110154), ADOPTING
THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND
APPROVING THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Tirador Residential Development Project ("Project") proposes
the construction of a 132 -unit residential development consisting of 43 two-story
detached single-family units and 89 three-story attached townhome units; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located on an approximately 16.1 -acre site in the City
of San Juan Capistrano ("City"), bordered on the north by Calle Arroyo, with EI Horno
Creek and San Juan Creek adjacent to the south of the Project site, a portion of the San
Juan Creek Trail located along the southern portion of the Project site, Paseo Tirado
located to the east of the Project site, and the 1-5 freeway to the west of the Project site;
and
WHEREAS, the Project requires approvals of affordable housing incentives,
concessions, and waivers to CDP 78-01 development standards, architectural control,
grading plan modification, floodplain land use permit, and tentative tract map; and
WHEREAS, the Project also requires a Conditional Letter of Map Revision Based
on Fill (CLOMR-F) related to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Flood Maps, and the City and the Project Applicant will enter into a Purchase and Sale
Agreement, whereby the City will sell a 0.14 -acre portion of land contiguous to the
Project site to the developer for roadway, parking, and landscape purposes; 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 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, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy,
geology/soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology/water quality, land use/planning,
noise, transportation, and tribal cultural resources; and
WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study, the City further determined that impacts
to agriculture and forest resources, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral
resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, utilities and service
7/21/2020
systems, 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
November 7, 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 #2019110154) would be
prepared; and
WHEREAS, 11 comment letters were received in response to the NOP; and
2019; WHEREAS, the City held two public scoping meetings on November 20 and 21,
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:
biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and noise; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR further concluded that the proposed Project would not
result in significant and unavoidable impacts; 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
March 4, 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 March 4,
2020; and
WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the Draft EIR and
technical appendices were available for review and inspection at City 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 March 4,
2020 to April 17, 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 six (6) written comment letters on the Draft EIR;
2 7/21/2020
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 June 30, 2020; and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted the public
hearing to consider the Draft EIR, Architectural Control (AC) 17-033, Sign Permit (SP)
20-012, Grading Plan Modification (GPM) 17-013, Floodplain Land Use Permit (FP) 20-
001, and Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 17-002 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 June 3, 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, although no significant
and unavoidable impacts were identified, 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 7/21/2020
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 with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation
measures, the Project will not have any environmental impacts that are significant and
unavoidable as discussed 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, 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 July 21, 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
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
4 7/21/2020
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, and all written and oral evidence presented, the City Council hereby approves
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
the City Clerk. This information is provided pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21081.6.
SECTION 7. City staff shall cause a Notice of Determination to be filed and
posted with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five working days of
the adoption of this Resolution.
5 7/21/2020
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21St day of July 2020.
TROY A. O RNE, MAYOR
ATTE T:
MART" M R IS, CI C RK
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. 20-07-21-01 was duly adopted by the
City Council of the City of San Juan Capistrano at a Regular meeting thereof, held the
St d y of July 2020, by the following vote:
A ,ES COUNCIL MEMBERS: Reeve, Maryott, Farias, Taylor and Mayor Bourne
NOSE COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSEN i s COUNt_IL MEMBERS: None
KRIS, CITY QLERK
6 7/21/2020
EXHIBIT A
CEOA 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 Tirador Residential Development 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, satisfy section 21002's
mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521
1 7/21/2020
["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.AppAth 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 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.)
2 7/21/2020
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
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-4.)
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. It is usually viewed from some
distance away. Aesthetic components of a scenic vista include (1) scenic
quality, (2) sensitivity level, and (3) view access. A scenic vista can be
impacted in two ways: a development project can have visual impacts by
either directly diminishing the scenic quality of the vista or by blocking
the view corridors or "vista" of the scenic resource. Important factors in
determining whether a proposed project would block scenic vistas include
the project's proposed height, mass, and location relative to surrounding
land uses and travel corridors.
The project site is located in the City of San Juan Capistrano, east of 1-5,
west of El Horno Creek, and northwest of San Juan Creek. The project site
is currently characterized by an undeveloped dirt lot and ruderal
vegetation. While there are no locally designated scenic vistas in the City,
distant views of the Santa Ana Mountains, Saddleback Mountain, and the
Colinas Hills are visible from various vantage points throughout the City.
Regional visual resources that are visible from the project site include the
Santa Ana Mountains and the Colinas Hills.
Construction of the proposed project would require site preparation,
grading, and construction activities. Construction activities would be
visible to travelers along 1-5, Calle Arroyo, and other adjacent roadways.
3 7/21/2020
Any partial obstruction of scenic views of the Colinas Hills, Saddleback
Mountain, and Santa Ana Mountains as a result of construction activities
would be short-term in nature and would cease upon project completion.
In addition, construction equipment is not of sufficient height or mass to
substantially block views of distant scenic vistas. Therefore, construction
impacts related to adverse effects on a scenic visa would be less than
significant, and no mitigation would be required.
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, San Juan Creek Road and La Novia Avenue (both of which
are located south of the site) are designated scenic corridors. The City's
Urban 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.
The project site is considered to be within a portion of a public scenic
corridor due to the proximity of San Juan Creek Road and La Novia
Avenue to the site. 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 sidewalks surrounding
the site.
Implementation of the proposed project would allow for the development
of up to 132 single family residential units on the project site. On-site
residential uses would be a maximum of three stories in height (or
approximately 40 ft), which could result in the partial obstruction of scenic
views of surrounding hills. While the partial obstruction of views of
surrounding hills would occur, the overall views of surrounding hillsides
would not be substantially affected by development of the site due to the
prominence of the hillsides. Further, the project would include
landscaping elements throughout the project site and along the site's
perimeter, which would serve to enhance and frame views of these scenic
corridors and would block views of the proposed residential uses from
adjacent roadways.
While implementation of the proposed project would modify views of and
from the project site by allowing for development of a residential
community on the site, the project would not result in significant impacts
on views of the surrounding hills from adjacent roadways and sidewalks.
Motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians would continue to enjoy these views
following project implementation. Additionally, the project would include
a 20 ft wide multi -use trail along the southern boundary of the site, which
would connect recreational amenities on the site (i.e., gathering areas, a
climbing boulder, play areas, an equestrian hitching post, and exercise
stations) to off-site amenities (e.g., the Ortega Equestrian Center and Cook
4 7/21/2020
La Novia Park). This trail would provide additional public access to
distant views of the surrounding hills. Therefore, potential impacts of the
proposed project on scenic vistas would be less than significant, and no
mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-3 through
4-4.)
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?
Finding: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-5.)
Explanation: The California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) Landscape
Architecture Program administers the Scenic Highway Program, contained
in Streets and Highways Code Sections 260-263. State highways are
classified as either Officially Listed or Eligible. The portion of SR -74
located approximately 0.5 mile north of the project site is identified as an
Eligible State Scenic Highway, but is not officially designated as a scenic
highway by Caltrans.
The project site is located within a developed area of the City primarily
characterized by commercial and residential uses. 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. Therefore, the proposed project does not have the potential to
damage resources within a State -designated scenic highway, and no
mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-5.)
3. Visual Character
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 points). 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. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-14.)
Explanation: Construction of the proposed project would require excavation, grading,
and construction activities. Construction activities would be visible to
travelers along I-5 and Calle Arroyo, as well as visitors traveling along the
San Juan Creek Trail. Construction activities would be short-term in
nature, and all construction vehicles and equipment would be staged on
the project site throughout the duration of the construction period. Visual
impacts associated with construction would be temporary and would cease
5 7/21/2020
upon project completion. Therefore, construction impacts related to the
degradation of the existing visual character of the project site would be
less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
The proposed project would allow for the development of the currently
vacant project site with a residential community. All structures developed
on the project site would be of either California Spanish or Farmhouse
architectural styles. The architectural style and design of the proposed
residences would be consistent with the visual character of the
surrounding area, including the nearby 24 Hour Fitness facility, office
uses, and senior apartments, which all have Spanish design elements such
as red tile roofs.
The proposed project would incorporate ornamental landscaping along
Calle Arroyo and Paseo Tirador, along the site's boundary with the shared
24 Hour Fitness, and along the southern boundary of the site. The project
would also include decorative landscaping and a monument sign near the
three proposed access points to the property. A variety of 24- and 36 -inch
box trees, shrubbery, and groundcover would be scattered throughout the
site. The project would also include the installation of privacy walls to
visually screen the project site from surrounding roadways and uses,
including the adjacent 24 Hour Fitness facility. Privacy walls would also
be installed within the interior of the site to visually screen private rear
yards associated with on-site residences from Calle Arroyo and Paso
Tirador as well as other on-site residences and open areas. The proposed
project would be visible to pedestrians travelling along Calle Arroyo, the
San Juan Creek Trail, the adjacent 24 Hour Fitness facility, and other
nearby accessible areas. However, the installation of landscaping and
privacy walls would help to partially screen the residential development
from pedestrians in the project vicinity. The project site is also visible
from the I-5 freeway. However, the finished grade of the project site will
be approximately 7 ft lower than the freeway grade. Therefore, although
the proposed project and any associated perimeter or sound walls will be
visible, the proposed project would not substantially block views of the
project site or more distant views from the 1-5 freeway. Views of the Santa
Ana Mountains beyond would be preserved. Overall, the architectural
design features and landscaping proposed as part of the project would
ensure that the site's visual character would not be degraded and impacts
would be less than significant.
Project implementation would not conflict with applicable zoning and
General Plan regulations governing scenic quality. Additionally, as
discussed above, implementation of the proposed project would not
degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the
project site and its surroundings.
Zoning. The project site is currently zoned as a Planned
Community District associated with the adopted Ortega Planned
6 7/21/2020
Community Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP 78-01). This
zoning classification allows for the use of modern land planning
and design techniques to create developments integrating a mixture
of different types of land uses. The CDP 78-01 zone allows for
Very High Density residential development (18.1-30.0 du/ac). The
residential density of the proposed project would total 8.2 du/ac,
which is substantially lower than the maximum of 30.0 du/ac
allowed on the site under CDP 78-01. As such, implementation of
the proposed project would not necessitate a zone change.
Because the project will include residential units restricted to
households of moderate income, the Project Applicant will request
incentives, concessions, and waivers from certain development
standards. In total, 14 of the townhomes, or approximately 10.6
percent of the total units, would be designated as restricted
affordable units. The project is therefore entitled to one incentive
or concession under the State density bonus law and the City's
affordable housing ordinance. The project is also entitled to waiver
of development standards as necessary to prevent physical
preclusion of the project to the extent those waivers do not have a
specific adverse impact upon health, safety, the physical
environment, or a designated historical resource. The concession
requested by the Project Applicant would negate the requirement
that the second -story floor area not exceed 80 percent of the first -
story floor area.
Imposition of all of the design standards applicable to the project
site would result in a significant reduction of the floor area and the
number of units the project proposes to yield, making it infeasible
to include restricted affordable units. Construction of the project,
including the designated affordable units, would therefore be
physically precluded if certain City development standards are
applied. The Project Applicant will therefore request waiver of
those standards as permitted by the State density bonus law and the
City's affordable housing ordinance. The requested waivers will
allow a building separation of 8 ft in lieu of the otherwise required
20 ft; a 0 ft setback from the property line between the site and
Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 666-131-08, where the City of
San Juan Capistrano water well is located; a 10 ft setback from the
property line between the site and the property to the north, which
has been developed with a 24 Hour Fitness, rather than 20 ft as
required under the zoning code; and the elimination of recreational
vehicle parking spaces.
Section 9-3.301 of the Municipal Code outlines permitted uses and
minimum development standards allowed in residential zones. One
purpose of these regulations is to ensure compliance with
appropriate standards related to aesthetics and scenic quality.
7 7/21/2020
According to CDP 78-01, design standards for the project site are
governed by Planning Sectors B-3 and C. Table 4.1.A (found at
Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-9 through 4.1-10) shows the proposed project's
consistency with development standards outlined in CDP 78-01.
As shown in Table 4.1.A (found at Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-9 through
4.1-10), the proposed project would be consistent with
development standards required by CDP 78-01 following approval
of the waiver discussed above.
General Plan. According to the General Plan Land Use Element
(1999, revised 2014), the project site currently has a General Plan
land use designation of Planned Community. The Planned
Community designation allows for flexibility in the design of a
development and for the mixing of uses such as residential,
commercial, industrial, public/institutional, recreation, and open
space. There are also small portions of the project site designated
as General Open Space and Community Park. The proposed land
uses are consistent with these designations, and no General Plan
Amendment would be required for the proposed residential
development.
The City's General Plan includes goals and policies related to
urban design. As shown in Table 4.1.B (found at Draft EIR, pp. 4.-
11 through 4.1-14), the project would be consistent with applicable
General Plan goals and policies related to aesthetics and scenic
quality.
As shown in Table 4.1.13 (found at Draft EIR, pp. 4.41 through
4.1-14), the project would be consistent with the General Plan
goals and policies related to aesthetics and scenic quality.
Summary. The proposed project would not degrade the character
or quality of the project site, nor would the proposed project
contribute to an overall degradation of the visual character or
quality of the surrounding area. Further, the proposed residential
development is consistent with all applicable General Plan goals
and policies governing aesthetics and scenic quality.
Upon approval of the waivers requested as part of the project, the
proposed residential development would be consistent with all applicable
zoning regulations governing aesthetics and scenic quality on the property.
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. 4.1-7 through 4.1-14.)
8 7/21/2020
4. 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. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-12.)
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.
The City's Municipal Code Section 9-3.529 requires that spill light
generated from a residential development not exceed one footcandle on
the adjacent property.
Reflective light (glare) is the result of sunlight or artificial light reflecting
off of finished surfaces (e.g., window glass) or other reflective materials.
Glass and other materials can have many different reflectance
characteristics. Buildings constructed of highly reflective materials from
which the sun reflects at a low angle commonly cause adverse glare.
Reflective light is common in urban areas. Glare generally does not result
in the illumination of off-site locations but results in a visible source of
light viewable from a distance.
Currently, there are no existing sources of light or glare emanating from
the undeveloped project site. Existing sources of light in the project
vicinity include headlights on nearby roadways including the 1-5 freeway,
building fagades and interior lighting from adjacent development, and
pole -mounted lighting in parking areas of adjacent developments.
Adjacent commercial uses currently emit light and glare in the area.
Lighting from existing distant development within the City also
contributes light to the area.
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
9 7/21/2020
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 residential uses. Outdoor lighting proposed as part
of the project would include wall -mounted lighting, pole -mounted
streetlights, and security lighting along pathways. Accent lights would
also be incorporated to highlight landscape focal points and directional
monument signs. All outdoor lighting would be directed downward and
shielded to minimize off-site spill. Additionally, the location of all exterior
lighting would comply with lighting standards established in Section 9-3-
529 of the City's Municipal Code.
As illustrated by Figure 2.13, Photometric Plan, of the Initial Study, the
proposed project would not incorporate design features that would result
in excessive lighting or the generation of glare on the site. All lighting
could be contained within the boundaries of the site and would not exceed
the City's threshold of light spillage in excess of one footcandle on
adjacent properties. In addition, lighting included as part of the project
would be limited to that necessary for security, and would be shielded to
reduce glare and spill lighting effects on adjacent sensitive uses. Further,
the Applicant would be required to submit a final lighting plan and
photometric study to the City to review and approve as part of the site plan
review process. Therefore, implementation of these standard conditions
would ensure that impacts associated with new lighting would remain less
than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial
Study], pp. 4-11 through 4-12.)
B. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
1. Farmland Conversion
Threshold: Would the Project convert Prime 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?
Fi_ ndin 1: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-14.)
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
10 7/21/2020
status, and the best quality land is designated as Prime Farmland. Every
two years, the maps are updated with the use of a computer mapping
system, aerial imagery, public review, and field reconnaissance.
The project site is currently mapped as Other Land by the FMMP. As
defined by the FMMP, common examples of Other Land include low
density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not
suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry, or aquaculture
facilities; strip mines; borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres.
Due to the project site's proximity to El Homo Creek and San Juan Creek,
the site is likely classified as Other Land because it contains wetland and
riparian area not suitable for livestock grazing. In addition, the land
surrounding the project site is classified as Urban and Built Up Land.
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 to a non-agricultural use, and no
mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-13
through 4-14.)
2. Agricultural Zoning
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
Finning: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-14.)
Explanation: The proposed project is located on an approximately 16.1 -acre vacant site.
According to the City's Zoning Map, the project site is zoned as Planned
Community District associated with the adopted Ortega Planned
Community Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP 78-01). The purpose
of the Planned Community zone is to encourage the use of modern land
planning and design techniques to create developments integrating a
mixture of different types of land uses. 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. 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. (Appendix A
[Initial Study], p. 4-14.)
3. Forestland Zoning
11 7/21/2020
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. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-15.)
Explanation: As previously stated, the project site is zoned Planned Community District
associated with the adopted Ortega Planned Community Comprehensive
Development Plan (CDP 78-01). 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. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-14 through 4-
15.)
4. 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. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-15.)
Explanation: As stated previously, the project site is characterized by an undeveloped
lot and ruderal vegetation. 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. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p.
4-15.)
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. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-15.)
Explanation: No land on or in the vicinity of the project site is zoned for agricultural or
forest uses. The proposed project is located on an approximately 16.1 -acre
vacant site and would involve the construction of a 132 -unit residential
development. Currently, the project site is not zoned for agricultural or
forest use and is not used for agricultural production or designated forest
12 7/21/2020
land. The proposed project would not include other changes in the existing
environment that would result in conversion of farmland to non-
agricultural uses or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. Therefore,
no impacts would occur, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix
A [Initial Study], p. 4-15.)
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. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-14.)
Explanation: Projects are considered consistent with, and would not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the AQMP, if the growth in socioeconomic
factors (e.g., population, employment) is consistent with the underlying
regional plans used to develop the AQMP. The future emissions forecasts
are primarily based on demographic and economic growth projections
provided by SCAG. Thus, demographic growth forecasts for various
socioeconomic categories (e.g., population, housing, and employment by
industry) developed by SCAG for its 2016 Regional Transportation Plan
(SCAG 2016) were used to estimate future emissions in the Final 2016
AQMP (SCAQMD 2016).
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 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 proposed project would result in short-term
construction and long-term operational pollutant emissions that are
all less than the CEQA significance emissions thresholds
established by the SCAQMD, as demonstrated in the EIR;
therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increase in
the frequency or severity of any air quality standards violation and
will not cause a new air quality standard violation. 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
13 7/21/2020
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. The
CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) indicates that consistency
with AQMP growth assumptions must be analyzed for new or
amended General Plan elements, Specific Plans, and significant
projects. Significant projects include airports, electrical generating
facilities, petroleum and gas refineries, designation of oil drilling
districts, water ports, solid waste disposal sites, and offshore
drilling facilities; therefore, the proposed project is not defined as a
significant project. The project site currently has a General Plan
Land Use designation of Planned Community, along with smaller
portions designated General Open Space and Community Park.
Development of the project site would not require any General
Plan Amendment as proposed uses within each designated area are
consistent with the applicable General Plan designations. As such,
the proposed project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP
assumptions for the project site and is found to be consistent with
the AQMP for the Basin.
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 AQ -3. For the reasons
14 7/21/2020
stated above, the proposed project is considered to be consistent
with the second criterion.
In summary, 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 designations 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 rules 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 4.2-14.)
RCM AQ -1 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
Rule 402, Nuisance. Prohibits the discharge from any source
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.
15 7/21/2020
• 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 grams/liter of VOC) shall be used.
2. Cumulatively Considerable Pollutant Emissions
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. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-16.)
Explanation: Construction. Construction related emissions are temporary and short-
term. Project -related construction emissions include those from 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. During construction, approximately 10.45
acres of the 16.1 -acre project site will be developed for residential use.
Therefore, the construction activity would disturb approximately 10.45
acres of soil. Based on SCAQMD guidance for localized significant
threshold analysis, the maximum daily site grading of 1.95 acres would
occur per day.
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. Table 4.2.1) (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.2-16) presents the worst-
case construction emissions based on the construction schedule (Table E
of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment) and
construction equipment (Table F of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Assessment) anticipated for project construction.
16 7/21/2020
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. Table 4.2.1)
(found at Draft EIR, p. 4.2-16) shows that construction equipment/vehicle
emissions during construction periods would not exceed any of the
SCAQMD established daily emissions thresholds for which the project
region is nonattainment under the CAAQS or NAAQS. Therefore, the
proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD construction emissions
thresholds and short-term (construction) air quality impacts would be less
than significant. No mitigation is required.
Operation. Long-term air pollutant emission impacts are those associated
with stationary sources and mobile sources involving any project -related
changes. Project -related operations would result in the long-term emission
of ROG, NOX, SOX, 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. Project -related stationary -source emissions would come from area
and energy sources.
Operational emissions associated with the proposed project (including
energy use for appliances, landscaping equipment, use of consumer
products, and motor vehicles) were calculated using CalEEMod. Based on
the CalEEMod default values for vehicle trip generation, the model
estimated that 132 residential units would generate approximately 890
trips per weekday, which is consistent with the trip generation estimates
developed in the project's TIA (LSA 2019).
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
nonattainmcnt of the CAAQS for 03, PM2.5, and PM10. Table 4.2.E
(found at Draft EIR, p. 4.2-17) summarizes the project's maximum daily
emissions during operation. As shown in Table 4.2.E, 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 criteria pollutants for which the project region is
nonattainment under the CAAQS or NAAQS. No mitigation is required.
(Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-14 through 4.2-17.)
3. Sensitive Receptors
Threshold: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
17 7/21/2020
Findin : Less than significant. (Draft EIR, 4.2-20.)
Explanation: Construction. In order to identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the
SCAQMD recommends addressing LSTs for construction. As described in
the Draft EIR, the SCAQMD has issued guidance on applying CalEEMod
modeling to LSTs for projects greater than five acres. Further, CalEEMod
calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours
and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of
equipment. Based on SCAQMD guidance for localized significant
threshold analysis, the maximum daily site grading of 1.95 acres would
occur per day. Table 4.2.17 (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.2-17) shows the
maximum on-site construction emissions of CO, NOx, PM 10, and PM2.5
during construction when measured against LST thresholds. As shown in
Table 4.2.17 (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.2-17), the proposed project would
not exceed the LSTs for construction emissions. Therefore, impacts from
localized construction -related emissions would be less than significant and
no mitigation is required.
Table 4.2.G (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.2-18) shows the calculated emissions
for the proposed operational activities compared with the appropriate
LSTs. For a worst-case scenario assessment, the emissions shown in Table
4.2.G (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.2-18) include all on-site project -related
stationary sources and 5 percent of the project -related new mobile sources,
which is an estimate of the amount of project -related new vehicle traffic
that would occur on site.
Table 4.2.G (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.2-18) shows that the operational
emission rates would not exceed the LSTs for the residential homes
located 220 ft (67 meters) to the northeast of the project site. Therefore,
impacts from localized operation -related emissions 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.
Vehicular trips associated with the proposed project would
contribute to congestion at intersections and along roadway
segments in the vicinity of the proposed project site. Localized air
quality impacts would occur when emissions from vehicular traffic
increase as a result of the proposed project. The primary mobile -
source pollutant of local concern is CO, a direct function of vehicle
idling time and, thus, of traffic flow conditions. CO transport is
extremely limited; under normal meteorological conditions, it
disperses rapidly with distance from the source. However, under
18 7/21/2020
certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near
a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels,
affecting local sensitive receptors (residents, schoolchildren, the
elderly, and hospital patients, etc.).
Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or
intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service or with
extremely high traffic volumes. In areas with high ambient
background CO concentrations, modeling is recommended, to
determine a project's effect on local CO levels.
When the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) was
published, the Basin was designated nonattainment under the
CAAQS and NAAQS for CO. With the turnover of older vehicles,
introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control
technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the Basin
have steadily declined. In 2007, the Basin was re -designated as
attainment for CO under both the CAAQS and NAAQS. As
identified within SCAQMD's 2003 AQMP (SCAQMD 2005a),
peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the Basin were a result of
unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not a
result of congestion at a particular intersection. All areas of the
Basin have continued to remain below the federal standards (35
ppm 1 -hour and 9 ppm 8 -hour standards) since 2003 (SCAQMD
2016).
An assessment of project -related impacts on localized ambient air
quality requires that future ambient air quality levels be projected.
Existing CO concentrations in the immediate project vicinity are
not available. Ambient CO levels monitored at the Anaheim
Monitoring Station showed a highest recorded 1 -hour
concentration of 1.4 ppm (the State standard is 20 ppm) and a
highest 8 -hour concentration of 0.8 ppm (the State standard is 9
ppm) during the past 3 years. The highest CO concentrations
would normally occur during peak traffic hours; hence, CO
impacts calculated under peak traffic conditions represent a worst-
case analysis. Reduced speeds and vehicular congestion at
intersections result in increased CO emissions. Given the
extremely low level of CO concentrations in the project area and
the lack of traffic impacts at any intersections, project -related
vehicles are not expected to contribute significantly to CO
concentrations exceeding the State or federal CO standards.
Because no CO hot spot would occur, as identified in the proposed
project, there would be no project -related impacts on CO
concentrations.
Mobile Health Risk Assessment. The IS/NOP comment letter
submitted by the SCAQMD recommends the preparation of a
19 7/21/2020
mobile health risk assessment (HRA) if the proposed project would
generate or attract vehicular trips, especially heavy-duty diesel -
fueled vehicles. While this project would result in the generation of
vehicular trips (890 average daily trips), a mobile HRA was not
performed because the proposed residential project would not
generate or attract heavy-duty diesel -fueled vehicles. Further,
under CEQA, lead agencies are generally not required to consider
the effect that the existing environment (such as existing freeways)
will have on sensitive receptors (refer to California Building
Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District
[No. 5213478, Decided December 17, 2015]). The proposed
project would not affect the number of heavy-duty diesel -fueled
vehicles traveling along the I-5 and would not exacerbate air
quality associated with such vehicles. The effect of the heavy-duty
diesel -fueled vehicles traveling along 1-5 on the proposed project is
therefore outside of the scope of environmental review pursuant to
CEQA, and no mobile health risk assessment is required.
Prior to mitigation, the proposed project would result in less than
significant impacts. However, the regulatory compliance measures
identified above 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. 4.2-17
through 4.2-20.)
4. Other Adverse Emissions
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. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-17.)
Explanation: SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality 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 residential
development, which is not anticipated to produce emissions that could
20 7/21/2020
lead to objectionable odors. Potential sources of operational odors
generated by the project would include disposal of miscellaneous refuse
typical of residential uses. SCAQMD Rule 402 acts to prevent occurrences
of odor nuisances. Consistent with City requirements, all project -generated
refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular
intervals in compliance with solid waste regulations. Furthermore, as
required by Section 9-4.505, Bicycle and Equestrian Trails, of the City's
Municipal Code, the Homeowner's Association (HOA) (or equivalent
body) for future development on the site would be required to provide
regular maintenance of the proposed trail, including the removal of horse
manure, pet waste, and debris. Therefore, no significant impacts related to
objectionable odors would result from the proposed project, and no
mitigation is required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-17.)
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. 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?
Fines: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-19.)
Explanation: The majority of the project site is characterized by an undeveloped dirt lot,
ruderal vegetation, and limited ornamental landscaping. In addition, there
are several trees along the boundary of the project site with the adjacent
San Juan Creek. In order to determine whether or not project
implementation would require the removal of trees along the site's
boundary adjacent to the San Juan Creek, a Tree Survey was prepared for
the proposed project. Results of this tree survey indicate that the proposed
project would not require or result in the removal of any on-site trees,
including those located adjacent to the San Juan Creek Channel. However,
in the unlikely event that project implementation would require the
removal of trees, the 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], p. 4-19.)
2. Habitat Conservation Plans
21 7/21/2020
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?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-20.)
Explanation: According to the Biological Resources Assessment, the project site is
located within lands covered under the MSAA/HCP. A 1.12 -acre portion
of the site is mapped as Supplemental Open Space (SOS) under the HCP.
However, the SOS area within the project site was mapped based on local
General Plan and zoning designations. It should be noted that the proposed
project is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designations
currently designated on the project site, and no General Plan Amendment
would be required for project implementation. According to the
MSAA/HCP, SOS lands in this category are subject to future decisions by
local jurisdictions that could change their designation and result in impacts
to the open space. Accordingly, the General Plan SOS areas are not
considered permanently protected and do not receive regulatory coverage
under the MSAA/HCP. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict
with the adopted MSAA or HCP. Additionally, the project includes the
dedication of 5.5 acres within portions of San Juan Creek and El Homo
Creek for conservation; these 5.5 acres are not currently protected under
the MSAA/HCP. This would contribute to the conservation of resources
covered under the MSAA/HCP and permanently conserve important
portions of the MSAA/HCP Planning Area that are currently subject to
impacts based on decisions by local jurisdictions. As such, the proposed
project would not conflict with local ordinances or the adopted MSAA,
HCP, or other approved local, regional or State HCP. Therefore, project
impacts related to conflicts with local ordinances or the adopted MSAA,
HCP, or other approved local, regional or State HCP would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-19 through
4.3-20.)
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Historical Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section
15064.5?
Finding: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-21.)
Explanation: In its existing setting, the project site is vacant and undeveloped.
According to the Office of Historic Preservation and the City's Inventory
of Historic and Cultural Landmarks, there are no historic resources on the
project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any
22 7/21/2020
impacts related to historical resources, and no mitigation would be
required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-21.)
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?
Findinj4: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-9.)
Explanation: Construction. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to last
approximately 20 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. 4.5-8), the project
would consume approximately 70,705 gallons of diesel fuel and
approximately 50,760 gallons of gasoline during construction, which
would increase the annual construction generated diesel fuel use in Orange
County by approximately 0.04 percent and would increase the annual
construction generated gasoline use in Orange County by less than 0.01
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
23 7/21/2020
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. 4.5-8), the estimated potential increase in electricity
demand associated with the operation of the proposed project is 810,045
kWh per year. Total electricity demand for the residential sector in Orange
County in 2018 was approximately 6,814,131,321 kWh. Therefore,
operation of the proposed project would increase the annual residential
electricity consumption in Orange County by approximately 0.01 percent.
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 106,328 therms per year. Total natural gas consumption for the
residential sector in Orange County in 2018 was 339,030,950 therms.
Therefore, operation of the proposed project would negligibly increase the
annual residential natural gas consumption in Orange County by
approximately 0.03 percent.
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 as identified in Regulatory
Compliance Measure ENG -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 and diesel fuel consumed by project -related vehicle trips. As
shown in Table 4.5.A (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.5-8), fuel use associated
with the vehicle trips generated by the proposed project is estimated at
98,833 gallons of gasoline and 8,478 gallons of diesel fuel per year. The
amount of operational fuel use was estimated using CARB's EMFAC2017
model, which provided projections for typical daily fuel usage in Orange
24 7/21/2020
County. This analysis conservatively assumes that all vehicle trips
generated as a result of project operation would be new to Orange County.
Based on fuel consumption obtained from EMFAC2017, 160.5 million
gallons of diesel and 1.3 billion gallons of gasoline were consumed from
vehicle trips in Orange County in 2018. Therefore, operation of the
proposed project would increase the annual gasoline and diesel fuel
consumption in Orange County by approximately 0.01 percent. 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.
The proposed project would also result in energy usage associated with
gasoline and diesel fuel consumed by project -related vehicle trips. As
shown in Table 4.5.A (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.5-8), fuel use associated
with the vehicle trips generated by the proposed project is estimated at
98,833 gallons of gasoline and 8,478 gallons of diesel fuel per year. The
amount of operational fuel use was estimated using CARB's EMFAC2017
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.
Based on fuel consumption obtained from EMFAC2017, 160.5 million
gallons of diesel and 1.3 billion gallons of gasoline were consumed from
vehicle trips in Orange County in 2018. Therefore, operation of the
proposed project would increase the annual gasoline and diesel fuel
consumption in Orange County by approximately 0.01 percent. 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.)
RCM ENG -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, or designee, shall
confirm that the project complies with the mandatory measures
listed in the CALGreen Code for residential building construction.
2. Energy Efficiency Plans
25 7/21/2020
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 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
urban designs that reduce VMT and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle
access.
The CEC recently adopted the 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report and
the 2018 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update . The CEC circulated
the 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report for public review in February
2019 and is anticipated to approve the report in February 2020. 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
26 7/21/2020
described in the CEC's 2017 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. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-9 through 4.5-10.)
G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
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; strong seismic
ground shaking; seismic -related ground failure including liquefaction; or
landslides?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study [Appendix A], p. 4-24.)
ExEx llaanatian: 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 Draft Geotechnical Engineering
Investigation (2017) 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 active fault to the project site is the Newport -Inglewood Fault;
the southern terminus of this fault zone is 22 miles to the north. The
Wildomar Fault, south of Lake Elsinore, is 22 miles to the east, and the
Mount Soledad Fault is 50 miles to the south in La Jolla. Therefore, direct
and indirect project impacts related to the rupture of a known earthquake
fault as depicted on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be
required. (Initial Study [Appendix A], pp. 4-23 through 4-24.)
1. (d) Landslides
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; strong seismic
ground shaking; seismic -related ground failure including liquefaction; or
landslides?
27 7/21/2020
Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-25.)
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 Draft Geotechnical
Engineering Investigation (2017), the project is not within an earthquake -
induced landslide zone and is not located within an area subject to
potential seismic slope instability. Therefore, seismically induced
landslides are unlikely to occur at the site, and no mitigation would be
required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-25.)
2. Soil Erosion
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-15.)
Explanation: The project site is currently vacant and is characterized by scattered
vegetation and exposed soil. During grading and construction, soil would
be exposed and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion
connpared 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 would result in short-term water quality
impacts as identified in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the
Initial Study (Appendix A).
Because the project would disturb greater than one acre of soil, the project
is subject to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control
Board's (SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with
Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009-0009-
DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002, as amended by Orders No. 2010-0014-
DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ) (Construction General Permit). The
Construction General Permit requires preparation of a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of construction
Best Management Practices (BMPs).
Adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2
during construction would ensure that erosion -related impacts during
construction would be less than significant by requiring the
implementation of construction site BMPs. 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 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
28 7/21/2020
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.
The proposed project would result in a 6.86 -acre increase in impervious
area and a net increase in stormwater runoff, however, the proposed
project would also install a stormwater runoff system, including catch
basins, a subsurface water quality detention facility, storm drain pipes, and
a biofiltration system. This stormwater runoff system would manage
increased peak runoff from the site. Additionally, as required by
Regulatory Compliance Measure GEO-3, a Final Hydrology and
Hydraulics Analysis would be required to be prepared and submitted to
the City of approval, to ensure the peak flow of stormwater runoff in the
proposed condition would not exceed the outfall capacity. 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. 4.6-14
through 4.6-15.)
RCM GEO-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 (NOI), 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 the 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
29 7/21/2020
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 GEO-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 GEO-3 Final Hydrology and Hydraulics Analysis. Prior to issuance of
building permits, the Project Applicant shall submit a 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 1986) and Orange County
Hydrology Manual Addendum No. 1 (Orange County Public
Works 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.
3. Expansive Soils
30 7/21/2020
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?
Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-27.)
Ex 1p anatian: Expansive soils contain types of clay minerals that occupy considerably
more volume when they are wet or hydrated than when they are dry or
dehydrated. Volume changes associated with changes in the moisture
content of near -surface expansive soils can cause uplift or heave of the
ground when they become wet or, less commonly, cause settlement when
they dry out. Soils with an expansion index of greater than 20 are
classified as expansive for building purposes and, therefore, have a
potentially significant impact.
Based on laboratory testing in the Draft Geotechnical Engineering
Investigation (2017), soils on the project site were classified to have a low
expansion potential. Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils and a
potential for direct or indirect risks to life or property would be less than
significant, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial
Study], pp. 4-26 through 4-27.)
31 7/21/2020
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. 4-27.)
Ex lanation: The project would connect to the existing City sewer system and does not
include construction of, or connections to, septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, the proposed project would not
result in impacts related to the soils capability to adequately support the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, and no
mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-27.)
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. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-13.)
Explanation: Construction. During construction of the project, GHGs would be emitted
through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and
vendor vehicles, which typically use fossil -based fuels to operate. The
combustion of fossil -based fuels creates GHGs (e.g., CO2, CH4, and
N2O). Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy
equipment. GHG emissions associated with project construction would
occur over the short term from construction activities and would consist
primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust. Exhaust emissions from
on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity
levels change.
Table 4.7.13 (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.7-12) lists the annual GHG
emissions from construction of the proposed project.
Per the SCAQMD guidance, due to the long-term nature of the GHGs in
the atmosphere, instead of determining significance of construction
emissions alone, the total construction emissions are amortized over 30
years (an estimate of the life of the proposed project), added to the
operational emissions, and compared to the applicable GHG significance
threshold.
As shown in Table 4.7.13 (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.7-12), construction of
the proposed project would generate approximately 1,797.24 MT of CO2e
over the course of construction. The amortized construction emissions
32 7/21/2020
have been assessed as part of the annual average operation emissions,
below. Because construction would be temporary (approximately 20
months), these emissions would cease upon project completion, and would
not result in a permanent increase in emissions, impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
Operation. Operation of the proposed project would generate GHG
emissions from area and mobile sources and indirect emissions from
stationary sources associated with energy consumption. Mobile -source
emissions of GHGs would include project -generated vehicle trips
associated with resident trips to and from the project site. Area -source
emissions would be associated with activities including landscaping and
maintenance of proposed land uses, natural gas for cooking and heating,
and other sources. Increases in stationary -source emissions would also
occur at off-site utility providers as a result of demand for electricity,
natural gas, and water by the proposed use.
The GHG emission estimates presented in Table 4.7.0 (found at Draft
EIR, p. 4.7-13) show the emissions associated with the level of
development envisioned by the proposed project. Area sources include
architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscaping. Energy
sources include natural gas consumption for heating and cooking. As
shown in Table 4.7.C, the proposed project, including amortized
construction emissions, would generate 1,661.47 MT of CO2e/yr. This
level of project -related GHG emissions would fall below the SCAQMD
bright -line screening threshold of 3,500 MT of CO2e/yr for residential
development. Therefore, GHG emissions generated by the project are not
considered to be cumulatively contributable to statewide GHG emissions,
and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
(Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-11 through 4.7-13.)
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. (Draft EIR, p. 4.744.)
Explanation: The City of San Juan Capistrano does not currently have an applicable
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG
emissions. Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG
emissions include CARB's Scoping Plan and SCAG's 2016-2040
RTP/SCS. A consistency analysis with these plans for the proposed
project is presented below.
The CARB Scoping Plan is applicable to state agencies, but is not directly
applicable to cities/counties and individual projects (i.e., the Scoping Plan
33 7/21/2020
does not require the City to adopt policies, programs, or regulations to
reduce GHG emissions). However, new regulations adopted by the state
agencies outlined in the Scoping Plan result in GHG emissions reductions
at the local level. These regulations provide reductions in transportation
emissions rates, increases in water efficiency in the building and landscape
codes, and other statewide actions that would affect a local jurisdiction's
emissions inventory from the top down. Statewide strategies to reduce
GHG emissions include the low carbon fuel standards and changes in the
corporate average fuel economy standards (e.g., Pavley I and Pavley II,
and California Advanced Clean Cars program). Although measures in the
Scoping Plan apply to State agencies and not the proposed project, the
project's GHG emissions would be reduced by compliance with statewide
measures that have been adopted since AB 32 and SB 32 were adopted.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the CARB
Scoping Plan, and impacts are considered less than significant.
San Juan Capistrano is a member city of the SCAG. SCAG's 2016-2040
RTP/SCS, adopted on April 7, 2016, is a long-range visioning plan that
balances future mobility and housing needs with economic,
environmental, and public health goals. The RTP/SCS establishes GHG
emissions goals for automobiles and light-duty trucks for 2020 and 2035
and establishes an overall GHG target for the region consistent with both
the statewide GHG-reduction targets for 2020 and the post -2020 statewide
GHG reduction goals. Table 4.7.13 (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.7-15) shows
the proposed project's consistency with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS goals.
As shown in Table 4.7.1) (found at Draft EIR, P. 4.7-15), 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, pp. 4.7-13 through 4.7-17.)
34 7/21/2020
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. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-31.)
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 an irritant or strong sensitizer.'
Hazardous substances include all chemicals regulated under the United
States Department of Transportation (USDOT) "hazardous materials"
regulations and the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) "hazardous waste" regulations. Hazardous wastes require special
handling and disposal because of their potential to damage public health
and the environment. The probable frequency and severity of
consequences from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials is affected by the type of substance, the quantity used or
managed, and the nature of the activities and operations.
Potentially hazardous materials that could be used during construction
activities would include a limited amount of hazardous and flammable
substances/oils (e.g., fuels, lubricants, and solvents) typical during heavy
equipment operation for site grading and construction. The amount of
hazardous chemicals present during construction is limited and would be
in compliance with existing government regulations, such as the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, and the California Code of Regulations (Title 22). The
potential for the release of hazardous materials during project construction
is low and, even if a release would occur, it would not result in a
significant hazard to the public, surrounding land uses, or environment due
to the small quantities of these materials associated with construction
vehicles. Furthermore, the results of the Phase I ESA and the Phase II
indicate that it is unlikely that hazardous materials would be encountered
during construction. Therefore, impacts with respect to hazardous
materials use and storage during construction would be less than
significant, and no mitigation would be required.
Project operation associated with residential uses would involve the use
and storage of small quantities of potentially hazardous materials typical
of residential uses (e.g., cleaning solvents, fertilizers, and pesticides). For
example, landscaping and maintenance activities could include the use of
fertilizers and light equipment (e.g., edgers) that may require fuel. These
35 7/21/2020
types of activities do not involve the use of a large or substantial amount
of hazardous materials. In addition, such materials would be contained,
stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers' instructions and
handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. Any
associated risk would be adequately reduced to a less than significant level
through compliance with these standards and regulations. Further,
operation of the proposed project as a residential development would not
require the storage, transportation, generation, or disposal of large
quantities of hazardous substances. As such, when utilized properly,
hazardous materials used and stored on the project site would not result in
a significant hazard to the residents or visitors. Furthermore, the City has
adopted a Household Hazardous Waste Program, which helps residents
identify potentially hazardous materials in the home, and also includes
information on Household Hazardous Waste Collection Centers.
Therefore, the proposed residential uses would result in a less than
significant hazard to the public or the environment associated with the
routine transport, use, disposal, or reasonably foreseeable accident
conditions related to hazardous waste during operation.
The Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) is the administering agency
for the chemical inventory and business emergency plan regulations for
the City. OCFA's disclosure activities are coordinated with the Orange
County Health Care Agency. The Health Care Agency is a Certified
Unified Program Agency for local implementation of the disclosure
program and several other hazardous materials and hazardous waste
programs. The OCFA's Hazardous Materials Services Department is
staffed with technical and administrative personnel who are assigned with
the implementation and management of the disclosure program. All
facilities are encouraged to work closely with OCFA in order to eliminate
any unnecessary efforts or costs in complying with the disclosure
program. The Orange County Waste and Recycling Department manages
four hazardous material and hazardous waste collection centers designed
to prevent damage to the environment and reduce risk of accidental
poisoning by removing household hazardous materials and medicines
from the home. The closest collection center to the project site is located
approximately 2 miles east of the site, at 32250 La Pata Avenue (Prima
Deshecha Landfill). Because these resources are available to anyone in the
County, it is reasonable to conclude that the residences would use such
programs to properly dispose of household hazardous waste. Therefore,
impacts associated with the disposal of hazardous materials and/or the
potential release of hazardous materials that could occur with the
implementation of the proposed project are considered less than
significant, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial
Study], pp. 4-30 through 4-31.)
2. Accident or Upset
36 7/21/2020
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. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-33.)
Explanation: The purpose of the Phase I and Phase lI analyses was to evaluate the
project site for potential Recognized Environmental Concerns (RECs) that
may be present and/or off-site conditions that may impact the project site.
The Phase I analysis prepared included (1) site reconnaissance of the
project site and the surrounding area; (2) a review of regulatory agency
reports, aerial photographs, and other historic record sources, (3)
interviews with the property owner; (4) and preparation of a soil sampling
analysis.
An REC can be defined as the presence or likely presence of any
hazardous substances or petroleum products in, or at a property due to a
release to the environment, under conditions indicative of a release to the
environment, or under conditions that pose a material threat of a future
release to the environment.
According to the Phase I ESA, no RECs were identified on the site during
the site visit (with the exception of undocumented fill). However, a review
of the applicable agency reports, photographs, and historic records
conducted identified evidence of RECs and several Historical RECs
(HRECs) adjacent to the site.
According to the Phase I ESA, historic use of the project site for
cultivation of agricultural crops may result in unknown pesticides and/or
metals -based herbicide residues in shallow soils. In addition, the Phase I
ESA determined that contaminates and/or volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) may be present in undocumented fill on the property due to the
presence of the San Juan Landfill at or near the project site and the prior
dumping of 50,000 cy of "clean" soil on the site. The Phase I ESA also
determined that asbestus may be present in the pavement utilized for the
paved portion of Paseo Tirador that extends onto the project site. As such,
the Phase I ESA recommended soil sampling to ascertain that no asbestos
is present on the paved portion of the site.
In accordance with the recommendations of the Phase I ESA, the Phase 11
ESA conducted a soil sampling analysis to determine if on-site soils had
been impacted by use of agricultural chemicals. A total of four samples
were obtained from below fill material on the site to determine the
presence of heavy metals, arsenic, lead, and pesticides. Results of the soil
sampling analysis found that measurable amounts of heavy metals,
arsenic, lead, and pesticides were all below established regulatory
thresholds for residential development.
37 7/21/2020
Soil samples were also collected to determine the presence of total
petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), VOCs, and metals in undocumented soils
on the project site. In total, 16 samples were collected. All samples
reported VOCs and pesticides at levels below established regulatory
standards for VOCs and pesticides. With the exception of two samples, all
samples reported concentrations of TPH at levels below established
regulatory standards. The Phase II ESA determined that these two samples
were not indicative of a site -wide issue. Soil samples also reported arsenic
concentrations at levels greater than risk-based regulatory thresholds;
however, the Phase 11 ESA determined that the reported arsenic
concentrations were within and consistent with typical background
concentrations for the area, which have been determined to occur
naturally. Further, although soil sampling was originally recommended to
ascertain that asbestos was not present on the paved portion of the site, the
Phase 11 ESA determined that no stress absorbing fabrics were observed in
the asphalt on Paseo Tirador. As such, no samples were collected for
analysis of asbestos. Based on the results of soil sampling on the site, the
Phase II ESA determined that no further investigation or action was
required.
In addition to soil sampling, a soil vapor analysis was conducted on the
project site. In total, seven soil vapor samples were collected and analyzed
for VOCs associated with undocumented fills on the site. Results of the
analysis determined that all VOCs were below the most conservative
applicable regulatory residential thresholds. The soil vapor analysis also
screened concentrations for methane; however, none of the samples
showed evidence of any methane. Therefore, no further investigation or
action was determined to be required. Construction activities associated
with the proposed project would include site preparation activities,
building construction, paving, and the implementation of ornamental
landscaping. 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,
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.
Therefore, adherence to applicable rules and regulations as required during
construction regarding hazardous materials would reduce potential risks
associated with the release of hazardous materials to the public or to the
environment to a less than significant level.
As stated previously, hazardous substances associated with the proposed
residential uses would be limited in both amount and use such that they
can be contained (stored or confined within a specific area) without
38 7/21/2020
impacting the environment. Project operation would involve the use of
potentially hazardous materials typical of residential uses (e.g., solvents,
cleaning agents, paints, fertilizers, and pesticides) that, when used
correctly and in compliance with existing laws and regulations, would not
result in a significant hazard to visitors, residents, or workers in the
vicinity of the proposed project. Operation of the proposed project would
not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the environment. No mitigation would be
required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-31 through 4-33.)
3. 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. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-34.)
Explanation: The nearest school to the project site is St. Margaret's Episcopal School,
which is located 0.19 mile northeast of the project site.
As stated previously, construction activities would involve the routine use
of hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, paints, curing compounds,
solvents, and sanitizers. Compliance as required with various federal,
State, and local regulations related to hazardous materials use, storage,
transportation, and disposal is expected to reduce the risk of a spill or
accidental release of hazardous materials to a less than significant level.
Construction of the proposed project would also include the use of
construction equipment that would generate dust and particulate matter
during site preparation activities within 0.25 mile of 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.
Although the project site is located within 0.25 mile of St. Margaret's
Episcopal School, operation of the proposed residential uses would not
result in the production of hazardous emissions or handling of significant
amounts of hazardous materials. Therefore, operation of the proposed
residential uses would not emit hazardous emissions or involve handling
39 7/21/2020
of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school during operation, and impacts
are considered less than significant. No mitigation would be required.
(Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-33 through 4-34.)
4. 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. 4-34.)
Explanation: According to the Phase I ESA and 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. 4-34.)
5. 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?
Findiniz: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-34.)
Explanation: The nearest airport to the project site is John Wayne Airport, located
approximately 16 miles northwest of the project site. Additionally, the
Helicopter Outlying Landing Field associated with the United States
Marine Corps Base at Camp Pendleton is located approximately 9 miles
southeast of the project site. Therefore, due to the distance of these
airports from the project site, the proposed project would not cause a
safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area. No mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial
Study], p. 4-34.)
6. 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. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-35.)
40 7/21/2020
ExEx lam: 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, San Juan Creek Road and La Novia Avenue are
identified as potential evacuation routes in the event of an emergency.
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 temporary 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.
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. San Juan Creek Road and La Novia Avenue are
identified as evacuation routes 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. (Appendix A
[Initial Study], pp. 4-34 through 4-35.)
41 7/21/2020
7. Wildland Fires
Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-35.)
Ex ly P_anation: According to the City's General Plan Safety Element, the project site is not
located in an area identified as a Wildland Fire Area that may contain
substantial fire risk or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).
In addition, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (CalFire), the project site is not located in a fire hazard area.
However, because the project site is adjacent to vegetation associated with
San Juan Creek, the eastern portion of the site is located within a fuel
modification zone. As such, the project would be required to prepare and
submit a final Fuel Modification Plan for the proposed project. According
to the conceptual Fuel Modification Plan, the project includes the use of
drought -tolerant landscaping, rock, and hardscape within the fuel
modification zone, as well as non-combustible building materials for
structures on the site. As a result, the proposed project would not directly
or indirectly 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], p. 4-35.)
J. HYDROLOGY AN ❑ WATER QUALITY
1. Water Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-39.)
Explanation: The proposed project involves construction of a residential development
on the project site. Pollutants of concern during construction include
sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet),
sanitary waste, and chemicals. Each of these pollutants on its own or in
combination with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water
quality. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed,
and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and
sedimentation compared to existing conditions. In addition, chemicals,
liquid products, petroleum products (e.g., paints, solvents, and fuels), and
42 7/21/2020
concrete -related waste may be spilled or leaked and have the potential to
be transported via stormwater runoff into receiving waters (San Juan
Creek and the Pacific Ocean).
During construction, approximately 10.45 acres of the 16.1 -acre project
site will be developed for residential use. Approximately 5.55 acres of the
16.1 -acre project site consist of San Juan Creek and jurisdictional areas,
which will be dedicated for conservation. Project construction would
disturb approximately 10.45 acres of soil. Because construction of the
proposed project would disturb greater than 1 acre of soil, the project is
subject to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board's
(SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction
and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES
No. CAS000002, as amended by Orders No. 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-
0006-DWQ) (Construction General Permit). Therefore, coverage under
the Construction General Permit would be obtained for the proposed
project. The Construction General Permit requires preparation of a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of
construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) detailed in the SWPPP
during construction activities. 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. Compliance with the requirements of the
Construction General Permit, including incorporation of construction
BMPs to target pollutants of concern would reduce construction impacts
related to Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), water quality
standards, and degradation of water quality to less than significant, and no
mitigation would be required.
According to the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared for the
project, groundwater could be encountered at depths of 17 ft below the
existing grade. Depth of excavation could extend to 20 ft below the
existing grade. Therefore, based on the depth of groundwater and depth of
excavation, groundwater dewatering could be required during
construction. Groundwater may contain high levels of total dissolved
solids, selenium, or other constituents that could be introduced to surface
waters when dewatered groundwater is discharged to surface waters.
Groundwater dewatering activities during excavation would be conducted
in accordance with the General Waste Discharge Requirements for
Discharges from Groundwater Extraction and Similar Discharges to
Surface Waters within the San Diego Region Except for San Diego Bay
(WDR) (Order No. R9-2008-0002, Permit No. CAG919002)
(Groundwater Discharge Permit), which would require testing and
treatment (as necessary) of groundwater encountered during groundwater
dewatering prior to release to surface waters. As a result, groundwater
43 7/21/2020
dewatering would not introduce pollutants to receiving that would violate
water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
Although groundwater dewatering would occur, dewatered groundwater
would be discharged to surface waters rather than back into groundwater
resources and would therefore not introduce pollutants to groundwater.
Infiltration of stormwater has the potential to affect groundwater quality in
areas of shallow groundwater. As discussed above, groundwater could
occur at depths in the range of 17 ft below ground surface (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, it is not expected that any stormwater that
may infiltrate during construction would affect groundwater quality.
Therefore, project construction would not substantially degrade
groundwater quality.
Potential pollutants of concern from long-term operations of residential
developments include suspended solids/sediments, nutrients, pathogens
(bacteria/virus), pesticides, oil and grease, trash and debris, and dry
weather runoff. The project would comply with the requirements of Title
8, Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code and San Diego Regional Water
Quality Control Board's (RWQCB) National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements
for Discharges from the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s)
Draining the Watersheds Within the San Diego Region (Order No. R9-
2013-0001, NPDES No. CAS010266, as amended by Order No, R9-2015-
0001) (South Orange County MS4 Permit). The City Municipal Code and
the South Orange County MS4 Permits require that a Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP) be prepared for new development projects.
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. A Preliminary Water Quality
Management Plan (PWQMP; IBI Group, prepared November 2017,
updated March 2018 and July 2018) has been prepared for the project. The
PWQMP will be refined during final design based on the final site plan.
According to the PWQMP, proposed site design BMPs include:
+ Minimize impervious area
• Maximize natural infiltration capacity
• Preserve existing drainage patterns and time of concentration
■ Disconnect impervious area
• Protect existing vegetation and sensitive areas
• Revegetate disturbed areas
44 7/21/2020
• Soil stockpiling and site -generated organics
• Water -efficient landscaping
■ Slopes 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
• California Title 22 Compliance
• Spill contingency plan
• Hazardous materials disclosure compliance
■ Uniform Fire Code implementation
• Common area litter control
• Employee training
• Common area catch basin inspection
• Street sweeping private streets and parking lots
Proposed structural source control BMPs include:
■ Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage
• Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution
introduction
• Use efficient irrigation systems and landscape design, water
conservation, smart controllers, and source control
• Protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation
• Incorporate requirements allocable to individual priority categories
(from San Diego RWQCB NPDES Permit)
Proposed LID BMPs include a subsurface water quality detention facility,
located adjacent to 1-5 within an open space area, and a subsurface
Modular Wetland System, located at various locations on the project site.
Stormwater runoff from the western portion of the project site will be
conveyed to the subsurface water quality detention facility where it will be
detained and infiltrated. Stormwater runoff from the eastern portion of the
project site will be conveyed to the Modular Wetland System and then
discharged into Homo Creek. Biofiltration areas may also be incorporated
into the project during final design, if feasible. When combined, the site
design, source control, and LID BMPs would target and reduce pollutants
of concern in stormwater runoff from the project site. Required
compliance with the City Municipal Code and South Orange County MS4
Permit requirements, including incorporation of post -construction BMPs
to target pollutants of concern, would reduce operation impacts related to
WDRs, water quality standards, degradation of water quality, and
45 7/21/2020
beneficial uses to a less than significant level, and no mitigation would be
required.
As discussed previously, infiltration of stormwater could have the
potential to affect groundwater quality in areas of shallow groundwater.
However, in areas of deep groundwater, there is more absorption potential
and, as a result, less potential for pollutants to reach groundwater. Due to
the depth to groundwater (17 ft bgs), it is not expected that any stormwater
would affect groundwater quality because there is not a direct path for
pollutants to reach groundwater. In addition, the project would be required
to implement LID features to treat stormwater before it could reach
groundwater. Therefore, project operation would not substantially degrade
groundwater quality. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-36 through 4-39.)
2. Groundwater Supplies
Threshold: Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
F_•ndin : Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-40.)
Ex 1_ p anation: According to the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared for the
project, groundwater could be encountered at depths of 17 ft below the
existing grade. Depth of excavation could extend to 20 ft below the
existing grade. Therefore, based on the depth of groundwater and depth of
excavation, groundwater dewatering could be required during
construction. In the event groundwater dewatering activities are required,
the Applicant would be required to obtain all applicable permits with
respect to dewatering. However, groundwater dewatering would be
temporary, and the volume of groundwater removed would not be
substantial. In addition, any volume of water removed during groundwater
dewatering would be minimal when compared to the size of the San Juan
Groundwater Basin, which has a capacity of 41,375 acre-feet (af) of water
per year, and would not interfere with the sustainable management of the
groundwater basin. Therefore, impacts related to a decrease in
groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge in a
manner that may impede sustainable groundwater management would be
less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Currently, the project site is undeveloped and consists of primarily
pervious surfaces. According to the PWQMP, development of the project
would increase impervious surface area by approximately 6.86 acres,
which would decrease on-site infiltration. However, any decrease in
infiltration would be minimal in comparison to the size of the San Juan
Groundwater Basin, which has a capacity of 41,375 of of water per year.
In addition, the project would include BMPs to increase infiltration of
46 7/21/2020
stormwater runoff on the project site to reduce impacts related to depletion
or interference with groundwater recharge. Furthermore, neither
groundwater extraction nor injection would occur during operation. For
these reasons, impacts related to depletion of groundwater supplies or
interference with groundwater recharge in a manner that may impede
sustainable groundwater management would be less than significant, and
no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-39
through 4-40.)
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?
Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-41.)
Explanation_: During construction activities, soil would be exposed and disturbed,
drainage patterns would be temporarily altered during grading and other
construction activities, and there would be an increased potential for soil
erosion and siltation compared to existing conditions. Additionally, during
a storm event, soil erosion and siltation could occur at an accelerated rate.
The Construction General Permit requires preparation of a SWPPP to
identify construction BMPs to be implemented as part of the proposed
project to reduce impacts to water quality during construction, including
those impacts associated with soil erosion and siltation. With compliance
with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and
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.
The project would not substantially alter drainage patterns on the project
site. According to the Preliminary Hydrology Report prepared for the
project (161 Group, November 2017, updated March 2018), in the
proposed condition, the overall site drainage patterns would generally
remain the same as existing drainage patterns. Storm flows would
continue to reach San Juan Creek via an existing 27 -inch reinforced
concrete pipe (RCP) in the southwest corner of the project site and via
Homo Creek.
Currently, the project site is undeveloped and consists of primarily
pervious surfaces (the project site currently contains 0.9 acre of
impervious surface area). Development of the project would increase
impervious surface area by approximately 6.86 acres, which would
increase stormwater runoff. However, impervious surface areas associated
47 7/21/2020
with development of the project site are not prone to erosion or siltation,
and landscaping, where erosion and siltation are minimal.
The increased impervious surface area could increase stormwater
discharge from the site, which could increase downstream erosion or
siltation. The existing 27 -inch RCP and Homo Creek are both concrete
and not subject to erosion or siltation. Downstream of the project site, San
Juan Creek is a concrete -lined earthen channel with a soft bottom. In
addition, a portion of San Juan Creek adjacent to the project site is an
unimproved natural watercourse. Therefore, San Juan Creek is subject to
erosion and siltation impacts. The project would comply with the
requirements of Title 8, Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code and the South
Orange County MS4 Permit, both of which require preparation of a
WQMP and implementation of BMPs. As specified in the PWQMP
prepared for the project, proposed BMPs would include site design, source
control, and LID BMPs. LID BMPs include a subsurface water quality
detention facility and a subsurface Modular Wetland System. As detailed
in Response 4.9 (a), these BMPs would reduce stormwater runoff from the
project site to San Juan Creek to below existing conditions so the proposed
project would not contribute to downstream erosion or siltation. Finally,
the proposed project would not alter the course of a stream or river. As
such, operational impacts related to on-site or off-site erosion or siltation
would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
(Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-40 through 4-41.)
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. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-42.)
Explanation: The project would not substantially alter drainage patterns on the project
site during either construction or operation. Currently, the project site is
undeveloped and consists of primarily pervious surfaces (the project site
currently contains 0.9 acre of impervious surface area). As detailed in the
Preliminary Hydrology Report prepared for the project (IBI Group, March
2018), stormwater runoff from the project site is 23.5 cubic feet per
second (cfs) during a 25 -year storm and 30.6 cfs during a 100 -year storm.
Development of the project would increase impervious surface area by
approximately 6.86 acres, which would increase stormwater runoff and
could potentially result in flooding. The increase in impervious surface
waters would increase stormwater runoff from the project site by 8.4 cfs
48 7/21/2020
(to 31.9 cfs) during a 25 -year storm and by 10.6 cfs (to 41.2 cfs) during a
100 -year storm. However, the proposed LID BMPs (a subsurface water
quality detention facility and subsurface Modular Wetland System) would
capture and reduce stormwater runoff.
According to the Preliminary Hydrology Report, the total peak discharge
flow rate to the existing 27 -inch RCP would be below existing conditions
after implementation of LID BMPs (peak flow would decrease by 1.4 cfs
during a 25 -year storm and by 2.3 cfs during a 100 -year storm). Discharge
to El Homo Creek would increase by 5.6 cfs during a 25 -year storm event
and by 7.1 cfs during a 100 -year storm event. However, according to the
Preliminary Hydrology Report, El Homo Creek should have sufficient
capacity to accommodate the small increase in runoff due to the small time
of concentration of discharge from the project site compared to the longer
time of concentration for the approximately 4.3 -square -mile El Homo
Creek watershed. El Homo Creek has a design capacity of 3,100 cfs and is
nearly empty during storm flows; therefore, it can accommodate the
increased stormwater runoff from the project site. Finally, the project
would decrease stormwater runoff to San Juan Creek by 23.5 cfs during a
25 -year storm event and by 5.3 cfs during a 100 -year storm event. For
these reasons, the project would not exceed the capacity of the existing 27 -
inch RCP, El Homo Creek, or San Juan Creek, and offsite flooding would
not occur.
In addition, the proposed drainage facilities needed to accommodate
stormwater runoff would be appropriately sized during the final design
phase so that on-site flooding would not occur. Finally, the proposed
project would not alter the course of a stream or river. Therefore, with
implementation of LID BMPs, impacts related to on-site or off-site
flooding would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
(Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-41 through 4-42.)
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 or through the addition of impervious surfaces, 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 or impede or redirect
flood flows?
Findin : Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-19.)
Explanation: In the existing condition, an earthen swale located off site to the west of
the project site conveys stormflows from the west to a 27 -inch RCP
located in the southwestern corner of the project site. Catch basins on the
49 7/21/2020
southeast portion of the existing project site also convey on-site
stormwater flows to the RCP. The RCP conveys stormwater flows to
Homo Creek Channel, which discharges stormwater to San Juan Creek.
An existing scour protection wall within the project limits provides flood
protection and soil stability on site. According to the Preliminary
Hydrology Report prepared for the project (IBI Group, November 2017a,
updated March 2018), in the proposed condition, the overall site drainage
patterns would generally remain the same as existing drainage patterns.
Storm flows would continue to reach San Juan Creek via the existing 27 -
inch RCP in the southwest corner of the project site and via Homo Creek
Channel. Furthermore, the project would not alter the course of Homo
Creek Channel or San Juan Creek, as drainage patterns would remain
similar to the existing condition during project implementation.
In the event of a 100 -year flood event, stormflows would be conveyed
similar to existing conditions. Currently, the project site is undeveloped
and consists of primarily pervious surfaces (the project site currently
contains 0.9 acre of impervious surface area). As detailed in the
Preliminary Hydrology Report prepared for the project, stormwater runoff
from the project site is 23.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) during a 25 -year
storm and 30.6 cfs during a 100 -year storm. Development of the project
would increase impervious surface area by approximately 6.86 acres,
which would increase stormwater runoff. The increase in impervious
surface waters would increase stormwater runoff from the project site by
8.4 cfs (to 31.9 cfs) during a 25 -year storm and by 10.6 cfs (to 41.2 cfs)
during a 100 -year storm. However, the proposed BMPs would capture and
reduce stormwater runoff. As specified in the PWQMP prepared for the
project, proposed BMPs include a subsurface water quality detention
facility and a subsurface Modular Wetland System. According to the
Preliminary Hydrology Report, the total peak discharge flow rate to the
existing 27 -inch RCP would be below existing conditions after
implementation of the proposed BMPs (peak flow would decrease by 1.4
cfs during a 25 -year storm and by 2.3 cfs during a 100 -year storm).
Discharge to El Homo Creek would increase by 5.6 cfs during a 25 -year
storm event and by 7.1 cfs during a 100 -year storm event. However,
according to the Preliminary Hydrology Report, El Homo Creek should
have sufficient capacity to accommodate the small increase in runoff due
to the small time of concentration of discharge from the project site
compared to the longer time of concentration for the approximately 4.3 -
square -mile El Homo Creek watershed. El Homo Creek is a City -owned
and maintained facility, and if flows to the creek are to be increased or if
alterations are made to the facility, the project will be required to obtain
City approval for the alterations. El Homo Creek has a design capacity of
3,100 cfs and is nearly empty during storm flows; therefore, it can
accommodate the increased stormwater runoff from the project site.
Finally, the project would decrease stormwater runoff to San Juan Creek
by 23.5 cfs during a 25 -year storm event and by 5.3 cfs during a 100 -year
50 7/21/2020
storm event. Therefore, the increase in impervious surface area would not
alter drainage patterns in a manner which would impede or redirect flood
flows. (Final EIR, p. 3-1.)
According to the FEMA FIRM Nos. 06059C0506J and 06059C0507J
(December 3, 2009), the southern portion of the project site is located
within 100 -year floodplain Zone AE, and the northern portion of the
project site is located within Zone X (refer to Figure 4.8.1). Zone AE is
defined by FEMA as areas subject to inundation by a 1 -percent -annual -
chance (100 -year) flood for which base flood elevations have been
determined. Zone X is defined by FEMA as areas of minimal flood
hazard, which are the areas outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area and
higher than the elevation of the 0.2 percent annual chance flood. A portion
of the project site contains a Zone AE Regulatory Floodway associated
with El Horno Creek and San Juan Creek. Because the project site would
place improvements and structures within a 100 -year flood zone on the
southern portion of the project site, there is potential for the project to
impede or redirect flood flows. However, the proposed project would
process all necessary map revisions with FEMA, as described below, to
ensure the project does not impede or redirect flood flows that would
impact adjacent or downstream property.
The proposed project would be designed in compliance with the design
requirements of Section 8-11.115 of the City's Municipal Code, which
specifies design requirements for developments within the 100 -year
floodplain. The proposed project would be required to obtain an Elevation
certificate, as outlined in Regulatory Compliance Measure WQ-1. 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
(CLOMR), Conditional Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (CLOMR-
F), Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), or Letter of Map Revision Based on
Fill (LOMR-F). In addition, as specified in Regulatory Compliance
Measure WQ-2, the project would be required to process a CLOMR or
CLOMR-F during final design and a LOMR or LOMR-F upon project
completion through the City, the OCFCD, and FEMA. A CLOMR and a
CLOMR-F are 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 proposes to revise the
effective FIRM and a CLOMR-F does not revise an effective FIRM;
instead, a CLOMR-F indicates whether the project, if built as proposed,
would be raised above the base flood elevation. A LOMR is processed for
properties elevated by the placement of fill, and is a letter determination
that officially amends an effective FIRM, and a LOMR-F is processed
51 7/21/2020
when FEMA accepts a project which does not result in an adverse impact
to adjacent or downstream property and does not increase the base flood
elevation. The CLOMR and LOMR or CLOMR-F and LOMR-F would
ensure that the FEMA FIRM reflects the changes to the floodplain that
would result from project implementation. The process of obtaining a
CLOMR and LOMR or CLOMR-F and LOMR-F would not occur until
after certification of the Final EIR for the proposed project.
Therefore, the CLOMR and LOMR or CLOMR-F and LOMR-F are
conditions of approval of the project, as noted in the Project Description in
Table 3.0 of the Draft EIR and described in Regulatory Compliance
Measure WQ-2. With implementation of Regulatory Compliance
Measures WQ-1 and WQ-2, potential impacts related to impeding or
redirecting flood flows would be less than significant and no mitigation is
required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-15 through 4.8-19.)
RCM WQ-1 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
structures on comply with the requirements of Section 8-11.115 of
the City of San Juan Capistrano's (City) Municipal Code. The
certification shall be a Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Elevation Certificate, and shall verify that all new
residential construction and substantial improvement of any
structure in Zone AE of the project site shall have the lowest floor,
including basement, elevated at least 1 foot above the base flood
elevation. The certification shall be submitted to and verified by
the City Floodplain Administrator.
RCM WQ-2 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) or Conditional Letter of Map Revision based
on Fill (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 or CLOMR-F is approved
by FEMA. Upon completion of construction, the Project Applicant
shall process a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) or Letter of Map
Revision based on Fill (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
or LOMR-F is approved by FEMA.
6. Flood Hazard
Threshold: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the Project risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation?
52 7/21/2020
Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], 4-44.)
Ex 13�anat_ion: Tsunami. Tsunamis are ocean waves generated by tectonic displacement
of the sea floor associated with shallow earthquakes, sea floor landslides,
rock falls, and exploding volcanic islands. Tsunamis can have
wavelengths of up to 120 miles and travel as fast as 500 miles per hour
across hundreds of miles of deep ocean. Upon reaching shallow coastal
waters, the waves can reach up to 50 ft in height, causing great devastation
to near -shore structures. The project site is approximately 2.8 miles from
the Pacific Ocean shoreline and is not within a tsunami inundation area.
According to the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (provided in
Appendix B) prepared for the project, because the project site is not
located near the ocean shoreline or within 50 ft of sea level, the tsunami
hazard is considered low. Therefore, inundation from tsunamis is not
expected. Therefore, there is no risk of release of pollutants due to
inundation from tsunami.
Seiche Zones. Seiching is a phenomenon that occurs when seismic ground
shaking induces standing waves (seiches) inside water retention facilities
(e.g., reservoirs and lakes). Such waves can cause retention structures to
fail and flood downstream properties. There are no water retention
facilities, such as large lakes or reservoirs, in close proximity to the project
site. Therefore, inundation from seiche waves is not expected. Therefore,
there is no risk of release of pollutants due to inundation from seiche.
Flood Hazard. The project site is located adjacent to San Juan Creek and 5
miles downstream of the Trampas Canyon Reservoir. As discussed
previously, the project site is within a 100 -year floodplain of San Juan
Creek. According to the FEMA FIRM maps and the City's General Plan
Safety Element (December 1999), the project site is also within the
inundation area 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 a risk of inundation and pollutant
release on the project site. The project would introduce a new land use
(residential) on the project site, which would change the potential on-site
pollutants compared to existing conditions. However, as discussed in
Response 4.10 (a), BMPs would be implemented to target and reduce
pollutants of concern on the project site. In addition, as discussed in
Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, hazardous substances
associated with residential uses would be limited in both amount and use.
Because BMPs would reduce the potential for pollutants to occur on the
site, and because 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, tsunami, or seiche would be less than
significant. No mitigation is required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-
43 through 4-44.)
53 7/21/2020
7. 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. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-45.)
Explanation: The project is within the jurisdiction of the San Diego RWQCB. The San
Diego RWQCB adopted a 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 its
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.
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 the requirements set forth by the
Construction General Permit, which requires preparation of a 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 the Groundwater Discharge Permit,
including testing and treatment (if necessary) of dewatered groundwater
prior to discharge to surface waters.
The primary pollutants of concern during project operations are suspended
solids, bacteria/viruses/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
the City's 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
require preparation of a SWPPP, preparation of a Final WQMP,
implementation of construction and operational BMPs to reduce pollutants
of concern in stormwater runoff, and compliance with the Groundwater
54 7/21/2020
Discharge Permit 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). 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, which 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 consists 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 California Department of Water
Resources as a very 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 with or
obstruction of water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater
management plans, and no mitigation is required. (Appendix A [Initial
Study], pp. 4-44 through 4-45.)
K. LAND USE AND PLANNING
1. Established Communities
Threshold: Would the Project physically divide an established community?
Findin : No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-46.)
Explanation: The project site consists of a vacant, undeveloped site that is comprised of
Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 666-131-07, -08, -09, -13, -14, -15,
and -16. In its existing condition, the project site is primarily characterized
by dirt and scattered ruderal vegetation, is irregular in shape, and is
relatively flat with a slight slope to the east/southeast. The project site is
bordered on the north by Calle Arroyo, with commercial and institutional
uses located beyond. El Horno Creek (a tributary of San Juan Creek) and
San Juan Creek are located adjacent to the southern portion of the
property; portions of the San Juan Creek Trail are located along the
southern portion of the project site. The San Juan Hills Golf Club and
55 7/21/2020
multi -family residential developments are located further south of the
project site. Paseo Tirador is located along a portion of the eastern
boundary of the project site with the Ortega Equestrian Center located
further east. The 1-5 freeway forms the western boundary of the project
site with the Del Obispo Shopping Center located beyond (refer to Figure
2.2, Project Vicinity, in the EIR, Chapter 2.0, Environmental Setting and
Project Description).
The project site is located on an approximately 16.1 -acre site within a
largely developed portion of the City. The project involves the
construction of a 132 -unit residential development, consisting of 43
single-family units and 89 townhome units, on the currently vacant project
site. Vehicular access to the proposed project would be provided by via
three driveways on Calle Arroyo. Paseo Tirador, an existing street within
the project site, would be extended to the southwesternmost portion of the
site and would be utilized as the main street serving the development. The
City has vacated Paseo Tirador, and it will become a private road as part
of the proposed development. Multiple roads providing access to
individual units would connect to Paseo Tirador and, in some cases, Calle
Arroyo. All improvements proposed as part of the project would be
restricted to within the boundaries of the site. 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], p. 4-46.)
56 7/21/2020
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?
riLidin : Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-32.)
Explanation: Several regionally and locally adopted land use plans, policies, and
regulations would be applicable to development for 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 establish 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 is
residential in nature and does not feature a mixed-use component;
therefore, Goal (2) is not applicable to the proposed project and is
not discussed further in the following RCP consistency analysis
below.
The project site is located immediately east of I-5, south of Calle
Arroyo, northwest of Paseo Tirador, and north of San Juan Creek.
The proposed project would develop the currently undeveloped
and underutilized project site with a 132 -unit residential
development with recreation amenities and a multi -use trail along
San Juan Creek. Development of the proposed project would
introduce a residential land use to an area that is characterized by
commercial and residential land uses, and provide additional
housing near employment and retail centers. Uses proposed as part
of the project would be easily accessed from Calle Arroyo and
Paseo Tirador, and other major transportation corridors near the
57 7/21/2020
project site (e.g., I-5, Rancho Viejo Road, and Ortega
Highway/State Route 74 (SR -74)). In addition, the proposed
project would be located immediately north of a Class 2 bike lane
along the San Juan Creek trail, 1.1 miles east of the nearest bus
station (e.g., Orange County Transportation Authority Route 91
station near the intersection of Del Obispo and Camino
Capistrano), and 1.2 miles southeast of the San Juan Capistrano
Train Station. Due to the proximity to these facilities, residents of
the proposed residential development and visitors may utilize
alternative transportation to access the site.
The proposed project would be consistent with RCP Goal 1 to
focus growth along major transportation corridors, Goal 3 to
provide new housing opportunities, and Goal 4 to encourage new
development near existing transportation stations.
The proposed project would improve the currently vacant and
underutilized site with landscaping and amenities that would serve
future 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. Though the southernmost and easternmost portions
of the project site have General Plan Land Use designations of
Open Space and Community Park, the proposed residential
development uses would not be sited in these areas. The portions
of the project site designated as Open Space and Community Park
would be developed with vegetation and landscaping. In addition,
a portion of the multi -use trail would be sited with the area
designated as Open Space. As such, the proposed land uses are
consistent with these land use designations. Furthermore, the
project proposes to designate a 5.5 -acre area adjacent to the
project's southern boundary along the San Juan Creek as a
conservation area. As such, the project would protect existing open
space an environmentally sensitive areas; therefore, the proposed
project would be consistent with RCP Goal 6 to protect open space
and environmentally sensitive habitat areas from development.
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,
58 7/21/2020
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 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.
As previously stated, the proposed project would result in the
conversion of the currently vacant and underutilized project site to
a residential community with recreational outdoor amenities.
Access to the project site is provided by Calle Arroyo, a Commuter
Arterial that runs in an east -west fashion. Calle Arroyo connects
with Rancho Viejo Road, which would serve to connect the project
site with the local and regional transportation network.
Additionally, Ortega Highway/SR-74, which is located to the north
of the project site, provides regional access. The project would
provide access to the site from Calle Arroyo and Paseo Tirador,
which would serve to connect the site with the local and regional
transportation systems. The project site would contain internal
drive aisles, and three access points would be provided from Calle
Arroyo. Paseo Tirador would serve as an east -west entry to the
project site. By providing multiple access points and a robust on-
site circulation system, traffic queueing and congestion at any
individual access point would be reduced, and the productivity of
the existing roadway network would be maximized. In addition,
the project would provide connections to the existing regional
bikeway and equestrian trail network along the San Juan Creek,
which would encourage greater use of the region's existing
sidewalks, bikeways, and multi-purpose trails. 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 I-5 to the west. The project's
on-site circulation system would accommodate pedestrians and
59 7/21/2020
cyclists. The project would also provide connections to the existing
regional bikeway and equestrian trail network, thereby
encouraging the use of active transportation modes (Goals 4 and
6). 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
housing opportunities in the City. Therefore, the proposed project
would improve the regional economy by promoting economic
activity and ensuring that are workers would have access to new
housing in close proximity to their jobs. (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 installation of an off-site recycled water
main to allow the future use of recycled water in the vicinity of the
project, the installation of on-site private recycled water lines to
allow the future use of recycled water for irrigation of common
landscaped areas, installation of energy-efficient lighting
techniques and "smart" weather -based irrigation controllers, the
exclusion of landscaping materials that are invasive species and the
inclusion of vegetation requiring minimal watering, and the
utilization of drip -irrigation for all non -turf areas. As such, the
project would be consistent with Goal 7 in the 2016-2040
RTP/SCS.
As described above in the analysis for Goals 2 and 5, the project
would provide an on-site circulation system that would encourage
pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and specifically a connection to the
San Juan Creek Trail, thereby encouraging the use of active
transportation modes. OCTA Route 91 serves the City and
provides bus service from the City of Dana Point to the City of
Rancho Santa Margarita, through the City of Mission Viejo. Route
91 provides connections to other major OCTA routes that provide
greatest access to the northern portion of Orange County. An
OCTA Route 91 is provided approximately 1 mile of the project
site on Camino Capistrano north of Ortega Highway. Route 91
northbound and southbound bus stops are located immediately
north of Camino Capistrano's intersection with Ortega Highway.
OCTA Route 91 provides transportation to/from the Laguna Hills
Transportation Center and the San Clemente Metrolink Station
with a stop at the San Juan Capistrano Train Depot. Due to the
ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, bus frequency has been reduced to
temporarily reflect Sunday schedules every day of the week until
further notice. Current bus schedules can be found on the OCTA
60 7/21/2020
website. This stop can be accessed by foot or by bicycle from the
project site along the San Juan Creek Trail and Camino Capistrano.
(Final EIR, p. 3-1.)
The project would facilitate transit use and active transportation by
providing new housing on the project site, which is already
adjacent to a Class 2 bikeway. Additionally, the project site is
located 1.2 miles from the San Juan Capistrano Train Station along
the LOSSAN corridor. This train station is served by the Amtrak
and Metrolink lines, which provide connectivity throughout
Orange, San Diego, and Los Angeles counties, as well as to major
the employment centers near the Irvine, Tustin, Fullerton, and
Orange train stations. New residents would be able to cycle or take
transit to work at major employment centers within the area.
Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 8 in
the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS.
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 project site is Planned
Community. According to the City's Land Use Element (1991),
the Planned Community land use designation denotes large areas
of land under common ownership for the detailed planning and
development of residential, commercial, industrial, institutional,
recreational, or open spaces uses. There are also small portions of
the project site designated as General Open Space and Community
Park. The proposed land uses are consistent with these
designations, and no General Plan Amendment would be required
to implement the proposed project.
The project site is identified in the City's General Plan 2014-2021
Housing Element as accommodating 230 very -low-income units.
The proposed project would develop the site with 118 market -rate
units and 14 moderate -income affordable units on the site. As such,
the project would result in fewer units by income category for the
site than identified in the City's Housing Element. SB 166, which
went into effect on January 1, 2018, requires a local jurisdiction to
ensure that its Housing Element inventory can accommodate at all
times its remaining unmet Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA). To ensure compliance with SB 166, the Project
Applicant and the City have identified a separate site to
accommodate the "net loss" of 216 affordable housing units that
would result from development of the site with the proposed
project. The City identified an alternative site, which includes 9.3
acres designated as Very High Density Residential on the City's
61 7/21/2020
Land Use Map. This site, identified as APN 121-070-57, is entitled
to be developed at a density of 30 dwelling units per acre, or 279
units. The 219 units which are no longer able to be accommodated
by the proposed project can be accommodated on this alternative
site. The City will notify the State Department of Housing and
Community Development regarding the site identified to
accommodate the replacement housing should the development be
approved to ensure the project's compliance with SB 166.
The City of San Juan Capistrano General Plan also contains goals
and policies that are considered applicable to the proposed project.
These goals and policies are discussed in Table 4.9.A, General
Plan Consistency Analysis, (found at Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-13 through
4.9-29) and a consistency analysis is provided for each applicable
General Plan goal and policy. Goals and policies 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. As previously stated, the site is zoned as
a Planned Community District associated with the adopted Ortega Planned Community
Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) 78-01. The purpose of the Planned Community
zone is to encourage the use of modern land planning and design techniques to create
developments integrating a mixture of different types of land uses. As explained above,
the Project Applicant would be entitled to a concession and waivers of certain
development standards for providing restricted affordable units in the project.
Development Standards. Section 9-3.301 of the Municipal Code outlines
permitted uses and minimum development standards allowed in residential zones.
Section 9-3.315, Planned Community (PC) Districts, of the City's Zoning Code
includes applicable development standards for the PC District zoning
classification. According to CDP 78-01, development standards for the project
site are governed by Planning Sectors B-3 and C.
As outlined in this section of the City's Municipal Code, the regulations for the
PC District are designed to permit the adoption of a Comprehensive Development
Plan (CDP) providing for a diversity of uses, building relationships, and open
spaces within planned building groups, while insuring compliance with the
General Plan and this Code.
According to CDP 78-01, design standards for the project site are governed by
Planning Sectors B-3 and C. Table 4.9.13 (found at Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-30 through
4.9-31) shows the proposed project's consistency with development standards
outlined in CDP 78-01. As shown in Table 4.9.13, the proposed project would be
62 7/21/2020
consistent with development standards required by CDP 78-01 following approval
of the affordable housing concession and waivers discussed above.
As shown in Table 4.9.A (found at Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-13 through 4.9-29), the
proposed project would be consistent with development standards required by
CDP 78-01 following approval of the waiver discussed above.
Parkinz Standards. The proposed project would provide parking spaces along
Paseo Tirador in the southern portion of the project site and along the western
boundary.
Section 9-.535, Parking, in the City's Municipal Code, requires 2 covered spaces
per single-family and multi -family residential unit, and 0.8 guest spaces per
residential unit. By this standard, the proposed project would require a minimum
of 369 parking spaces, including 120 single-family unit spaces and 249 townhome
spaces. The project proposes to provide 389 on-site parking spaces, including 139
single-family unit spaces and 250 townhome spaces. Five guest spaces would be
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible, including one van -accessible
space and four standard spaces. To comply with 2019 California Green Building
Standards Code (CALGreen Code), 8 of the 72 multi -family guest stalls would be
capable of supporting future electric vehicle (EV) connections. The project would
satisfy the City's parking requirements and would provide a surplus of 20 parking
spaces on the project site. Therefore, the project would comply with the City's
parking requirements as established in Section 9-5.535 in the City's Municipal
Code.
For the reasons discussed above, the proposed project would result in less than
significant impacts related to potential conflicts with applicable land use plans,
policies, and regulations, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-9
through 4.9-32.)
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?
Findiniz: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-50.)
Explanation: In 1975, the California Legislature enacted the Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act which, among other things, provided guidelines for the
classification and designation of mineral lands. Areas are classified on the
basis of geologic factors without regard to existing land use and land
ownership. The mineral land areas are categorized into the following four
Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ):
63 7/21/2020
• MRZ-1: An area where adequate information indicates that no
significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little
likelihood exists for their presence.
• MRZ-2: An area where adequate information indicates that significant
mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high
likelihood exists for their presence.
■ MRZ-3: An area containing mineral deposits, the significance of
which cannot be evaluated.
■ MRZ-4: An area where available information is inadequate for
assignment to any other MRZ zone.
The project site has been classified by the California Department of Mines
and Geology as being located within MRZ-2. Of the four categories, lands
classified as MRZ-2 are of the greatest importance. Such areas are
underlain by demonstrated mineral resources or are located where
geologic data indicate that significant measured or indicated resources are
present. MRZ-2 areas are designated by the State of California Mining and
Geology Board as being "regionally significant." Such designations
require that a Lead Agency's land use decisions involving designated areas
be made in accordance with its mineral resource management policies and
that it consider the importance of the mineral resource to the region or the
State as a whole, not just to the Lead Agency's jurisdiction. The project
site and surrounding area are classified as MRZ-2 due to proximity to the
San Juan Creek. Alluvial material in the San Juan Creek deposit is
Holocene to Pleistocene in age (the most current geological epochs) and
consists of about 20 percent coarse aggregate composed of metavolcanic
rock, granodiorite, and sedimentary rocks derived from the Santa Ana
Mountains; the remaining 80 percent of the deposit is composed of sand
and finer material. Historically, the Conrock Company has mined
aggregate material from the San Juan Capistrano Quarry and San Juan
Creek, located at 31507 Ortega Highway approximately 4.5 miles east of
the project site. Currently, Greenstone Materials operates aggregate
mining from this location, and they specialize in the production of
construction materials such as concrete and asphalt.
Construction of the proposed project would involve grading and earthwork
activities that would result in disturbances to on-site soils, including any
aggregate material that may be present on the site. However, project
construction would not involve the export of any on-site soils or materials
that would result in the permanent loss of on-site aggregate material.
Therefore, implementation of the project would not remove on-site
aggregate material, resulting in the permanent loss of such materials.
64 7/21/2020
As previously stated, the closest mining operations to the project site are
located 4.5 miles east of the property. Although the project site is
designated as MRZ-2, the site has not historically or is currently utilized
for mineral resource extraction. Further, the City's General Plan Open
Space and Conservation Element (2002) does not elaborate on significant
mineral resources within the City and does not identify the site as a
property targeted for the conservation of mineral resources. 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], pp. 4-49 through 4-50.)
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. 4-51.)
Explanation: Required elements of a General Plan are regulated by Section 65302 of the
Government Code. As defined in Section 65302(d) of the Government
Code, a City's General Plan Conservation Element must contain goals and
policies to protect and maintain natural resources, including minerals. The
City's General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element (2002) does
not discuss mineral resources within the City. Although the project site is
classified by the California Department of Mines and Geology as MRZ-2,
no mineral resource extraction activities have historically or presently
occur on the site. The nearest aggregate mining operation is located
approximately 4.5 miles upstream from the project site. Therefore, the
project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site as delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan, or other land use plan as a result of project implementation.
No mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-50
through 4-51.)
65 7/21/2020
M. NOISE
1. Vibration
Threshold: Would the Project result in the exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-17.)
Explanation: Construction Vibration Impacts. Construction of the proposed project
could result in the generation of ground -borne vibration. This construction
vibration impact analysis discusses the level of human annoyance using
vibration levels in VdB (vibration velocity decibels) and will assess the
potential for building damages using vibration levels in PPV (in/sec)
because vibration levels calculated in RMS velocity are best for
characterizing human response to building vibration, while vibration
levels in PPV are best used to characterize potential for damage. The
Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) 2018 Transit Noise and Vibration
Impact Assessment Manual guidelines indicate that a vibration level up to
102 VdB (equivalent to 0.5 in/sec in PPV) is considered safe for buildings
consisting of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster), and would
not result in any construction vibration damage. For a non -engineered -
timber and masonry building, the construction vibration damage criterion
is 94 VdB (0.2 in/sec in PPV).
Table 4.10.I (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.10-16) shows the PPV and VdB
values at 25 ft from a construction vibration source. As shown in Table
4.10.I, bulldozers and other heavy -tracked construction equipment (except
for pile drivers and vibratory rollers) generate approximately 87 VdB of
ground -borne vibration when measured at 25 ft, based on the Transit
Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Outdoor site preparation
for the proposed project is expected to include the use of bulldozers and
loaded trucks. The greatest levels of vibration are anticipated to occur
during the site preparation and grading phase. All other phases are
expected to result in lower vibration levels.
The distance to the nearest buildings for vibration impact analysis is
measured between the nearest off-site buildings and the project boundary
(assuming the construction equipment would be used at or near the project
boundary) because vibration impacts occur normally within the buildings.
The formula for vibration transmission is provided below:
LvdB (D) = LvdB (25 ft) — 30 Log (D/25)
PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
As identified in the Project Description, the project site is bordered on the
66 7/21/2020
north by Calle Arroyo, with commercial and institutional uses located
beyond. El Homo Creek (a tributary of San Juan Creek) and San Juan
Creek are adjacent to the south of the project site; a portion of the San
Juan Creek Trail is located along the southern portion of the project site.
The San Juan Hills Golf Club and multifamily residential developments
are located further south of the project site. Paseo Tirador is located along
a portion of the eastern boundary of the project site, with the Ortega
Equestrian Center located further east. I-5 forms the western boundary of
the project site, with the Del Obispo Shopping Center located beyond.
The closest buildings to the project site are commercial uses located
northwest and north of the project site, which are located approximately
55 ft and 100 ft, respectively, from the project construction boundary. At
55 ft and 100 ft, the closest commercial buildings would experience
vibration levels of up to 77 VdB (0.027 PPV [in/sec]) and 69 VdB (0.011
PPV [in/sec]), respectively. Other buildings surrounding the project site
are located farther away and would experience lower vibration levels.
Vibration levels at the closest commercial buildings would not exceed the
FTA community annoyance threshold of 84 VdB for land uses similar to
office uses. In addition, this vibration level would not exceed the FTA
damage threshold of 94 VdB (0.2 in/see PPV) for buildings constructed of
non -engineered timber and masonry. Therefore, ground -borne vibration
generated from construction activities associated with the proposed project
would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Operational Vibration Impacts. The proposed residential project would
not generate vibration. In addition, vibration levels generated from
project -related traffic on the adjacent roadways (Calle Arroyo and Rancho
Viejo Road) are unusual for on -road vehicles because the rubber tires and
suspension systems of on -road vehicles provide vibration isolation.
Therefore, vibration generated from project -related traffic on the adjacent
roadways would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are
required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-15 through 4.10-17.)
2. 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 project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-53.)
Explanation: The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The
project is approximately 16 miles southeast of John Wayne Airport and
does not fall within the John Wayne Airport Planning Area. Due to the
distance of the airport from the project site, there would be no noise -
67 7/21/2020
related impacts due to airport activities following project implementation,
and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-
53.)
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. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-55.)
Ex lavation: The proposed project includes the development of a residential community
consisting of 132 residential units, which would result in additional
residential growth within the City. According to the California Department
of Finance City/Population and Housing Estimates (January 2018), the
average number of persons per dwelling unit in the City in 2018 was 3.10
persons. Based on the City's average occupancy rate, the addition of 132
units would result in approximately 410 additional residents. The addition
of 410 residents would be approximately 1.14 percent of the City's 2017
population of 36,064, and an increase of 1.08 percent of the City's
projected population of 38,100 for the year 2020. Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in significant unplanned population growth as a
result of project implementation.
In addition, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment Allocation Plan
(RHNA), has quantified a range of housing needs by income groups for
each jurisdiction during specific planning periods. According to the City's
2014-2021 General Plan Housing Element, Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) has established an RHNA goal for
the City to develop 638 new housing units by the year 2021. Of these 638
units, 147 would be set aside for Extremely Low/Very Low Income
groups, 104 units for Low Income Groups, 120 for Moderate Income
Groups, and 267 for Above Moderate Groups. In order to meet these
requirements, the City's Housing Element identifies the project site as
accommodating 230 very -low income units. The proposed project would
allow for the development of 118 new market -rate housing units and 14
new moderate -income housing units on the project site, which would
result in fewer units by income category for the site than identified in the
City's Housing Element. Nonetheless, implementation of the project,
which includes construction of 14 moderate -income units, would
contribute to the City's realization of RHNA goals. To comply with SB
166, the Applicant and the City have identified a separate site to
accommodate the "net loss" of 216 affordable housing units that would
result from development of the site. The identification of a new site for the
68 7/21/2020
affordable housing units would ensure that there is no conflict with the
City's RHNA or with SB 166 and that adequate sites to accommodate the
RHNA designated affordable housing units have been identified.
The project does not propose to expand any surrounding utility
infrastructure in the project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project
would not directly or indirectly induce unplanned population growth
through the extension of roads or other infrastructure. Therefore, potential
impacts related to substantial inducement of unplanned population growth,
either directly or indirectly, would be less than significant, and no
mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-54
through 4-55.)
2. 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: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-55.)
Ex 1p anatiThe project proposes the development of a currently vacant site. Project
implementation would not displace any existing people and would not
necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. As stated
previously, the proposed project would allow for the development of 118
new market -rate housing units and 14 new moderate income housing units
on the project site, which would result in fewer units by income category
for the site than identified in the City's Housing Element. Nonetheless,
implementation of the project, which includes construction of 14
moderate -income units, would contribute to the City's realization of
RHNA goals. To comply with SB 166, the Applicant and the City will
identify a separate site within the City to accommodate the "net loss" of
affordable housing units that would result from development of the site.
The identification of a new site for the affordable housing units would
ensure that there is no conflict with the City's RHNA or with SB 166 and
that adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA designated affordable
housing units have been identified. Additionally, the project would not
result in a loss of housing or necessitate the development of replacement
housing elsewhere. No mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial
Study], p. 4-55.)
O. PUBLIC SERVICES
1. Fire Protection
69 7/21/2020
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 fire protection?
Findine: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-57.)
Ex 1Tt� anation: Fire protection and paramedic services for the project area and project
vicinity are provided to the City under contract to the Orange County Fire
authority (OCFA). The City is located in Division Ill, which includes
Battalions 6 and 7.
Fire Station No. 7 is the only OCFA station located in the City. Located at
31865 Del Obispo Street, San Juan Capistrano (approximately 0.19 mile
west of the project site), Fire Station No. 7 would be the first to the project
site in the event of an emergency, and would be the "first -in" station.
Station No. 7 is staffed by three captains, three engineers, nine firefighters,
and reserve firefighters. "Second call" stations are fire stations that support
the "first -in" station. Fire Station No. 49 would be designated as the
"second call" station to support Fire Station No. 7. Fire Station No. 49 is
located at 31461 Golden Lantern Street, Laguna Niguel, approximately 4.9
miles west of the project site. Station No. 49 is staffed by three captains,
three engineers, and six firefighters.
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).28 In addition, the California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection (CalFire) does not designate the project site as being
located in a fire hazard area.' However, development of the proposed
project would result in an increased number of individuals on the site,
which could increase the demand for OCFA services.
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. In addition, construction of the project would not result in the
need for new or physically altered governmental facilities related to fire
protection. 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 temporary lane closures on roadways adjacent
to the site. 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.
70 7/21/2020
The proposed project would allow for the development of a residential
community on the site, which would increase the number of on-site
residents and visitors, and potentiality increase the demand for fire
protection services. 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 (which are closer to areas near San Juan Creek that could be
subject to wildfires) would include automatic sprinkler systems and would
comply with Section R337 of the California Code of Regulations to
further minimize impacts related to fires. As such, the proposed project
would be designed to comply with all Fire Department access
requirements and California Fire Code requirements. Therefore, 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. 4-56
through 4-57.)
2. Police 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 Sheriff Law Enforcement Services?
Findin : Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-58.)
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
1.7 miles west of the project site, serves the City. OCSD's Aliso Viejo
Station, located at 11 Journey in Aliso Viejo, approximately 9 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. The
City's staffing level is based on response times and crime rates. At the
71 7/21/2020
present time, OCSD maintains a staffing ratio of approximately one sworn
officer for every 1,300 residents in the City.
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 of the proposed project would be temporary in nature and
would not 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.
The proposed project would increase the City's population up to 410
residents. When considered with the existing population, the project -
related population increase would have a negligible impact on the OCSD's
ratio of police officers per 1,300 residents. Additional property tax
revenue generated by implementation of the proposed project would also
contribute to the City's General Fund, which could be allocated to fund
additional police services. Therefore, the increase in population associated
with the proposed project would be minimal compared to the number of
police officers currently employed by the City, and would not trigger the
need for new or physically altered police facilities. Although the project
would incrementally contribute to the demand for additional police
protection services, the project would not result in the need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, and no mitigation would be
required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-58.)
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. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-60.)
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 grades
kindergarten through 12.
72 7/21/2020
Construction of the proposed project would not require or result in any
temporary lane closures on roadways adjacent to the site that would have
any adverse impacts on the existing CUSD operation. Therefore, there
would be no project construction impacts related to public schools, and no
mitigation would be required.
The CUSD elementary, middle, and high schools assigned to the project
site are Ambuehl Elementary (0.9 mile northeast), Marco Forster Middle
(2.8 miles southwest), and San Juan Hills High (4.8 miles east of the site).
The current student capacity for the schools serving the project site is
shown in Table 4.15.A (found at Draft EIR, p. 4-59).
CUSD student generation rates for single-family residential units were
used to analyze the estimated students generated as a result of project
implementation. Based on these generation factors, it is assumed that the
proposed 43 single-family detached units would generate approximately 7
elementary school children, 4 middle school children, and 6 high school
students. The 89 multi -family attached units would generate
approximately 14 elementary school children, 8 middle school children,
and 9 high school students. As shown in Table 4.15.13, found at Draft EIR,
p. 4-60, the total number of students generated by the proposed
development would be approximately 48 new students.
The increase in students projected as a result of project implementation
would incrementally increase the demand for school facilities. However,
the project -related increase in school children would not result in the need
for new or expanded school facilities given the current capacities at
schools serving the project area (refer to Table 4.15.A, found at Draft EIR,
p. 4-59). 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
Applicant would be required to pay such fees to reduce any impacts of
new residential development on school services as provided in Section
65995 of the California Government Code. Pursuant to the provisions of
Government Code Section 65996, a project's impact on school facilities is
fully mitigated through payment of the requisite school facility
development fees current at the time a building permit is issued. The
current Development Impact Fee for residential projects within the
CUSD's jurisdictional boundaries is $3.79 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. 4-59 through 4-60.)
73 7/21/2020
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. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-60.)
Explanation: The City maintains approximately 193 acres of parks and recreational
uses. Currently, the City provides 5 acres of park space per 1,000
residents. The closest park to the project site is Cook La Novia Park,
which is located 0.5 mile northeast of the project site. Although it is
possible that residents of the project might use City parks for recreational
activities, it is likely that the recreational facilities included as part of the
project would meet the project -related demand for parks and passive
recreational facilities. Additionally, the use of other parks in the City by
on-site residents would not increase to a level that would result in the need
for new or physically altered facilities.
Although the proposed project would include the development of housing,
which would create an additional demand for park facilities, the proposed
project also includes the development of recreation areas along the multi-
purpose trail that would satisfy a portion of the total required parkland
dedication that, in combination with in -lieu park fees, would satisfy the
requirements for provision of parks. Therefore, the dedicated recreation
areas in combination with payment of in lieu fees provided by the
proposed project would meet any increase in parks required by the
proposed project's increase in population and would ensure that existing
parks would not be physically altered or degraded as a result of project
implementation.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less
than significant impact related to the provision of park space, and no
mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-59
through 4-60.)
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 significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for other public facilities?
Fin": Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-62.)
74 7/21/2020
Explanation: The Orange County Public Library (OCPL) system provides library
services to the County, including the City. The only OCPL system branch
in the City is the San Juan Capistrano Regional Library located at 31495
El Camino Real, across the street from the Basilica Mission. The San Juan
Capistrano Regional 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.
Short-term construction activities would be temporary in nature and would
cease upon project completion. Temporary workers on the site during
construction are not expected to create an increased demand for library
services. Therefore, impacts related to the provision of public libraries
from construction of the proposed project would be less than significant,
and no mitigation would be required.
Demand for library services is typically determined based on the size of
the resident population. The City's General Plan determines the adequacy
of library services according to a ratio of the resident population to the
total library floor area and collection size, using the standards of 0.2 sf of
library space per capita and 1.5 books per capita. As discussed further in
Section 4.13, Population and Housing, the increase in population
associated with up to 132 residential units would be approximately 410
persons. Using this standard and the estimated project -related increase in
410 persons, the San Juan Capistrano Regional Library would need to be
7,434 sf in size with 55,753 books. Although the San Juan Capistrano
Regional Library exceeds the standard for size with a 12,000 sf facility,
the library would need an additional 9,056 books to meet the projected
demand for library books. The San Juan Capistrano Library reduced the
total amount of hardcopy library materials from 80,000 to 45,789 between
2014 and 2017 in an effort to eliminate outdated materials and replace
select volumes with electronic copies. Due to the accessibility of online
materials via the 23 public computers at the library, the replacement of the
hardcopy materials with electronic copies is not considered a loss of
library volumes. 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. 4-61 through 4-62.)
P. RECREATION
75 7/21/2020
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: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-63.)
Explanation: The City of San Juan Capistrano currently maintains 27 public parks,
consisting of approximately 193 acres of parks and recreational uses
throughout the City.' According to the Parks and Recreation Element of
the City's General Plan (2002), the City has an established standard of 5
acres of park space per 1,000 residents. For comparison, the National Park
standard is 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.
The proposed project would include a 20 ft wide multi-purpose pedestrian,
bicycle, and equestrian trail along the project site's southern boundary.
This trail would serve to provide increased connectivity between off-site
recreational uses (e.g., Ortega Equestrian Center) and on-site amenities
provided as part of the project. Specifically, recreational amenities
provided as part of the project would consist of a gathering area with
barbeques, seating, a shade structure, a climbing boulder, and a wishing
well; an open play turf area with benches; an equestrian hitching post; and
exercise stations. Although a portion of the San Juan Creek Trail may be
inaccessible during project construction, short-term construction activities
would be temporary in nature and would cease upon project completion.
Further, project operation would encourage access to the multi -use trail
and promote new opportunities for recreation due to the amenities
proposed as part of the project.
Section 9.4-159, Parkland, of the City's Municipal Code was adopted to
implement the provisions of the Quimby Act (State of California Planning
and Zoning Law, Section 66477), which allows the legislative body of a
city to require the dedication of land for park facilities and/or the payment
of in lieu fees for park and recreational purposes as a condition to the
approval for a final tract map or parcel map for certain subdivisions. The
proposed 132 -unit project would increase the City's population by
approximately 410 residents and would be subject to the dedication of
land for park facilities and/or the payment of in -lieu fees for park and
recreational purposes. Section 9.4-159, Parkland, states that the subdivider
shall dedicate land or pay a fee in lieu of, or a combination of both, as a
condition of approval for the purpose of providing parks and recreation
facilities. Based on the City's parkland requirement of 5 acres per 1,000
residents, the proposed project would increase the demand for parkland in
the City by 2.05 acres. As such, the Applicant would be required to pay
fees in compliance with Section 9.4- 159, Parkland, of the City's
Municipal Code. Therefore, with the provision of the on-site recreation
areas and the payment of in -lieu park fees, impacts to recreation
76 7/21/2020
requirements would be less than significant. In addition, the proposed
project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreation facilities such that substantial deterioration of the
facilities would occur or be accelerated. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp.
4-63 through 4-64.)
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: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-64.)
Explanation: There is no identifiable physical impact to the environment that is unique
to recreation resources. Potential impacts relate to separate environmental
topics that will be analyzed further in the EIR, such as impacts associated
with construction air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. The
construction or expansion of off-site recreational facilities would not occur
as the project is providing on-site recreational amenities including a multi-
use trail; a gathering area with barbeques, seating, a shade structure, a
climbing boulder, and a wishing well; an open play turf area with benches;
an equestrian hitching post; and exercise stations. Therefore,
implementation of new recreational areas proposed as part of the project
would result in less than significant environmental impacts, and no
mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-64.)
Q. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC
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: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-21.)
Explanation: Construction. 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 Calle Arroyo to allow for utility
connections on the project site.
Project construction would take approximately 20 months. Project
77 7/21/2020
construction will consist of the five phases (including average duration,
number of employees, and trucks) listed below. It should be noted that
Phases 3-5 would overlap for a period of 7 months.
• Phase 1 — Site Preparation (1 month): 9 workers
• Phase 2 — Grading (5 months): 10 workers and 38 haul trucks
• Phase 3 — Building Construction (13 months): 71 workers and 19
vendor trucks
• Phase 4 — Paving (8 months): 8 workers
• Phase 5 — Architectural Coatings (8 months): 14 workers
• Overlapping Phases 3-5 (7 months): 93 workers and 19 vendor
trucks
Typical construction hours are 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., consistent with the
City's Municipal Code (Section 8-2.04). Each worker will arrive between
6:30 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. (outside of the a.m. peak hour). Approximately 60
percent of the workers will leave between 3:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. (outside
the p.m. peak hour) and the remaining 40 percent will leave after 4:00
p.m. (during the p.m. peak hour). To present a conservative analysis, all
workers are assumed to drive themselves to/from the project site. Vendor
truck trips will occur throughout the day (between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m.) and haul truck trips will occur outside of the peak hours (between
9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.).
As determined in the TIA, the most intense period of construction (i.e., the
overlap of Phases 3-5) would generate 10 a.m. peak -hour trips (5 inbound
and 5 outbound) and 47 p.m. peak -hour trips (5 inbound and 42 outbound)
in passenger car equivalents (PCEs). Because operations associated with
the proposed project (64 a.m. peak -hour trips and 82 p.m. peak -hour trips
[discussed in further detail below]) would generate more trips than
construction (10 a.m. peak -hour trips and 47 p.m. peak -hour trips) and the
LOS analyses have determined that the project would not result in any
significant traffic impacts, it can be concluded that construction traffic
impacts would be less than significant.
Although construction traffic would be less than traffic generated by
project operation, the project would be required to adhere to all applicable
City requirements to reduce potential impacts on the local circulation
system during project construction. 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.
78 7/21/2020
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, consistent transportation -related
goals and policies in the City's General Plan, and the Orange County CMP
(2019). 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 4.11.4.4, of the
Draft EIR, for a list of goals and policies applicable to the
proposed project) as described below.
As previously stated, primary access to the project site would be
provided via driveways on Paseo Tirador, and secondary access
would be provided via two driveways on Calle Arroyo. An LOS
analysis was conducted at the intersection of Paseo Tirador-San
Juan Creek Trail/Calle Arroyo, which confirmed that this
intersection would operate at LOS B or better during both peak
hours using the ICU methodology.
As part of the project, a multi-purpose pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle
trail would be constructed along the project site's southern boundary. The
multi-purpose trail would connect to the existing sidewalk along Calle
Arroyo directly east of the project site, traverse along the site's southern
boundary, and connect to the existing San Juan Creek Trail southwest of
the site. Implementation of the multi-purpose trail would be consistent
with the intention to expand the existing bicycle, pedestrian, and
equestrian trails network (Circulation Element Goal 3 and Policy 3.1), as
well as the intention to minimize the conflict between bicycle, pedestrian,
and equestrian uses and vehicular traffic (Circulation Element Goal 4 and
Policy 4.1).
The proposed project would also connect the project site to nearby
sidewalks and bicycle routes on Calle Arroyo through the installation of
new internal sidewalks serving the residential development. The project
would also allow for the continuation of existing on -street (Class II) bike
lanes provided on Rancho Viejo Road (located west of the project site), as
well as continuation of the existing bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trail
located along the San Juan Creek. The existing bicycle, pedestrian, and
equestrian network also serve to connect the project area with the
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
minimize conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, equestrians, and
bicycles (Circulation Element Goals 1 and 4). In addition, the
79 7/21/2020
development of an internal, private circulation system serving the
residential development would be consistent with the intention of
installing street improvements within areas where necessary to improve
the circulation system in concert with land development (Circulation
Element Policies 1.1 and 1.4). 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 4.1 LH
(found at Draft EIR, p. 4.11-17), the project has the potential to
generate approximately 890 ADT, including 64 trips (16 inbound
and 48 outbound) in the a.m. peak hour and 82 trips (51 inbound
and 31 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 4.11.1 and 4.1 LJ (found at
Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-18 through 4.11-19) summarize the results of
the Existing Plus Project peak -hour LOS analysis using the ICU
and HCM methodologies, respectively. As shown in Table 4.11.1
(found at Draft EIR, p. 4.11-18), 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 4.1 LJ (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.11-19), 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 4.1 LK
80 7/21/2020
(found at Draft EIR, p. 4.11-20). As Table 4.1 IX (found at Draft
EIR, p. 4.11-20) indicates, all study area roadway segments,
including the hot -spot roadways, are anticipated to operate at
satisfactory LOS with the project, except for Valle Road between
San Juan Creek Road and the I-5 northbound ramps (LOS F).
However, the roadway segment v/c ratio does not increase by 0.01
or greater in the Existing Plus Project condition. Therefore,
consistent with City Administrative Policy No. 310, impacts would
be considered less than significant under Existing Plus Project
conditions. No mitigation would be required.
In summary, the project would not result in conflicts with City
Administrative Policy No. 310 because the addition of project
traffic would not result in impacts to the surrounding roadway
system in the Existing Plus Project condition. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Confonnance with the Orange County CMP. Ortega Highway is an
Orange County CMP roadway. LOS E is considered acceptable at
this location, consistent with the City's target LOS for hot spot
locations. The TIA included two intersections (1-5 northbound
ramps/Ortega Highway and I-5 southbound ramps/Ortega
Highway) and three roadway segments (Ortega Highway between
La Novia Avenue and Rancho Viejo Road, Ortega Highway
between Rancho Viejo Road and I-5 northbound ramps, and
Ortega Highway between 1-5 northbound ramps and 1-5
southbound ramps) considered CMP monitoring locations. As
stated above, the addition of project traffic would not result in
impacts to the surrounding roadway system in the Existing Plus
Project condition, and therefore, the CMP monitoring locations
included in the study area would not be significantly impacted. 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.
Queueing Analysis. The TIA analyzed the 95th percentile queues
of the I-5 northbound and southbound ramps at Ortega Highway
using the HCM 6th Edition methodology. The purpose of this
analysis was to determine the adequacy of the existing turn -lane
storage capacity and identify the potential for vehicles to spill back
into the through lanes at these ramp intersections. The 95th -
percentile queue is defined as the queue length that has only a 5
percent probability of being exceeded during the analysis time
period. It is a useful parameter for determining the appropriate
length of turn pockets, but it is not typical of what an average
driver would experience. Table 4.11.1, (found at Draft EIR, p.
4.11-22) summarizes the queueing analysis for Existing, Existing
81 7/21/2020
Plus Project, Existing Plus Cumulative No Project, Existing Plus
Cumulative Plus Project, Buildout No Project, and Buildout Plus
Project conditions.
As shown in Table 4.11.1, (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.11-22), the
storage length of the dual westbound turn lanes at the I-5
southbound ramps at Ortega Highway will be exceeded under the
Existing Plus Cumulative Plus Project condition. However, the
project would only contribute 2 ft to the queue. Therefore, the
project would not contribute significant queues under the Existing
Plus Cumulative condition.
Similar to the Existing Plus Cumulative Plus Project condition, the
storage lengths of four turn lanes at the I-5 northbound and
southbound ramps at Ortega Highway will be exceeded under the
Buildout Plus Project condition. However, the project would only
contribute 6 ft or less to each of these queues. Therefore, the
project would not contribute significant queues under the Buildout
condition. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-14 through 4.11-21.)
2. VMT
Threshold: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
sections 15064.3 or will conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including but not limited to, level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by
the county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-24.)
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 mile 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,
82 7/21/2020
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 City has not yet established thresholds or standards related to VMT.
However, State law provides sufficient guidance to evaluate the project's
impacts related to VMT.
The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical
Advisory (TA) states that existing VMT for residential projects may be
measured at the regional or City level. For purposes of this vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) evaluation, the City has been considered as the Region.
The OPR TA on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA for
residential projects, December 2018: Page - 15 states the following:
"Recommended threshold for residential projects:
A proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing
VMT per capita may indicate a significant transportation impact.
Existing VMT per capita may be measured as regional VMT per
capita or as city VMT per capita. Proposed development
referencing a threshold based on city VMT per capita (rather than
regional VMT per capita) should not cumulatively exceed the
number of units specified in the SCS for that city, and should be
consistent with the SCS."
The proposed project will not cumulatively exceed the number of units
specified in the Orange County Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS)
for the City. Therefore, for purposes of the VMT evaluation and as
suggested in the TA, the project VMT per capita has been compared with
the City's (Region) VMT per capita to determine whether the project will
have a significant transportation impact.
The Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) has been
used to estimate both the regional and project VMT, since it is consistent
with the forecasts included in the 2018 Orange County Long Range
Transportation Plan. The OCTAM socioeconomic database for both base
(2012) and future (2040) scenarios was updated with the project land uses
to calculate project VMT. Regional and project VMT were calculated
from the OCTAM model runs as described below.
• Project Traffic Analysis Zone Update: The first step in preparation
83 7/21/2020
of the VMT evaluation was to update the traffic analysis zones (TAZs)
in the model that include the project area. LSA converted the project
land use into model socioeconomic categories. The OCTAM
socioeconomic database for both base (2012) and future (2040)
scenarios was updated with the project land uses to calculate project
VMT. A separate TAZ was created and updated with the
socioeconomic data developed for the proposed residential use.
• Select Zone Model Runs: Upon completion of the socioeconomic
data update, LSA conducted model runs for both 2012 and 2040
scenarios. The model runs included select zone model runs for the
project TAZ. The select zone runs have been utilized in determining
project -specific VMT data from the model outputs.
In the TIA, regional and project VMT were calculated from the OCTAM
runs, as described below. The regional (City) VMT per capita for both
base (2012) and future (2040) model scenarios were obtained from the
model. Existing (2019) VMT per capita was developed by interpolating
between base and future year VMT data obtained from the model. The
regional VMT is 24.2 per capita. Project select zone model runs were
utilized to develop project VMT. Project VMT per capita was calculated
for both base (2012) and future (2040) model scenarios. The existing
(2019) project VMT per capita was developed by interpolating between
the base and future year VMT per capita for the project. The project -
related VMT is 11.7 per capita. As such, the VMT per capita for the
project is 51 percent less than the regional VMT per capita under existing
(2019) conditions (detailed VMT development calculations are included in
Appendix G of the TIA). Therefore, based on the OPR TA guidance, the
project will not have a significant VMT transportation impact.
At this time, the City has not adopted a methodology to analyze VMT
impacts within its jurisdiction. Therefore, since the City does not currently
have thresholds or standards in place for assessing potential VMT impacts,
this information is provided for disclosure purposes only, and the analysis
of traffic impacts in this Draft EIR for CEQA purposes are based on the
City's LOS thresholds. Further, according to the TIA, implementation of
the proposed project would not result in any significant project -related
impacts to the surrounding roadway system. No mitigation would be
required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-23 through 4.11-24.)
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. 4-67.)
84 7/21/2020
Explanation: Access to the project site would be provided via three driveways on Calle
Arroyo. Paseo Tirador, an existing street within the project site, would be
extended to the southwesternmost portion of the site and would be utilized
as the main street serving the development. The City has vacated Paseo
Tirador, and it will become a private road as part of the proposed
development. Multiple roads providing access to individual units would
connect to Paseo Tirador and, in some cases, Calle Arroyo. 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 uses in the
surrounding area. The proposed project includes internal private roadways
that would provide resident access to residential units. 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. Therefore, the proposed project would not
substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g.,
sharp curve or dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment), and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial
Study], p. 4-67.)
4. Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access?
Findin : Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-67.)
Explanation: As stated previously, access to the project site would be provided via three
driveways on Calle Arroyo. One fire department access point would
connect to the 24 Hour Fitness parking lot; this access point would be used
for emergency access only and secured with a gate. 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 Sherriff 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. 4-67.)
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,
85 7/21/2020
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)?
Findin : Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-7.)
Explanation: The project site is not listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register, or in a local register of historical resources. However, the NAHC
SLF search did return positive results as one prehistoric site, CA -ORA -
1672, located within the project site. Despite this positive finding,
subsequent subsurface testing was completed and the resources were not
recommended as significant due to their lack of integrity and the absence
of data to answer important research questions in prehistory. Therefore,
because there is no resource listed or eligible for listing on the California
Register or local register, impacts under this threshold are considered less
than significant. No mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-7.)
S. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
1. Wastewater Treatment Requirements
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?
Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-75.)
Explanation: Water. The City's Utilities Department provides water services to the
project site. The Utilities Department receives its domestic water supply
from the following three sources: (1) water purchased from the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD); (2) the City's
Groundwater Recovery Plant; and (3) local groundwater wells within the
City. The largest source of water for the City is purchased water from
MWD, which accounts for approximately 64 percent of the City's water
supply portfolio.
The City's water supply system provides reliable service to a population of
nearly 39,047 within the service area. According to the City's Final 2015
Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the total projected water
demand for the retail customers served by the City was approximately
8,531 of in 2015. The City's projected water demand for 2020 and 2040 is
8,618 and 8,688 of per year, respectively, which would be equal to the
City's projected water supply for 2020 and 2040 (8,618 and 8,688 of per
year, respectively). According to the 2015 UWMP, the City's available
supply will meet the future projected demand because the City has
entitlements to receive imported water from the MWD and also has
86 7/21/2020
significant water reserves from local groundwater supplies. In addition,
the 2015 UWMP water demand forecast for South Orange County (which
includes the City of San Juan Capistrano) is based on projected
demographics (U.S. Census Bureau data) provided by the Center for
Demographic Research to each water agency in Orange County. Based on
these projections, along with the City's access to imported water and local
groundwater, the City would have adequate water supplies to meet full
service demands.
Short-term demand for water may occur during construction activities on
site. Water demand for soil watering (fugitive dust control), cleanup,
masonry, painting, and other activities would be temporary and would
cease once construction is completed. Overall, construction activities
require minimal water and are not expected to have any adverse impacts
on the existing water system or available water supplies. Therefore,
potential project impacts associated with short term construction activities
would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
As shown in Table 4.19.A, found at Draft EIR, p. 4-71, the proposed
project would develop the currently vacant project site with up to 132
single-family residences, which would result in a projected water demand
of 36,295 gallons per day (gpd) (0.11 of/day or approximately 41 of
annually). Therefore, the estimated increase in water demand associated
with the proposed project would represent approximately 0.5 percent of
the City's current and projected annual water demand (based on the City's
consumption of 8,531 of in 2015 and projected water demands of 8,618 of
in 2020 and 8,688 of in 2040).
As is required for 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. The Applicant would also be
required to pay the proposed project's fair share of Domestic Water Fees
in accordance with City Resolution No. 04- 05-18-04. Moreover, the
proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation of
Planned Community for the site, and consequently, water use anticipated
with the proposed development was already considered and planned for
the in the City's current UWMP. As such, the proposed project would not
necessitate new or expanded water entitlements, and the City would be
able to accommodate the increased demand for potable water. Therefore,
project impacts associated with an increase in potable water demand are
considered less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
Water Distribution. The proposed project includes the installation of a
new 4 -inch private water line along Paseo Tirador and other internal roads,
87 7/21/2020
which would connect to an existing 16 -inch public water line on Calle
Arroyo north of the site. The project would also replace an existing 12 -
inch public water line with a new 16 -inch water line adjacent to the 1-5
freeway near the western boundary of the site. The proposed 4 -inch
private water line would connect to the existing 16 -inch water line.
The project site is not currently served by recycled water. However, in
conjunction with project implementation, a public recycled water line
would be installed off site in the roadway along Calle Arroyo alongside
existing water and sanitary sewer lines. The 6 -inch recycled water line
would connect to an existing 6 -inch line at the intersection of Calle Arroyo
and Rancho Viejo Road and connect to the project site at the intersection
of Calle Arroyo and Paseo Tirador. As part of the project, recycled water
lines would be installed on the site and connect to the proposed 6 -inch line
at Calle Arroyo and Paseo Tirador. Recycled water would irrigate
common landscaped areas on the project site.
The project also includes a new 8 -inch well line between the residential
uses and the San Juan Creek Area. This new well line would connect to an
existing 8 -inch well line adjacent to the 1-5 freeway at the western
boundary of the site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed water
infrastructure improvements on the site would ensure that there is
sufficient water distribution infrastructure to accommodate the project's
domestic and recycled water needs. If a deficiency or service problem
were found during the permitting process, the Applicant would be required
by existing regulations to fund the required upgrades to adequately serve
the project. Therefore, the project's impacts related to water conveyance
and distribution would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be
required.
Wastewater. As previously stated, wastewater generated in the City is
collected and treated at the J.B. Latham Regional Treatment Plant (J.B.
Latham Plant), located at 34156 Del Obispo Street in the City of Dana
Point, approximately 2 miles south of the project site. The City is one of
10 member agencies that own treatment capacity in the South Orange
County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA) wastewater treatment facilities.
The City owns 4 million gallons per day (mgd) of the liquids treatment
capacity (30.8 percent) of the J.B. Latham Plant.
The J.B. Latham Plant has a total design capacity of 13 mgd and currently
treats an average wastewater flow of 6.7 mgd. Therefore, the J.B. Latham
Plant is currently operating at approximately 52 percent of its daily design
capacity.
The City operates and maintains a sanitary sewer collection and
conveyance system that includes approximately 120 miles of sewer lines
in sizes up to 27 inches in diameter. In addition, the City also operates and
88 7/21/2020
maintains two lift stations—the Rosenbaum Lift Station and the Avenida
De La Vista List Station.
As part of the proposed project, a 6 -inch sewer line would be installed
within all internal roads serving the residential uses and would connect to
an existing 15- to 18 -inch sanitary sewer line within Paseo Tirador. In
addition, the project would involve upsizing an existing 15 -inch public
sanitary sewer line to an 18 -inch line adjacent to the 1-5 freeway at the
project site's western boundary. All proposed sewer connections would
require a drop manhole.
As shown in Table 4.19.13 (found at Draft EIR, p. 4-73), the proposed
project would develop the currently vacant project site with up to 132
residences at a medium density, and would generate approximately 21,239
gpd (0.02 mgd) of wastewater. Therefore, the estimated increase in
wastewater generated as a result of project implementation would
represent approximately 0.3 percent of the available daily treatment
capacity at the J.B. Latham Plant.
The J.B. Latham Plant is in compliance with the San Diego RWQCB's
treatment requirements and has the capacity to accommodate the increased
wastewater flows from the proposed project.
Therefore, development of the project would not require or result in the
construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of
existing facilities, which would cause significant environmental impacts.
Furthermore, the Applicant would be required to pay a Sewer Connection
Fee in compliance with City Resolution No. 04-11-16-05, which would
further reduce project impacts related to wastewater treatment facilities.
Project impacts related to construction or expansion of wastewater
treatment facilities would, therefore, be less than significant, and no
mitigation would be required.
Storm Water Drainage. The project would comply with the requirements
of Title 8, Chapter 14, of the Municipal Code and the San Diego
RWQCB's South Orange County MS4 Permit. The South Orange County
MS4 Permit regulates urban stormwater runoff, surface runoff, and
drainage that flow into the MS4 system.
As part of the project, storm drains would be installed throughout the
center of the project site. An existing swale running along 1-5 would
convey runoff from the westerly portions of the project site to the existing
27 -inch stormdrain pipe, which would eventually be conveyed into San
Juan Creek. All on-site runoff from the easterly portions of the proposed
development would be conveyed to a Modular Wetlands System (a
stormwater biofiltration system proposed at various locations on the
project site) prior to converging into the El Horno Creek Channel. As
89 7/21/2020
discussed further in Section 4. 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the
Draft EIR, receiving waters have sufficient capacity to accommodate the
project's increase in runoff, and the project would not exceed the capacity -
of downstream storm drain lines. Therefore, project impacts related to the
construction or expansion of storm water drainage facilities would be less
than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
Electric Power and Natural Gas. The San Diego Gas and Electric
Company (SDG&E) would supply electricity and natural gas to the project
site. Construction and operation of the proposed project has the potential
to result in significant impacts associated with wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, including electricity and
natural gas. Although impacts with respect to energy resources will be
evaluated as part of the EIR, implementation of the proposed project is not
anticipated to result in impacts related to the construction or relocation of
existing electric power or natural gas facilities. Specifically, because the
project -related demand for electricity and natural gas is anticipated to be
typical of existing residential users in SDG&E's territory, the project itself
is not anticipated to result in an increased demand for electric power or
natural gas that would require new electric facilities to serve the site.
Moreover, the environmental impacts associated with the construction and
operation of project -related infrastructure improvements (such as utility
connections to existing electric and natural gas lines) would be analyzed
throughout the EIR. Therefore, impacts with respect to the construction or
expansion of electric and natural gas facilities would be less than
significant, and no mitigation would be required.
Telecommunications. The primary cable and telephone service providers
available to residents within the project's vicinity (and, more generally,
within San Juan Capistrano) are AT&T and Cox Communications.
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would not
increase the demand for telecommunications facilities. As stated
previously, project implementation is anticipated to result in a population
increase of approximately 410 people, which comprises 1.08 percent of
the total projected 2020 population of San Juan Capistrano.
The project -related increase of 410 people would not generate a significant
increase in the demand for telecommunication services such that the
project would necessitate the need for new telecommunications facilities.
As such, any project -related impacts to telecommunications facilities
would be negligible and would not cause significant environmental
impacts. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not
result in impacts related to the construction or relocation of existing
telecommunications facilities, and no mitigation would be required.
Summary. The proposed project would require the construction of new or
expanded facilities for water, wastewater, storm water drainage,
90 7/21/2020
electricity, and telecommunications lines. However, for the reasons
discussed above, the relocation and construction of these facilities would
not result in significant environmental impacts. Therefore, impacts to
these utility facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation
would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-70 through 4-75.)
2. 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?
Findin : Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-75.)
Explanation: As stated previously, the proposed project would result in the development
of 132 residential units and approximately 410 additional residents in San
Juan Capistrano. Implementation of the proposed project would result in
an increased demand for water, which would represent approximately 0.5
percent of the City's current and projected annual water demand.
The proposed project would use approximately 36,295 gpd (41 of per
year) of potable water. According to the City of San Juan Capistrano's
Final UWMP (2015), citywide supply and demand for potable water was
8,531 of in 2015 and is expected to increase to 8,618 of by 2020 and 8,688
of by 2040 under a normal -year scenario. The 2015 UWMP projections
include population increases of approximately 1 percent per year, as well
as anticipated water conservation strategies. Moreover, the proposed
project is consistent with the General Plan designation of Planned
Community for the site. As such, water use anticipated with the proposed
development was already considered and planned for in the City's current
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.
The proposed project's projected water demand would represent
approximately 0.5 percent of the projected water supply and demand in
2020 and 2040. As described further in the City's Final 2015 UWMP, the
City has sufficient entitlements to receive imported water from the
Metropolitan Water District and also has significant water reserves from
local groundwater supplies. Based on the Final UWMP, the City would be
able to purchase additional water to supply the project -related increase in
demand for potable water. As such, the City would have adequate water
supplies to serve existing and projected water demands through the year
2040 under normal, single -dry -year, and multiple -dry -year scenarios. The
incremental water demand generated by the proposed project would be
within the current and projected water supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry,
91 7/21/2020
and multiple dry years. Therefore, impacts related to water supplies would
be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix
A [Initial Study], p. 4-75.)
3. 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. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-76.)
ExEx lunation: Although the project is located within Orange County, it falls within the
jurisdiction of the San Diego RWQCB.
Implementation of the proposed project would allow for the development
of 132 residential units and various outdoor amenities 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 that
serves the project. Therefore, potential project impacts associated with
short-term construction activities would be less than significant, and no
mitigation would be required.
Wastewater from the proposed project would be directed to the City's
sanitary sewer system, which connects to trunk sewers operated by
SOCWA. SOCWA is a Joint Powers Authority with 10 member agencies,
consisting of local retail water agencies and cities providing water to 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.
SOCWA's three primary treatment facilities have a treatment capacity of
26 million gallons of wastewater per day. Historically, approximately half
of this wastewater is treated for recycled water use, while the other half is
treated and discharged through the two ocean outfalls.
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. Wastewater generated from the
proposed project would be typical of commercial wastewater flows in the
City. Operation of the proposed project would $generate approximately
92 7/21/2020
21,239 gpd (0.02 mgd) of wastewater, which would represent
approximately 0.3 percent of the available daily treatment capacity at the
J.B. Latham Plant. The J.B. Latham Plant has the capacity to
accommodate the increased wastewater flows from the proposed project in
addition to existing commitments. Therefore, impacts related to
wastewater generation are considered less than significant, and no
mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-75
through 4-76.)
4. 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?
Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-77.)
Explan_atiyn: The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped; therefore, no solid
waste is generated under existing conditions. Construction of the proposed
project would generate a 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 construction of 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.
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. The Prima Deshecha
Landfill is currently operating at 35 percent of its daily design capacity.
Build out of the proposed project would generate approximately 894
pounds (lbs) of solid waste per day (0.45 tpd).5253 Therefore, the total
solid waste generated at project build out would represent approximately
0.2 percent' of the Prima Deshecha Landfill's current permitted daily
capacity and would not significantly impact the daily 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 2021; the Prima Deshecha Landfill is therefore anticipated
to be closed 46 years after the completion of project build out. The
proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure. Moreover,
93 7/21/2020
the project would not otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals. Therefore, the project would result in a less than
significant impact to solid waste and landfill facilities, and no mitigation
would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-76 through 4-77.)
5. Solid Waste Laws
Threshold: Will the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-78.)
Explanation: The California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) changed the
focus of solid waste management from landfill to diversion strategies,
such as source reduction, recycling, and composting. The purpose of the
diversion strategies is to reduce dependence on landfills for solid waste
disposal. AB 939 established mandatory diversion goals of 25 percent by
1995, 50 percent by 2000, and 75 percent by 2020.
The proposed project would comply with existing and 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. In addition, the project would comply
with Municipal Code Section 6-3.08.01, Minimum Construction and
Demolition Debris Diversion Requirements, to divert at least 65 percent of
the construction waste materials generated during construction of the
project. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than
significant impact related to federal, State, and local management and
reduction statutes and regulations related to solid wastes, and no
mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-78.)
T. WILDFIRE
1. 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 impair an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-80.)
Explanation: The City's General Plan Safety Element (2002) identifies and evaluates
natural hazards associated with seismic activity, landslides, flooding, and
fire and establishes goals for each of the City's departments to provide
responsible planning aimed at reducing impacts with respect to loss of life,
94 7/21/2020
injury, damage to property, and other losses associated with disasters, such
as those resulting from seismic activity, flooding, and fire. According to
the City's map of evacuation routes, Rancho Viejo Road, Ortega Highway,
San Juan Creek Road, and La Novia Avenue are identified as potential
evacuation routes in the event of an emergency.
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 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.
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. As stated previously, Rancho Viejo Road,
Ortega Highway, San Juan Creek Road, and La Novia Avenue are
identified as evacuation routes in San Juan Capistrano. 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. Further,
the project site is not located in or near State responsibility areas or lands
classified as VHFHSZ. No mitigation would be required. (Appendix A
[Initial Study], pp. 4-79 through 4-80.)
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: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-80.)
Explanation: The project site is located in a developed portion of the City. According to
the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire), the
95 7/21/2020
project site is not located in a fire hazard area.' In its existing condition,
the project site is relatively flat and there are no significant slopes adjacent
to the site. However, because the project site is adjacent to vegetation
associated with San Juan Creek, the eastern portion of the site is located
within a fuel modification zone. As such, the project would be required to
prepare and submit a final Fuel Modification Plan to the OCFA for the
proposed project. According to the conceptual Fuel Modification Plan, the
project includes the use of drought -tolerant landscaping, rock, and
hardscape within the fuel modification zone, as well as non-combustible
building materials for structures on the site.
The proposed project involves the development of the currently vacant site
with a 132 -unit residential development, which would reduce the amount
of vegetation/combustible materials on site. In addition, the project
vicinity is characterized by existing residential and commercial uses. As
such, the project itself would not exacerbate wildfire risks due to slope,
prevailing winds, location, and other factors, and would not be expected to
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], pp. 4-80 through 4-81.)
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?
Finding: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-81.)
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 result in
impacts to the environment. Although the project includes a proposed
internal roadway within the residential development, the project is not
located in a fire hazard area and does not include any changes to public or
private roadways that would exacerbate fire risk or result in impacts to the
environment. Although utility improvements (including domestic water,
recycled water, sanitary sewer, and storm drain lines) proposed as part of
the project would be extended throughout the project site, these
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
96 7/21/2020
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 result in impacts
to the environment. No mitigation would be required. (Appendix A
[Initial Study], p. 4-81.)
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?
Findinm: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-82.)
Explanation: In its existing condition, the project site is relatively flat with no slopes.
As previously discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality,
the project site is within an inundation area of a 100 -year flood. According
to the FEMA FIRM, a majority of the project site is located within Zone
AE of the San Juan Creek 100 -year floodplain. Zone AE includes areas
subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood with base flood
elevations determined. A portion of the project site is located within the
Zone AE regulatory floodways associated with San Juan Creek and El
Horno Creek. Regulatory floodways are the channel of a river and
adjacent land that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood
without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation. In addition,
according to the FEMA FIRM, the project site is located within a 1
percent annual chance (100 -year) floodplain and a regulatory floodway.
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. Overall, due to the project site's distance
from the nearest VHFHSZ, risks associated with wildfires are considered
less than 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 is unlikely
to occur at the site, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A
[Initial Study], pp. 4-81 through 4-82.)
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:
97 7/21/2020
A. 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 with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-17.)
Explanation: The project is located in close proximity to San Juan Creek and El Homo
Creek, which contains habitat for several regional special -status species.
However, according to the Biological Resources Assessment, no special -
status natural communities, or special -status plants are present on the
project site. While special -status plant species are not expected,
Mitigation Measure BI0-1 would require a springtime botanical survey
during the typical springtime blooming season (April through May 2020)
to confirm the absence of annual special -status plant species that bloom
during this period. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BI0-1 would
result in avoidance of impacts to special -status plant species by confirming
their absence. Should special -status plant species be identified as present
on the project site, specific procedures would be implemented to avoid or
compensate for impacts to such species, where applicable. Therefore, with
implementation of Mitigation Measure BI0-1, impacts to special -status
plant species would be less than significant.
According to the Biological Resources Assessment, no special -status
animal species are known or observed to occur on the project site, and
would therefore not be directly affected by the proposed project. However,
several special -status animal species are known to occur within 5 miles of
the project site, and therefore have the potential to be indirectly affected
during construction activities through increased noise, vibration, lighting,
and dust. Such indirect disturbance has the potential to affect foraging
patterns and disorient special -status species occurring in adjacent habitat
areas. To ensure that such species are not indirectly impacted by project
construction activities, Mitigation Measure BI0-2 is proposed and
requires Worker Environmental Awareness Training to be conducted by a
qualified biologist prior to initial groundbreaking to educate all
construction personnel on the relevant federal, state, and local laws related
to regional special -status species known to occur in adjacent habitat types,
particularly habitat associated with San Juan Creek. Training construction
crews on special -status species identification and applicable standards and
regulations would help avoid impacts to special -status species that are
known to occur in habitats adjacent to the project site by identifying those
areas where special -status species have potential to be present and
specifying procedures that would be implemented to avoid impacts to such
98 7/21/2020
species. Mitigation Measure BI0-3 is also proposed and outlines best
practices/construction housekeeping measures to minimize impacts on
habitat subject to construction disturbances and other types of ongoing
project -related disturbance activities. Construction site housekeeping
measures included in Mitigation Measure BI0-3 would effectively
minimize temporary construction effects on sensitive biological resources
by limiting construction equipment and personnel from entering areas
where special -status species may be impacted, limiting the potential for
fuel or chemical spills that could adversely impact water quality and
adjacent aquatic habitats, minimizing the disturbance area needed for
construction access and related effects (i.e., dust, noise, and vibration,
etc.), reducing the likelihood of attracting or introducing predators of
special -status species, and by preventing the primary or secondary
poisoning of wildlife in the project vicinity. Therefore, with
implementation of Mitigation Measures BI0-2 and BI0-3, impacts to
special -status animal species during construction would be less than
significant.
Construction activities also have the potential to result in temporary
indirect effects to water quality during construction, which could lead to
habitat degradation and associated impacts to special- status species. Such
effects include a potential increase in erosion and sediment transport into
adjacent or downstream aquatic areas. Chemical spills or leaks of fuel,
transmission fluid, lubricating oil, or motor oil from construction
equipment could also contaminate waters and degrade their quality. These
potential indirect effects to hydrology and water quality would be avoided
or substantially minimized through the implementation of best
management practices (BMPs), project design features, and a Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Additionally, implementation of
Mitigation Measure BI04 is required to reduce indirect impacts to San
Juan Creek and El Homo Creek during project construction. Mitigation
Measure BI04 requires grading and construction resulting in ground
disturbance to occur within the typical dry season, as feasible, to avoid
erosion and sedimentation impacts to nearby creeks and water quality. The
Project Contractor would also be required to install adequate erosion and
sedimentation barriers prior to ground disturbance to prevent any sediment
laden runoff or debris from entering adjacent waterways or the Pacific
Ocean during the wet season or periods of rain. The erosion and
sedimentation barriers would have the added benefit of minimizing the
potential for special -status amphibians and other wildlife from entering
work areas during construction. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation
Measure BI04 would reduce the potential for habitat degradation
through temporary indirect effects to water quality during construction to
less than significant levels.
Though the project site does not include highly suitable nesting habitat for
raptors or other tree -nesting species, the site does contain suitable nesting
99 7/21/2020
habitat for ground -nesting birds and for other birds that are protected
while nesting under the California Fish and Game Code. According to the
Biological Resources Assessment, riparian woodland adjacent to the
project site serves as suitable nesting habitat for various common and
special -status bird species, including least Bell's vireo. Therefore,
construction activities that occur during the nesting bird season (January 1
through September 15) have the potential to result in the direct or indirect
take of nesting birds. Because listed and protected species have the
potential to occur adjacent to the project site, a longer, more conservative
nesting period has been recommended. Mitigation Measure BI0-5
requires a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird
survey no more than 3 days prior to the start of construction activities that
would occur during active nesting bird season. Successful avoidance of
direct and indirect disturbance to nesting birds during construction would
ensure compliance with applicable provisions of the California Fish and
Game Code, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and other State and federal
regulations that afford protections to nesting birds (including species listed
under CESA and FESA, such as least Bell's vireo). Therefore, with
implementation of Mitigation Measure BI0-5, potential impacts to
nesting birds would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure BI0-6 requires that temporary fencing be installed
along San Juan Creek, restricting access into the creek and adjacent
habitats during construction. Mitigation Measure BI0-6 also requires
that the Homeowner's Association (HOA) install signage that includes
references to the environmentally sensitive nature of the creek and
adjacent habitats. Fencing and signage of environmentally sensitive areas
would effectively avoid or minimize edge effects on San Juan Creek and
adjacent habitats. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BI0-6 would
result in an improvement over existing conditions, given that there is a
high degree of anthropogenic disturbance (homeless encampments, litter,
and existing trails) currently occurring in this area. Therefore, with
implementation of Mitigation Measure BI0-6, impacts to special -status
animal species during construction and operation would be less than
significant.
Increased anthropogenic disturbance and waste during and following
project construction could attract predators of special -status species to the
project vicinity and could also result in edge effects. Anthropogenic
disturbances beyond urban boundaries into habitat are defined as edge
effects. Such effects may have negative impacts on sensitive biological
resources. However, given that the project is situated at a higher grade
than the aquatic habitats associated with San Juan Creek and El Horno
Creek, that there is spatial separation between proposed structures and
existing riparian habitat, that the project is sited in close proximity to
existing developments, and because the project lighting plan is designed to
have minimal spill into adjacent habitats, long-term significant indirect
100 7/21/2020
effects to special -status species are not anticipated. Additionally, 5.55
acres along the riparian corridor would be dedicated as conservation areas.
The polyphagous shot hole borer and Kuroshio shot hole borer (ISHB) are
invasive wood -boring beetles that attack dozens of tree species in
Southern California, including common landscape trees and native species
in urban and wildland environments. ISHB spreads a disease called
Fusarium Dieback caused by pathogenic fungi. Trees that are susceptible
may experience branch dieback, canopy loss, and, in some cases, tree
mortality. The proposed project includes installation of landscape trees
and the potential trimming of existing trees. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure 13I0-7 would eliminate the spread of ISHB and its effects
through avoiding the installation of infected trees. With the
implementation of Mitigation Measure 13I0-7, potential impacts
resulting from the spread of ISHB would be avoided.
The project proposes a 20 -foot -wide equestrian trail, and equestrian use is
often associated with brown -headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater), a brood
parasite (a species that it lays its eggs in nests of other species). Brown -
headed cowbirds are considered a threat to some regional special -status
bird species. However, the proposed project is not an equestrian
community, and the only aspect related to equine uses is the proposed
multi -use trail. The proposed multi -use trail would accommodate existing
equestrian activity that already occurs in the project area, but would not,
itself, increase the level of horse activity or horse keeping in the
community. Given that the site is adjacent to horse stables and existing
equestrian uses, and pursuant to Section 9-4.505, Bicycle and Equestrian
Trails, of the City's Municipal Code (as stated in Regulatory Compliance
Measure BI0-1), requiring that the HOA provide regular maintenance of
the proposed trail, including the removal of horse manure, pet waste, and
debris, the proposed project is not expected to substantially increase the
amount of brown -headed cowbird in the area. Additionally, because there
is already a high degree of equestrian use along San Juan Creek, impacts
to water quality from fecal contamination greater than existing conditions
in the community are not anticipated. Therefore, with implementation of
Regulatory Compliance Measure 13I0-1, potential impacts associated
with brown -headed cowbirds would remain less than significant.
The project is located in close proximity to San Juan Creek, which
contains habitat for several regional special -status species. Although no
special -status species are known to occur on the project site, and while
there is very low potential for any of these special -status species to be
directly affected by the project due to the lack of suitable habitat on the
project site, the project could indirectly affect special -status wildlife
species through the attraction of predators and increased levels of noise,
vibration, lighting, and dust during construction activities. There is also
the potential for temporary indirect effects to water quality during
construction, which could lead to habitat degradation. Implementation of
101 7/21/2020
Regulatory Compliance Measure BI0-1 and Mitigation Measures
BI0-1 through BI0-7 would effectively mitigate potential impacts on
special -status wildlife plant and animal species to less than significant -
levels. With implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure BI0-1
and Mitigation Measures BI0-1 through BI0-7, potential impacts to
candidate, sensitive, or special -status species would be less than
significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-14 through 4.3-17.)
RCM BI0-1 Trail Maintenance. As required by Section 9-4.505, Bicycle and
Equestrian Trails, of the City of San Juan Capistrano's (City)
Municipal Code, the Homeowner's Association (HOA) (or
equivalent body) associated with the proposed development on the
site would be required to provide regular maintenance of the
proposed trail, including the removal of horse manure, pet waste,
and debris.
MM BI0-1 Springtime Botanical Survey. Prior to any project -related ground
disturbance, the Project Applicant shall retain a qualified
biologist/botanist to conduct a botanical survey during the typical
springtime blooming season (April through May 2020) to confirm
the absence of annual special -status plant species that bloom
during this period. The results of the survey shall be documented
and submitted to the Director of the City of San Juan Capistrano
(City) Development Services Department, or designee. Should
special -status plant species be found within the project disturbance
limits, a compensatory mitigation plan must be prepared and
approved by the City Development Services Department, or
designee, prior to project -related ground disturbance. If listed
special -status plant species are found, the compensatory mitigation
plan must also be approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service or California Department of Fish and Wildlife, as
applicable.
MM BI0-2 Worker Environmental Awareness Training. Prior to initial
groundbreaking, the Director of the City of San Juan Capistrano
Development Services Department, or designee, shall confirm that
a Worker Environmental Awareness Training shall be conducted
by a qualified biologist to educate all construction personnel on the
relevant federal, state, and local laws related to regional special -
status species known to occur in adjacent habitat types, particularly
habitat associated with San Juan Creek. The training session shall
include training on identification of species that may be found on
or adjacent to the project site, the status of those species, and any
legal protection afforded to those species. Measures that are being
implemented to protect those species shall also be explained.
Personnel shall be advised to report any special -status species
promptly to the construction manager. The training session shall
also include information regarding invasive shot hole borers
102 7/21/2020
(ISHB), how to recognize signs of infestation, and where to report
observations. A fact sheet conveying this information shall be
prepared for display or for distribution to anyone who may enter
the project site.
MM BI0-3 Construction Site Housekeeping. Impacts to habitat subject to
permanent and temporary construction disturbances and other
types of ongoing project -related disturbance activities shall be
minimized by adhering to the following measures for the duration
of construction activities:
■ The project disturbance limits shall be clearly marked with
construction fencing (or other highly visible material), and
construction/materials staging and vehicle/equipment
maintenance and fueling areas shall be located at least 200
feet away from riparian habitat associated with San Juan
Creek and El Homo Creek, where feasible.
• To minimize temporary disturbances, all project -related
vehicle traffic shall be restricted to established roads,
construction areas, and other designated areas.
■ Project -related vehicles shall observe a daytime speed limit
of 20 miles per hour (mph) throughout the site in all project
sites, except on county roads and State and federal
highways. Night-time construction shall be minimized to
the extent possible. However if it does occur, then the
speed limit shall be reduced to 10 mph. Off-road traffic
outside of designated project sites shall be prohibited.
■ To prevent inadvertent entrapment of animals during the
construction phase of a project, all excavated, steep -walled
holes or trenches more than 2 feet deep shall be covered at
the close of each working day by plywood or similar
materials. If the trenches cannot be closed, one or more
escape ramps constructed of earthen -fill or wooden planks
shall be installed. Before such holes or trenches are filled,
they shall be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. In
the case of trapped animals, escape ramps or structures
shall be installed immediately to allow the animal(s) to
escape.
• For the duration of construction activities, all food -related
trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps
shall be disposed of in securely closed containers and
removed at least daily from the construction site.
103 7/21/2020
• Pets, such as dogs or cats, shall not be permitted on the
project site during construction to prevent harassment,
injury, or death of wildlife in the project vicinity.
• Use of rodenticides and herbicides in project sites shall be
restricted to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of
predators and the depletion of prey populations on which
they depend. All uses of such compounds shall observe
label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the California
Department of Food and Agriculture, and other State and
federal legislation.
MM BI04 Erosion Control and Amphibian Exclusionary Fencing.
Grading and construction resulting in ground disturbance shall
occur within the typical dry season (April 15 through October 15),
as feasible, to avoid erosion and sedimentation impacts to nearby
creeks and water quality. The Director of the City of San Juan
Capistrano Development Services Department, or designee, shall
verify that project plans require the Project Contractor to install
adequate erosion and sedimentation barriers (e.g., silt fencing, as
described below) prior to ground disturbance to prevent any
sediment -laden runoff or debris from entering adjacent waterways
or the Pacific Ocean during the wet season or periods of rain. This
silt fencing shall also serve as a temporary barrier to further
minimize the potential for special -status amphibians and other
wildlife from entering work areas during construction. The barriers
shall consist of 3 -foot -tall silt fencing buried to a depth of at least 6
inches below the soil surface along the outer limits of all work
areas (or as otherwise required by the storm water pollution and
prevention plan). These barriers shall be inspected daily by
construction personnel and maintained and repaired as necessary
for the duration of construction to ensure that they are functional
and are not a hazard to wildlife on the outer side of the fence. A
qualified biologist shall monitor all fence installation. All barriers
shall be removed following completion of construction.
MM BI0-5 Nesting Bird Surveys. If vegetation removal, construction, or
grading activities are planned to occur within the active nesting
bird season (January 1 through September 15), the Director of the
City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Department, or
designee, shall confirm that the Project Applicant has retained a
qualified biologist who shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird
survey no more than 3 days prior to the start of such activities. If
construction activities using heavy equipment (i.e., graders,
bulldozers, and excavators, etc.) continue through the nesting
season, weekly nesting bird surveys shall be conducted. Each
104 7/21/2020
nesting bird survey shall include the work area and areas adjacent
to the site (within 500 feet, as feasible) that could potentially be
affected by project -related activities such as noise, vibration,
increased human activity, and dust, etc. For any active nest(s)
identified, the qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate
buffer zone around the active nest(s). The appropriate buffer shall
be determined by the qualified biologist based on species, location,
and the nature of the proposed activities. Project activities shall be
avoided within the buffer zone until the nest is deemed no longer
active, as determined by the qualified biologist.
MM BI0-6 Delineation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. During the
construction period, the Director of the City of San Juan
Capistrano Development Services Department, or designee, shall
confirm that construction plans require that temporary fencing be
installed along San Juan Creek that restricts access into the creek
and adjacent habitats. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the
Director of the City's Development Services Department, or
designee, shall confirm that permanent signage has been installed
that includes references to the environmentally sensitive nature of
the creek and adjacent habitats. The Homeowner's Association
(HOA) shall fund annual signage monitoring and repairs, as
needed.
MM BI0-7 Invasive Shot Hole Borers. To prevent the spread of Invasive
Shot Hole Borers (ISHB), the Project Applicant shall not install
any ISHB-infected trees for landscaping, and installed trees shall
be monitored once every 3 years for up to 9 years by an
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist. The
Worker Environmental Awareness Training, described in
Mitigation Measure BIO -2, shall include a component to educate
crews about ISHB and how to recognize signs of this species. A
designated biologist familiar with the signs of ISHBs shall survey
trees on the project site that are designated for removal or
trimming. Surveys shall be conducted at least 30 days prior to
removal or trimming activities. If any tree is determined to be
infested/infected by ISHB, a control plan shall be prepared and
submitted to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) for review and approval. At a minimum, the control plan
shall include methods of control, removal, and appropriate disposal
techniques to prevent the spread of ISHB. The results of the tree
survey, and if warranted, a copy of the CDFW-approved control
plan shall be submitted to the City's Development Services
Director, or designee, prior to issuance of grading permits.
2. Riparian Habitat
105 7/21/2020
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 with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-18.)
Explanation: While mature riparian woodland associated with San Juan Creek is located
to the south of the project site, no sensitive natural communities are
present on the project site. Further, the proposed project does not include
the removal of any sensitive natural communities, and therefore, no direct
impacts to sensitive natural communities would occur as a result of project
implementation. However, the proposed project has the potential to result
in indirect impacts to riparian habitat within San Juan Creek and El Homo
Creek as a result of construction activities. Mitigation Measures 13I0-2
through 13I04 and BI0-6 would mitigate indirect impacts to San Juan
Creek and El Homo Creek during project construction and operation.
Mitigation Measure BI0-2 requires Worker Environmental Awareness
Training to be conducted to educate all construction personnel on the
relevant federal, state, and local laws related to regional special -status
species known to occur in adjacent habitat types, particularly habitat
associated with San Juan Creek. Mitigation Measure BIO -3 includes
measures to minimize impacts on habitat subject to permanent and
temporary construction disturbances and other types of ongoing project -
related disturbance activities. Mitigation Measure BI04 requires
grading and construction resulting in ground disturbance to occur within
the typical dry season, as feasible, to avoid erosion and sedimentation
impacts to nearby creeks and water quality and also requires the
installation of adequate erosion and sedimentation barriers to mitigate the
potential for indirect effects to water to result in habitat degradation.
Mitigation Measure 13I0-6 requires the fencing and signage of
environmentally sensitive areas, which would effectively avoid or
minimize edge effects on San Juan Creek and adjacent habitats during
construction and operation of the proposed project. Therefore, with
implementation of Mitigation Measures BI0-2 through BI04 and 13I0-
6, indirect impacts to sensitive riparian habitat would be less than
significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-17 through 4.3-18.)
3. 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 with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-18.)
Explanation: According to the National Wetlands Inventory managed by USFWS, the
106 7/21/2020
project site does not contain federally protected wetlands. The project site
is located entirely outside of the streambeds, banks, and riparian habitat
associated with San Juan Creek and El Homo Creek. Soils on site are
well -drained, and there are no depressional wetlands or other potentially
aquatic resources within the project site. However, the San Juan Creek
Channel, located immediately south of the project site, contains wetlands
classified as Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland and Riverine. Due to the
proximity of the San Juan Creek Channel, project construction and
operation could have potential indirect impacts on off-site federally
protected wetlands and waters of the United States as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Although construction activities have the potential to result in temporary
indirect effects to water quality including a potential increase in erosion
and sediment transport into adjacent or downstream aquatic areas and the
contamination of waters from construction equipment, these potential
indirect effects to hydrology and water quality would be avoided or
substantially minimized through the implementation of BMPs, project
design features, and preparation of a WQMP. Additionally, Mitigation
Measure 13I04 requires grading and construction resulting in ground
disturbance to occur within the typical dry season, as feasible, to avoid
erosion and sedimentation impacts to nearby creeks and water quality. The
Project Contractor would also be required to install adequate erosion and
sedimentation barriers prior to ground disturbance to prevent any sediment
laden runoff or debris from entering adjacent waterways or the Pacific
Ocean during the wet season or periods of rain. Therefore, with
implementation of Mitigation Measure 13I0-4, impacts on state or
federally protected wetlands would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p.
4.3-18.)
4. 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 with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-19.)
Explanation: According to the Biological Resources Assessment, there are no wildlife
corridors or wildlife nurseries on the project site where development is
proposed. San Juan Creek, which is a known wildlife movement corridor,
is located to the south of the project site and would not be directly affected
by the project. Given the isolated and disturbed nature of the project site, it
is unlikely that the site serves as an important corridor for animals moving
locally, regionally, or in broader migrations. Migratory bird species may
utilize the project site for foraging; however, the usage is likely transient
and limited to species that forage over open grassland areas. Additionally,
107 7/21/2020
the project site does not possess any characteristics that would indicate a
locally significant stopover point for migratory species including raptors
or waterfowl. No known wildlife movement corridors occur within the
project site.
The wildlife species that occur in the project vicinity and utilize San Juan
Creek as a movement corridor are adapted to the urban-wildland interface,
and the project would not introduce new affects to the area. The noise,
vibration, light, dust, or human disturbance within construction areas
would only temporarily deter wildlife from using areas in the immediate
vicinity of construction activities. These indirect effects could temporarily
alter migration behaviors, territories, or foraging habitats in select areas.
However, because these are temporary effects, it is likely that wildlife
already living and moving in close proximity to urban development would
alter their normal functions for the duration of the project construction and
then re-establish these functions once all temporary construction effects
have been removed.
Following construction, there is potential for increased long-term indirect
effects to wildlife movement within San Juan Creek due to increased
noise, lighting, and other anthropogenic disturbance. However, such
affects are not expected to substantially change the level of wildlife
movement within San Juan Creek given that the project is situated at a
higher grade than the aquatic habitats associated with San Juan Creek,
there is spatial separation between proposed structures and existing
riparian habitat, the project is sited in close proximity to existing
developments, the project lighting plan is designed to have minimal spill
into adjacent habitats, and areas adjacent to San Juan Creek in the project
vicinity already experience a high degree of human visitation and
associated disturbance. Furthermore, the proposed project would not place
any permanent barriers within any known wildlife movement corridors or
interfere with habitat connectivity.
Nevertheless, the project site contains suitable nesting habitat for ground -
nesting birds and for other birds that are protected under the California
Fish and Game Code. The proposed project has the potential to impact
active native bird nests if construction or demolition activities occur
during the nesting season (January 1 through September 15). Therefore,
project implementation must be accomplished in a manner that avoids
impacts to active nests during the nesting season. Mitigation Measure
BIO -5 requires a qualified biologist to conduct nesting bird surveys and
the implementation of active nest avoidance measures as deemed
necessary. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -5, potential
impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant. Therefore, impacts
to the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species and wildlife corridors would be less than significant with the
implementation of mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-18 through 4.3-19.)
108 7/21/2020
B. 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?
Findin : Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-6.)
ExEx lanation: As indicated previously, the project site is located in an area of the City of
San Juan Capistrano that is archaeologically sensitive for cultural
resources. Implementation of the proposed project will necessitate project
site preparation and grading that would result in the destruction of one
known, prehistoric archaeological site (CA -ORA -1672) that was identified
during the 2007 cultural resources assessment. However, as concluded in
the 2007 Ventanas Business Center Environmental Impact Report,
prehistoric site CA -ORA -1672 neither possesses significant cultural
materials nor represents a significant cultural resource. The previous
recordation, analysis, and collection of the artifacts and ecofacts contained
within CA -ORA -1672 adequately removed the potential impacts posed by
implementation of the current project; further, the archaeological testing at
CA -ORA -1627 concluded that the prehistoric site neither possesses
significant cultural materials nor represents a significant cultural resource.
Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a cultural resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State
CEQA Guidelines. However, it is possible that potentially significant
prehistoric deposits and/or cultural artifacts could be encountered during
construction because the project site is located within an area that is
archaeologically sensitive. 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.
In order to address the discovery of unknown and unrecorded cultural
resources, 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 current 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 resources would be less than significant.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.4-6.)
109 7/21/2020
2. Human Remains -
Threshold: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Finding: Less than significant 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 site 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. (Draft
EIR, pp. 4.4-6 through 4.4-7.)
MM CUL -1 Cultural Resources Monitoring and Accidental Discovery.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, 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 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 cultural resources were previously identified
on the project site, both monitors are required to be present on a
full-time basis during initial site preparation and initial ground -
disturbing activities. Further, each monitor shall spot check any
ground -disturbing activities (e.g., finish grading) to ensure that no
cultural resources are impacted during construction activities.
110 7/21/2020
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
14(3) Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C)) and standard archaeological field
methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of
recovered archaeological materials; production of a report detailing
the methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site
and associated materials; curation of archaeological materials at an
appropriate facility for future research and/or display; an
interpretive display of recovered archaeological materials at a local
school, museum, or library; and public lectures at local schools
and/or historical societies on the findings and significance of the
site and recovered archaeological materials. 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.
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
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
111 7/21/2020
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.
C. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1. (b) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
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; strong seismic
ground shaking; seismic -related ground failure including liquefaction; or
landslides?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-13.)
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 Dana Point section of the Newport -
Inglewood -Rose Canyon Fault and the San Joaquin Hills Fault. Other
major regional active faults include the Wildomar Fault and the Mount
Soledad Fault. During an earthquake along any of these faults, seismically
induced ground shaking would be expected to occur. The severity of the
shaking would be influenced by the distance of the site to the seismic
source, the soil conditions, and the depth to groundwater.
Peak ground acceleration (PGA) is a measure of earthquake acceleration
on the ground and an important input parameter for earthquake
engineering. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) Unified
Hazard Tool was used in the Geotechnical Investigation in order to
112 7/21/2020
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 0.5 g (acceleration
due to gravity) with a two percent probability of exceedance in 50 years.
These accelerations are consistent with other sites in this region of
southern California that are underlain by similar geologic materials and
indicate that strong seismic ground shaking generated by seismic activity
is considered a potentially significant impact that may affect people or
structures associated with the proposed project. Therefore, Mitigation
Measures GEO-1, GEO-2, and GEO-3 would be required to ensure that
appropriate seismic design provisions would be implemented during
project design and construction. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would
require the Project Applicant to comply with the recommendations of the
Geotechnical Investigation and the most current CBC during design,
grading, and construction. Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would require the
review of the grading plan and on-site inspection during grading to ensure
that recommendation developed during the geotechnical evaluation are
appropriately incorporated into project plans and design. Mitigation
Measure GEO-3 would require the Project Applicant to design and
construct structures and retaining walls in accordance with the seismic
parameters presented in the Geotechnical Investigation and applicable
sections of Section 1613 of the 2016 CBC. With implementation of
Mitigation Measures GEO-1, GEO-2, and GEO-3, potential project
impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be reduced to a less than
significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-13.)
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 project -specific geotechnical
investigation report prepared by GeoSoils Consultants Inc. (July
10, 2017). 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 issuance
of grading permits.
Recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation are
summarized below.
• 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
113 7/21/2020
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
114 7/21/2020
and may be laid back 1 H:1.5 V gradient, or 1 H:1 V 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 -on -
grade 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.
115 7/21/2020
• 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 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. 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.
MM GEO-2 Grading Plan Review and On -Site Inspection. 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. On-site inspection during grading shall be conducted
by the Geotechnical Consultant and the City Building Official, or
designee, to ensure compliance with geotechnical specifications as
incorporated into project plans.
MM GEO-3 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
and applicable sections of Section 1613 of the 2016 California
Building Code (CBC). Prior to issuance of building permits for
planned structures, the project soils engineer and the Director of
116 7/21/2020
the San Juan Capistrano Development Services Department, or
designee, shall review building plans to verify that structural
design conforms to the recommendations of the Geotechnical
Investigation and the City of San Juan Capistrano Building Code.
MM GE04 Paleontological Resources Assessment. Prior to issuance of
grading permits, and in accordance with City of San Juan
Capistrano's Historical, Archaeological, and Paleontological
Resource Management Guidelines (previously known as Council
Policy 601), a paleontologist certified by the County of Orange
shall prepare a Paleontological Resources 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 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-5.
MM GEO-5 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
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).
117 7/21/2020
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 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
Director of Development Services, or designee, the report and
inventory would signify completion of the program to mitigate
impacts to paleontological resources.
1. (c) Seismic -Related Ground Failure including Liquefaction
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; strong seismic
118 7/21/2020
ground shaking; seismic -related ground failure including liquefaction; or
landslides?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-14.)
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. Structures on or
above potentially liquefiable soils may experience lateral spreading,
consolidation and settlement of loose sediments, ground oscillation, flow
failure, loss of bearing strength, ground fissuring, sand boils, and other
damaging deformations. Factors known to influence the potential for
liquefaction include soil type, relatively density, grain size, confining
pressure, depth to groundwater, and the intensity and duration of the
seismic ground shaking.
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 a potential for liquefaction in thin
sand and sandy silt layers underlying the site. However, surface layers
would be unlikely to experience liquefaction due to the confinement of
potentially lower liquefiable layers from the surface by less permeable
layers. Furthermore, Mitigation Measures GEO-1, GEO-2, and GEO-3
require the Project Applicant to comply with the recommendations of
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.
Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would require the review of the grading plan
and on-site inspection during grading to ensure that recommendation
developed during the geotechnical evaluation are appropriately
incorporated into project plans and design. With implementation of
Mitigation Measures GEO-1, GEO-2, and GEO-3, potential project
impacts related to seismically induced ground failure, including
liquefaction, would be reduced to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR,
p. 4.6-14.)
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 with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-15
through 4.6-17.)
Explanation: As previously stated, no existing landslides are present on or adjacent to
the property. Geologic mapping for the site does not indicate that the site
119 7/21/2020
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 the 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, which would be necessary in some areas. In addition,
shoring would be required during excavation. Unstable cut -and -fill slopes
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 as required by Mitigation
Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, potential impacts related to slope
instability would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Unsuitable Soils.
Corrosive Soils and Soluble Sulfate Content.
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
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
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.
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
120 7/21/2020
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 clayey, silty, and sandy layers
containing rock fragments within alluvial deposits and fill,
which are likely to liquefy during an earthquake. As such,
these layers could 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 2.62 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 to reduce potential
impacts related to ground settlement. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure GEO-I would reduce potential
impacts with respect to ground settlement to a less than
significant level.
Subsidence.
Less Than Significant Impact. 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 or gas pump on site, and the site has not been used for
the extraction of either resource. An existing City -owned
parcel, APN 666-131-08, contains an active water well
directly adjacent to the southern boundary of the project
site between Paseo Tirador and San Juan Creek. This well
would remain in operation during the life of the proposed
project. A privately owned, inactive well is located on APN
666-131-12 and will remain inactive upon project
implementation. However, as previously established, the
project site is not located in an area with documented
subsidence. Subsidence is therefore not considered a
potential constraint or a potentially significant impact of the
project, and no mitigation is required.
121 7/21/2020
Lateral Spreading.
Less Than Significant Impact. 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, 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. 4.6-15 through 4.6-17.)
3. Paleontological Resources
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Fiinft: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-18.)
Explanation: The project site is located on younger Quaternary Alluvium, older river
terrace deposits of the San Juan Creek, and the marine Capistrano
Formation. There are no known fossil 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 area.
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-4 requires the Project Applicant to comply
with the City's Historical, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resource
Management Guidelines and 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 Project Applicant shall retain a
paleontologist on an on-call basis to address any unanticipated discoveries.
If the Paleontological Resources Assessment determines that the
paleontological resources may be impacted by project development, a
Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) shall be
prepared, and paleontological monitoring, fossil collection and treatment
122 7/21/2020
(if necessary), and preparation of a final monitoring report shall occur as
described in Mitigation Measure GEO-5. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures GEO-4 and GEO-5 would reduce potential impacts to
unknown paleontological resources to less than significant, and no
additional mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-17 through 4.6-18.)
D. 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?
FindjU: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-14.)
Ex lg anation: Construction Noise Impacts. Two types of short-term noise impacts could
occur during construction of the project site. First, construction crew
commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the
site would incrementally increase noise levels on roads leading to the site.
The pieces of heavy equipment for construction activities would be moved
on site, would remain for the duration of each construction phase, and
would not add to the daily traffic volume in the project vicinity. As shown
in Table 4.10.G (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.10-12), there would be a
relatively high single -event noise exposure potential at a maximum level
of 84 dBA Lmax with trucks passing at 50 ft. Project construction would
consist of site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and
architectural coating. During construction activities, building construction,
paving, and architectural -coating phases would overlap, which would
result in a temporary trip generation of 281 average daily trips (ADT),
with 10 trips occurring in the a.m. peak hour and 47 trips occurring in the
p.m. peak hour for up to 7 months. However, the effect on longer-term
(hourly or daily) ambient noise levels would be small when compared to
existing hourly and daily traffic volumes of 166/1,655 (hourly/daily)
vehicles on Calle Arroyo and 680/6,795 (hourly/daily) vehicles on Rancho
Viejo Road. Calle Arroyo and Rancho Viejo Road would be used to
access the project site. Based on the information above, construction -
related traffic would increase noise by up to 1.1 dBA. A noise level
increase of less than 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in
an outdoor environment. Therefore, short-term, construction -related
impacts associated with worker commute and equipment transport to the
project site would be less than significant.
The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated
during site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and
123 7/21/2020
architectural coating on the project site. Construction is performed in
discrete steps, or phases, each with its own mix of equipment and,
consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential
phases would change the character of the noise generated on site.
Therefore, the noise levels vary as construction progresses. Despite the
variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the
dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction -
related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table 4.10.G (found
at Draft EIR, p. 4.10-12) lists maximum noise levels recommended for
noise impact assessments for typical construction equipment included in
the FHWA's 2006 Construction Noise Handbook, based on a distance of
50 ft between the equipment and a noise receptor.
Typical maximum noise levels range up to 88 dBA Lmax at 50 ft during
the noisiest construction phases. The site preparation phase, including
excavation and grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise
levels because earthmoving machinery is the noisiest construction
equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery such
as backfillers, bulldozers, draglines, and front loaders. Earthmoving and
compacting equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and graders.
Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may
involve 1 or 2 minutes of full -power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes
at lower power settings.
Project construction is expected to require the use of scrapers, bulldozers,
and water trucks/pickup trucks. Noise associated with the use of each
piece of construction equipment for the grading phase is estimated to be
between 55 dBA Lmax and 85 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 ft from the
active construction area. As shown in Table 4.10.G (found at Draft EIR, p.
4.10-12), the maximum noise level generated by each scraper is assumed
to be approximately 85 dBA Lmax at 50 ft. Each bulldozer would generate
approximately 85 dBA Lmax at 50 ft. The maximum noise level generated
by water trucks/pickup trucks is approximately 55 dBA Lmax at 50 ft
from these vehicles. Each doubling of the sound sources with equal
strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA. Assuming that each piece of
construction equipment operates at some distance from the other
equipment, the worst-case combined noise level during this phase of
construction would be 88 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 ft from the active
construction area. Based on a usage factor of 40 percent, the worst-case
combined noise level during this phase of construction would be 84 dBA
Leq at a distance of 50 ft from the active construction area.
The closest residence is located approximately 220 ft from the project
construction boundary and may be subject to short-term construction noise
reaching 75 dBA Lmax (71 dBA Leq) generated by construction activities
in the project area. Ambient noise levels at the closest residences are
approximately 63.5 dBA Leq, based on the short-term noise level
measurement at ST -1 shown in Table 4.10.A (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.10-
124 7/21/2020
5). Although noise levels generated by project construction would be
higher than ambient noise levels, increases in ambient noise levels would
be minimal and would no longer occur once project construction is
completed. The implementation of Mitigation Measure N0I-1 would be
required to minimize construction noise impacts at the nearest sensitive
receptors to a less -than -significant level.
Long -Term Noise Impacts. Operation of the proposed project would
result in the generation of noise levels above Existing conditions. Noise -
generating uses associated with residential uses typically include vehicle
traffic and operational noise, such as heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) equipment and typical motor vehicle/parking area
activities.
Traffic Noise Impacts. Traffic noise levels under the existing and General
Plan Buildout were assessed using the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise
Prediction Model (FHWA RD 77-108). This model uses a typical vehicle
mix for urban/suburban areas in California and requires parameters,
including traffic volumes, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry, to
compute typical equivalent noise levels during daytime, evening, and
nighttime hours. The resultant noise levels are weighted and summed over
24-hour periods to determine the CNEL values. Existing traffic volumes
were obtained from the proposed project's TIA.
The standard vehicle mix for Orange County roadways was used for
traffic on these roadway segments. Existing and General Plan Buildout
without and with project traffic noise levels at 50 ft from the centerline of
the outermost travel lane for each roadway segment in the project vicinity
are shown in Table 4.10.H (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.10-15). These noise
levels represent the worst-case scenario, which assumes that no shielding
is provided between traffic and the location where the noise contours are
drawn. Appendix G provides the specific assumptions used in developing
these noise levels and model printouts.
As shown in Table 4.10.H, the project -related traffic noise increase would
reach up to 2.2 dBA. Noise level increases below 3 dBA would not be
perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment. Therefore, traffic
noise impacts from project -related traffic on off-site sensitive receptors
would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Operational Noise Impacts. As identified above, the proposed project
would generate operational noise, such as from HVAC equipment. Noise
generated from HVAC equipment could affect off-site noise -sensitive
receptors in the project vicinity.
HVAC E ui ment. The proposed residential project would include
ground -floor HVAC equipment. Ground -floor HVAC equipment
would generate noise levels of 43 dBA at 50 ft. It is assumed that
125 7/21/2020
HVAC equipment would operate 24 hours a day as a worst-case
scenario.
The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are multifamily
residences located approximately 220 ft northeast of the project
site, across Calle Arroyo. At a distance of 220 ft, noise would be
attenuated by 13 dBA compared to the noise level measured at 50
ft from the source. Noise levels from HVAC at the closest
residence would be 30 dBA Leq (43 dBA — 13 dBA = 30 dBA).
This noise level would be lower than existing noise levels at the
project site. In addition, this noise level would not exceed the
City's day (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00
p.m.), and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) exterior noise level
standards of 65, 55, and 45 dBA, respectively. In addition, this
noise level would not exceed the City's interior noise standard of
45 dBA for residences. Therefore, noise generated from on-site
HVAC equipment would be less than significant. No mitigation
measures are required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-11 through 4.10-15.)
The land use compatibility of the project site was assessed based on the City's
exterior and interior noise standards shown in Table 4.10.E (found at Draft EIR,
p. 4.10-9). As shown in Table 4.10.E (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.10-9), the City's
exterior and interior noise standards are 65 dBA CNEL and 45 dBA CNEL,
respectively, for single-family and multifamily residences.
The FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) was
used to evaluate the proposed on-site uses, which would be exposed to traffic
noise on I-5. Traffic noise on Calle Arroyo and Paseo Tirador were not evaluated
for the proposed on-site uses because traffic noise on these roadways is low and
its contribution to the noise environment is small. Traffic volumes on 1-5 were
obtained from Caltrans7 and were adjusted to 2019 traffic using a 1 percent
growth each year (total 2 percent growth) and a project trip generation of 890
ADT for the proposed on-site noise assessment.
As noted above, under the description of the CBIA v. BAAQMD decision, impacts
of the environment on a project are not subject to CEQA review. However, based
on the noise analysis conducted for the project in order to comply with the City of
San Juan Capistrano, the exterior noise level at the common outdoor areas shall
not exceed 65 dBA CNEL and that interior noise levels in habitable rooms shall
not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. The following recommendations are based on broad
assumptions for typical residential uses. The recommendations should be
considered preliminary and confirmed upon final plan approval.
Exterior Noise Assessment. For the purposes of this analysis, the noise -
sensitive areas which are required to meet the City's exterior standard of
65 dBA CNEL include the private rear yards of the single-family homes
and the common use areas such as the tot lot and gathering areas. The
first -floor courtyard areas of the multi -family residences serve as a point
126 7/21/2020
of access to the units which are not typically considered private and
therefore noise -sensitive; furthermore, solid noise barriers are not feasible
as they would limit access. Lastly, the City exempts balconies of multi-
family uses from the 65 dBA CNEL standard. To assess potential exterior
noise level impacts at the noise -sensitive areas within the proposed
project, receptor locations were evaluated.
Single -Family Homes. Due to the orientation of the rear -yards
associated with the single-family homes on the eastern portion of
the project site, the noise reduction associated with distance
propagation, the 6 ft high property line wall, and the noise
reduction provided by intervening buildings, exterior noise levels
would range from 57.1 dBA CNEL to 59.2 dBA CNEL. With
noise levels below 65 dBA CNEL at these single-family home
rear -yards, no further noise reduction measures are necessary.
Tot Lot and Gathering Areas. Noise levels at the proposed tot lot
and gathering areas are projected to results in noise levels ranging
from 56.9 dBA CNEL to 73.5 dBA CNEL with the incorporation
of the 6 ft high property line wall along the western property line
and perimeter of the fitness center parking lot. Noise levels at the
tot lot will exceed the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard.,
therefore, an increased height of the perimeter wall is necessary.
With the incorporation of a minimum 14 ft high wall near the
proposed tot lot, noise levels would be reduced to 64.7 dBA CNEL
and all noise -sensitive receptors would be below the City's exterior
noise level standard for playground and park uses. Figure 4.10.1
(found at Draft EIR, p. 4.10-19) shows the location and limitations
of the increased wall height along with the tot lot and gathering
area locations.
Interior Noise Assessment. In order to assess the interior noise levels
throughout the proposed project, noise levels at both first and third floor
heights for various fagade locations were calculated to determine which
buildings would need upgraded building components. Based on the EPA
Protective Noise Levels, with a combination of exterior walls, doors, and
windows, standard construction for Southern California (warm climate)
buildings would provide approximately 24 dBA in exterior -to -interior
noise reduction with windows and doors closed. Table 4.10.J (found at
Draft EIR, p. 4.10-21) shows the facade noise levels with a 6 ft high wall
at the western property line along 1-5 and, where applicable, the reduction
provided by intervening buildings is incorporated. Details of the interior
noise calculations at each receptor location and at each floor are provided
in Appendix B.
The results of the analysis show that some of the buildings on the western
portion of the project site would need to upgrade the exterior facades in
order to achieve adequate noise reduction. This can be accomplished by
127 7/21/2020
installing upgraded windows, improving wall construction, or a combo of
both. Figure 4.10.1 (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.10-19) shows the locations at
which fagade upgrades are required.
Once final architectural plans are available with the exterior wall details
and window types, a Final Acoustic Report shall be prepared to confirm
that the interior living spaces of residential dwelling units would meet the
City's interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL with windows and doors
closed. Mechanical ventilation such as air conditioning would be required
for all residential dwelling units so that windows and doors can remain
closed for a prolonged period of time. With implementation of Mitigation
Measure N0I-2, on-site interior noise levels would be consistent with the
City's Noise Element standards for residential interior areas.
MM N0I-1 The project contractor shall implement the following measures
during construction of the proposed project:
■ Limit construction activities to between the hours of 7:00
a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Mondays through Fridays and between
the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on Saturdays.
Construction noise is prohibited on Sundays and national
holidays.
• Equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with
properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with
manufacturers' standards.
• Place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted
noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the
active project site.
• Locate equipment staging in areas that would create the
greatest possible distance between construction -related
noise sources and noise -sensitive receptors nearest the
active project site during all construction activities.
• Designate a "disturbance coordinator" at the City of San
Juan Capistrano (City) who would be responsible for
responding to any local complaints about construction
noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the
cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early or a
bad muffler) and would determine and implement
reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem.
MM N0I-2 Prior to the approval of final building plans for the project, the City
shall confirm that the project plans include a 14 -foot -high
soundwall along the western boundary of the project site adjacent
to the tot lot. The Project Applicant shall prepare an acoustic study
128 7/21/2020
for approval by the Director of Development Services, or designee,
that demonstrates that the exterior noise level at the common
outdoor areas (tot lot and gathering areas) shall not exceed the 65
A -weighted decibel Community Noise Equivalent Level (dBA
CNEL) and that interior noise levels in habitable rooms shall not
exceed 45 dBA CNEL, as defined by the California Building Code.
Acoustical design features shall be incorporated into the proposed
project design, which may include a combination of exterior
features to reduce noise, such as berms/walls and/or architectural
features such as Sound Transmission Class (STC) rated windows
and doors. All STC ratings shall be shown on the building plans
and incorporated into the construction of the proposed project.
Once final architectural plans with the exterior -wall details and
window types are available, a Final Acoustic Report shall be
prepared by a qualified consultant to confirm that the interior
living spaces of residential dwelling units would meet the City
interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL with windows and doors
closed. If interior noise level thresholds are still exceeded after the
Final Acoustic Report is completed, additional acoustical design
features, including facade and window upgrades, shall be
incorporated in the building plans in order to meet the interior
noise standard.
E. 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? In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the
lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
Findin Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-8.)
Explanation: An 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. The
request for a search of the SLF with the NAHC (December 2018) resulted
in positive findings. However, no responses were received from Native
129 7/21/2020
American representatives with regard to AB 52 consultation and outreach.
However, as stated previously, two comment letters were received during
the public review period for the IS/NOP, but after the AB 52 consultation -
period had concluded. Further, one prehistoric site, CA -ORA -1672, is
located within the project site. However, a subsequent testing program at
the prehistoric site established that it does not appear to qualify as a
significant cultural resource because it lacks integrity and does not contain
the data to answer important research questions in prehistory. Due to the
presence of cultural resources within the project site and the location of
the project site in an area near the San Juan Creek, the project area is
considered potentially sensitive for tribal cultural resources. In addition,
the City requires monitoring for development projects in culturally
sensitive areas. 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). Mitigation Measure CUL -1 would reduce any potential impacts
to previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources to a less than
significant level. In addition, in the unlikely event that human remains are
encountered during project grading, the 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 (see
Mitigation Measure CUL -2). Mitigation Measure CUL -2 would reduce
potential impacts related to the discovery of unknown Native American
human remains on the project site to a less than significant level. (Draft
EIR, pp. 4.12-7 through 4.12-8.)
MM CUL -1 Cultural Resources Monitoring and Accidental Discovery.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, 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 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 cultural resources were previously identified
on the project site, both monitors are required to be present on a
full-time basis during initial site preparation and initial ground -
disturbing activities. Further, each monitor shall spot check any
ground -disturbing activities (e.g., finish grading) to ensure that no
130 7/21/2020
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
14(3) Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C)) and standard archaeological field
methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of
recovered archaeological materials; production of a report detailing
the methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site
and associated materials; curation of archaeological materials at an
appropriate facility for future research and/or display; an
interpretive display of recovered archaeological materials at a local
school, museum, or library; and public lectures at local schools
and/or historical societies on the findings and significance of the
site and recovered archaeological materials. 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.
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
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
131 7/21/2020
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.
SECTION IV
IMPACTS THAN CANNOT BE FULLY MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The City Council hereby finds that all environmental impacts can be fully mitigated to a
less than significant level.
132 7/21/2020
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 applicable to each site.
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, impacts related to aesthetics would be less than cumulatively
significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant
cumulative impact related to aesthetics. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-15.)
B. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
There are no designated Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmlands, or Farmlands of Statewide
Importance on the project site or in the project's immediate vicinity, and thus the proposed
project would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use. Because the project site is not located within an
area covered under a Williamson Act contract, nor is it zoned for agricultural use and not
currently used for agricultural production, the Project would have no impact on agriculture and
forestry resources. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-13 through 4-15.) As a result, no
cumulative impact would occur.
C. AIR Ql1ALITV
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 in the Draft EIR, includes an analysis of the proposed project's
contribution to cumulative air impacts. To summarize the conclusion with respect to that
133 7/21/2020
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 cumulative 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, p. 4.2-21.)
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 lands covered by the
MSAA/HCP, which designates a preservation area totaling 32,818 acres. The project site is has
designations of Developed and Supplemental Open Space, which are land use categories not
considered permanently protected and which do not receive regulatory coverage under the
MSAA/HCP. Additionally, the project site is not located within a designated habitat reserve, and
therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to the loss of natural habitat in the City. The
development of the proposed project would not result in the removal of any sensitive habitat
species identified in the MSAA/HCP. Additionally, as part of the proposed project, portions of
San Juan Creek and El Homo Creek (5.55 acres) within the MSAA/HCP Planning Area that are
not currently protected under the MSAA/HCP would be dedicated as conservation lands as part
of the project. This would contribute to the conservation of resources covered under the
MSAA/HCP and permanently conserve important portions of the MSAA/HCP Planning Area
that are currently subject to impacts based on decisions by local jurisdictions. Therefore, the
proposed project would not contribute to the cumulative loss of biological resources, and impacts
on biological resources would be less than cumulatively significant. No mitigation would be
required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-25.)
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 cultural 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
134 7/21/2020
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, pp. 4.4-9 through 4.4-10.)
F. ENERGY
The geographic area for electricity and natural gas is that of the SDG&E 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 SDG&E to expand or construct infrastructure that could cause substantial
environmental impacts. As discussed previously, the total annual electricity consumption the
SDG&E service area in 2018 was 18,767.0 GWh (6,359.0 GWh for the residential sector).
By 2030, consumption is anticipated to decrease by approximately 2,000 GWh for the low -
demand scenario and increase by 4,000 GWh for the high -demand scenario.
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 SDG&E's system -wide net annual increase in electricity
supplies over the 2018 to 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 required to accommodate cumulative
development. Total natural gas consumption in the SDG&E service area in 2018 was 482.5
million therms (264.5 million therms for the residential sector),I
Between 2018 and 2030, total natural gas consumption in the SDG&E service area is forecast to
remain steady for the low- and mid -demand scenarios and to increase by approximately 100
million therms in the high -demand scenario due to intense energy efficiency efforts. The
proposed project's percent of cumulative consumption of natural gas in the SDG&E service area
would be negligible. It is anticipated that SDG&E would be able to meet the natural gas demand
of the related projects without additional facilities. In addition, SDG&E 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. SDG&E plans 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
135 7/21/2020
appliances, and reduce VMT.
Compliance with Regulatory Compliance Measure ENG -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 probably 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 the
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 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 cumulatively 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 cumulatively 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 destruction of known
and unknown paleontological resources throughout the City would be less than cumulatively
significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-25 through 4.6-26.)
136 7/21/2020
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 in 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. 4.7-17.)
I. HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Hazardous substances associated with the proposed residential uses would be limited in both the
amount and use such that they can be contained (stored or confined within a specific area)
without impacting the environment. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-29 through 4-35.) No
cumulative impacts would occur.
J. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The cumulative study area for hydrology and water quality is the San Juan Creek Watershed.
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 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
137 7/21/2020
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. In
addition, the cumulative projects do not encroach in the 100 -year floodplain of the project, so
there is no cumulative impact from placement of developments within the floodplain. Therefore,
the proposed project's incremental hydrology and water quality impacts would not be
cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-20 through 4.8-21.)
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 City of San Juan Capistrano is an urbanized area with a wide variety of established land
138 7/21/2020
uses. The land around the project site has been developed with a variety of residential, business
park, open space, commercial, and equestrian uses. The area immediately south of the project
site contains the San Juan Creek channel and a hillside area, and is primarily undeveloped.
As previously stated, the project site is designated for Planned Community uses on the City's
General Plan Land Use Map. There are also small portions of the project site designated as
General Open Space and Community Park. The proposed land uses are consistent with these
designations, and no General Plan Amendment or zoning changes would be required to
implement the proposed project. While the proposed project does not require a Zone Change, the
Project Applicant would request a concession and waivers to development standards in exchange
for providing affordable units restricted to households of moderate income. In total, 14 of the
townhomes, or approximately 10.6 percent of the total units, would be designated affordable and
would allow the Project Applicant to apply for a concession and waivers to development
standards. Following approval of the requested concession and waivers, the project would be
consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance, and cumulative land use impacts 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 to a cumulatively significant land use compatibility
impact in the study area, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-32 through 4.9-33.)
L. MINERAL RESOURCES
The Project would have no impact on mineral resources because the Project site has not
historically or is currently utilized for mineral resource extraction. No cumulative impacts would
occur. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-49 through 4-51.)
M. NOISE
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. A cumulative noise or vibration impact would occur if multiple sources of noise
and vibration combine to create impacts in close proximity to a sensitive receptor. Therefore, the
cumulative area for noise impacts is the project site and any sensitive receptors in the
immediately surrounding.
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
139 7/21/2020
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 NOI-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
NOI-1.
Less Than Significant Impact.
Long -Term Traffic Noise Impacts. According to the EPA, 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 General Plan
Buildout With 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. The incremental effect compares
the General Plan Buildout With Project condition to the General Plan Buildout
Without 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 General Plan Buildout With Project noise level
would cause a significant cumulative impact if a 3.0 dB increase over
Existing conditions occurs and the resulting noise level exceeds the
applicable 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
140 7/21/2020
• Incremental Effects. The General Plan Buildout With Project noise level
causes a 1.0 dBA increase in noise over the General Plan Buildout
Without 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 an occurrence 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 4.10.K
(found at Draft EIR, p. 4.10-26) lists the traffic noise effects along
roadway segments in the project vicinity for existing and General Plan
buildout traffic noise levels without and with proposed project, including
incremental and net cumulative impacts.
As shown in Table 4.10.K (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.10-26), Calle Arroyo
between Paseo Tirador and Rancho Viejo Road would surpass the
combined effect threshold of 3.0 dBA over Existing conditions and
incremental effect threshold of 1.0 dBA over General Plan No Project
conditions; however, the resulting noise level would be 59.4 dBA CNEL
at the closest sensitive receptors. In addition, this noise level would not
exceed the City's daytime (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), evening (7:00 p.m. to
10:00 p.m.), and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) exterior noise level
standards of 65, 55, and 45 dBA, respectively. In addition, this noise level
would not exceed the City's interior noise standard of 45 dBA for
residences. Therefore, no significant cumulative traffic noise impact
would result. In addition, while traffic noise at the segments of Calle
Arroyo east of Rancho Viejo Road, Rancho Viejo Road between Calle
Arroyo and Paseo Espada, and San Juan Creek Road east of Valle Road
would surpass the combined effect threshold of 3.0 dBA over Existing
conditions, there is no significant increase in noise beyond the General
Plan No Project scenario as a result of the project, and thus no incremental
effect. Furthermore, while traffic noise at the segments of Calle Arroyo
west of Paseo Tirador and Calle Arroyo between Paseo Tirador and
Rancho Viejo Road would surpass the incremental effect threshold of 1.0
dBA over General Plan No Project conditions, there is no significant
incremental effect increase. Therefore, cumulative operational mobile
source noise impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is
required.
Long -Term Operational Noise Impacts. 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
141 7/21/2020
could result in higher noise levels than considered separately. As previously
described, 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. (Draft EIR,
pp. 4.10-24 through 4.10-26.)
N. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The Project will have less than significant impacts on population and housing. The addition of
132 residential units as a result of the Project would result in approximately 410 additional
residents, which would be an increase of 1.08 percent of the City's projected population of
38,100 for the year 2020. Thus, the Project would not have significant unplanned population
growth. Moreover, development of the Project would occur on a vacant site, and as such there
would be no loss of housing or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
(Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-54 through 4-55) As such, no cumulative impacts would
occur.
O. PUBLIC SERVICES
The Project will have less than significant impacts on public services. (Appendix A [Initial
Study], pp. 4-56 through 4-62.) 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 provide on-site recreation areas and require the payment of in -lieu park fees,
thus making impacts to recreation requirements less than significant. In addition, the Project
would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreation
facilities such that substantial deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated.
(Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-63 through 4-64.) As such, 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 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 H in the TIA were
identified as cumulative projects.
142 7/21/2020
Project Plus Cumulative (Opening Year 2021) Condition
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Project Applicant, the project will open
in 2021. To develop a Year 2021 condition, an ambient growth rate of 0.5 percent per
year (i.e., 1.5 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/pending (cumulative) 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.
Refer to Table H in the TIA for 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.
Tables 4.1 LM and 4.1 LN of the Draft EIR summarize the results of the Existing Plus
Project Plus Cumulative peak hour LOS analysis for the study area intersections using the
ICU and HCM methodologies, respectively. As shown in Tables 4.1 LM and 4.1 LN
(found at Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-26 through 4.11-29), all study area intersections, including
the hot spot intersections, are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS, with the exception
of Rancho Viejo Road/Ortega Highway (LOS E in the p.m. peak hour based on the HCM
methodology). However, the delay does not increase by 1.0 second or greater. Therefore,
consistent with City Administrative Policy No. 310, a significant project or cumulative
impact would not occur at any study area intersection based on the ICU and HCM
methodologies.
Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative roadway segment ADT volumes, v/c ratios, and
LOS are presented in Table 4.11.0 (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.11-31). As Table 4.11.0
indicates, all study area roadway segments, including the hot spot roadways, are forecast
to operate at satisfactory LOS, with the exception of the following roadway segments:
Camino Capistrano between Ortega Highway and Del Obispo Street (LOS
E)
■ San Juan Creek Road between Valle Road and Camino Capistrano (LOS
E)
• Valle Road between San Juan Creek Road and I-5 northbound ramps
(LOS F)
However, the v/c ratio does not increase by 0.01 or greater at these roadway segments. As
such, consistent with City Administrative Policy No. 310, a significant project or
cumulative impact would not occur at any study area roadway segment. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project under Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative
conditions would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to transportation.
No mitigation is required.
General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) Condition
143 7/21/2020
Less Than Significant 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.
Tables 4.1 LP and 4.11.Q (found at Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-32 through 4.11-35) 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
4.1 LP, 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 La
Novia Avenue/Ortega Highway (LOS E in the p.m. peak hour) and Rancho Viejo
Road/Ortega Highway (LOS F in the p.m. peak hour). However, the v/c ratio does not
increase by 0.01 or greater. Therefore, consistent with City Administrative Policy No.
310, a significant project or buildout impact would not occur at any study area
intersection based on the ICU methodology.
As shown in Table 4.11.Q (found at Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-34 through 4.11-35), all study
area intersections, including the hot spot intersections, are forecast to operate at
satisfactory LOS based on the HCM methodology, with the exception of the following
intersections:
• I-5 southbound ramps/Junipero Serra Road (LOS E in the a.m. peak hour)
• Rancho Viejo Road/Ortega Highway (LOS E in the a.m. peak hour and LOS F in
the p.m. peak hour)
■ La Novia Avenue/Calle Arroyo (LOS F in the a.m. and p.m. peak hour)
However, the delay does not increase by 1.0 second or greater at these intersections.
Therefore, consistent with City Administrative Policy No. 310, 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
4.11.R (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.11-37). As this table indicates, all study area roadway
segments, including the hot spot roadways, are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS,
with the exception of the following roadway segments:
■ Ortega Highway between La Novia Avenue and Rancho Viejo Road (LOS
F)
• Ortega Highway between Rancho Viejo Road and I-5 northbound ramps
LOS F)
• Camino Capistrano between Ortega Highway and Del Obispo Street (LOS
E)
■ San Juan Creek Road between Valle Road and Camino Capistrano (LOS
E)
144 7/21/2020
• Valle Road between San Juan Creek Road and I-5 northbound ramps
(LOS F)
However, the v/c ratio does not increase by 0.01 or greater at these roadway segments. As
such, consistent with City Administrative Policy No. 310, a significant project or buildout
impact would not occur at any study area roadway segment. Therefore, implementation
of the proposed project under General Plan Buildout conditions would not result in a
significant cumulative impact related to transportation. No mitigation is required. (Draft
EIR, pp. 4.11-25 through 4.11-37.)
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 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. The proposed project would result in
less than cumulatively significant impacts with respect to tribal cultural resources following
implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -1 and CUL -2. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-10.)
S. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Although implementation of the Project in conjunction with other related projects in the area
would increase the demand for utilities and service systems, the Project alone would marginally
increase the necessity of the relocation or construction of such utilities and service systems.
(Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-70 through 4-78.) Moreover, each cumulative project, when
adopted, would be consistent with state and local regulations and undergo its own environmental
review. 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.
T. WILDFIRE
The Project would have less than significant impacts on wildfire risks, and therefore the Project
would not be cumulatively considerable. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp.4-79 through 4-82.)
SECTION VI
145 7/21/2020
FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGES
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 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 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. Additionally, the
146 7/21/2020
proposed project would include the implementation of conservation and sustainability features as
listed in the EIR, Section 3.3.9, Conservation and Sustainability Features, in Chapter 3.0, Project
Description. Nevertheless, 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
during project operation typical of residential uses (e.g., cleaning solvents, fertilizers, and
pesticides). Such materials would be used, handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with
manufacturers' instructions and handled in compliance 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 typical of other
residential uses and consistent with regional and local urban design and development goals for
the area, including the City's General Plan. 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
Sections 15126(d) and 15126.2(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR
analyze growth -inducing impacts and discuss the ways in which a proposed project could foster
economic or population growth or construction of additional housing, either directly or
indirectly, in the surrounding environment. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) also
requires a discussion of the characteristics of projects that may encourage and facilitate other
activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. Tc
address these issues, potential growth -inducing effects were examined through analysis of the
following questions:
■ Would the project remove obstacles to, or otherwise foster, population growth (e.g.,
through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not
presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to
land development)?
Would the project foster economic growth?
• Would approval of the project involve some characteristic that may encourage and
facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment?
Growth -inducing effects are not to be construed as necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of
little significance to the environment (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2(e)). This issue is
presented to provide additional information on ways in which the proposed project could
147 7/21/2020
contribute to significant changes in the environment beyond the direct consequences of
developing the proposed land uses as described in earlier sections of this Draft EIR.
Removal of Obstacles to, or Otherwise Foster, Population Growth
The area surrounding the project site is already urbanized and developed with a mix of
office, commercial, religious, residential, and open space 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 through connections to existing utility facilities in the area, and would
not necessitate substantial utility infrastructure improvements. In addition, the 20 -foot wide
multi -purposed pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian trail proposed along the southern boundary of
the project site is intended to facilitate active transportation, and would not foster off-site
population growth.
Although businesses that provide construction related services may hire a small amount
of additional employees to perform construction work for the proposed project, the construction
of the proposed project would not generate a substantial number of construction -related jobs
because it is expected that local and regional construction workers would be available to meet
the proposed project's construction needs. Additionally, short-term construction activities would
be temporary in nature and would cease upon completion of project construction. Further, the
proposed project would not induce material population growth because most of these employees
are not expected to change their place 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. Therefore, the proposed
project would not induce material population growth from a short-term employment perspective.
Upon completion of the proposed project, the development of 132 residential units is
anticipated to generate approximately 410 additional residents on the project site. While this
direct growth would increase the demand for neighborhood -servicing commercial uses in the
area surrounding the project site, the proposed project would be located in a built -out developed
area of the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) that is already served by neighborhood- serving
retail and service uses. Although some local businesses that provide goods and services to nearby
residents could hire a small number of additional employees to accommodate the minor increase
in clientele associated with the proposed project, the additional hiring is not expected to induce
material population growth because most of these new employees hired by local businesses are
not expected to change their place of residence.
With regard to project operation, the proposed project is residential and does not include
the development of employment -generating uses. As such, the proposed project would not create
an indirect demand for additional housing or households in the area. Therefore, given that the
employment opportunities generated by the construction of the proposed project would be filled
by people who would commute to the project site and operation of the proposed project would
148 7/21/2020
not result in employment generation, the potential population growth associated with project
employees would be minimal.
Foster Economic Growth
In its existing condition, the project site is undeveloped and vacant and is primarily
characterized by dirt and scattered ruderal vegetation. Therefore, the project site currently does
not generate revenue for the City. The proposed project would provide a new source of property
tax revenues to the City, thereby increasing the local property tax base. Because the proposed
project does not include sales tax generating uses, the proposed project would not result in a
change in the City's sales tax revenues.
The construction of the proposed project would generate construction -related jobs in San
Juan Capistrano during the construction period. However, the proposed project does not contain
employment -generating uses, and therefore, would not provide long-term employment
opportunities. The 410 additional residents generated by implementation of the proposed project
could, however, foster economic growth associated with the sales tax receipts of local businesses
who would serve the new residents.
Other Characteristics
The proposed project includes the construction of a 132 -unit residential development
consisting of 43 two-story detached single-family units and 89 three-story attached townhome
units. The project site is zoned as a Planned Community District associated with the adopted
Ortega Planned Community Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP 78-01). There are also
small portions of the project site designated as General Open Space and Community Park. The
proposed land uses are consistent with these designations and no General Plan Amendment or
zoning changes would be required to implement the proposed project. Therefore, the approval of
the proposed project does not involve any characteristics that would encourage or facilitate other
development projects.
It should be noted that the project site is identified in the City's General Plan 2014-2021
Housing Element (Adopted January 21, 2014, Revised September 19, 2017) as accommodating
230 very -low-income units. The proposed project includes 118 market- rate units and 14
moderate -income affordable units on the site. As such, the project would result in 216 fewer
affordable housing units for the site than identified in the City's Housing Element. Senate Bill
(SB) 166, which went into effect on January 1, 2018, requires a local jurisdiction to ensure that
its Housing Element inventory can accommodate at all times its remaining unmet Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Therefore, to ensure compliance with SB 166, the City has
identified an alternative site which includes 9.3 acres designated as Very High Density
Residential Land Use. This site, identified as Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 121-070-57, is
entitled to be developed at a density of 30 dwelling units per acre, or 279 units. The 219 units,
which are no longer able to be accommodated with the proposed development on the project site,
can be accommodated on this alternative site. The City will notify the State Department of
Housing and Community Development regarding the alternative site identified to accommodate
the replacement housing should the proposed project be approved.
149 7/21/2020
Because the future development of the 230 very -low-income units was already required
regardless of whether or not the proposed project is approved, the proposed project would not
directly increase the City's population beyond the number of residents who would live in the 132
on-site residential units. Therefore, the approval of the proposed project does not involve any
characteristics that would encourage or facilitate other growth that was not anticipated in the
City's General Plan. (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.
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:
150 7/21/2020
(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 residential development to increase the City's market -rate and affordable
housing stock.
2. Develop a project that balances the development potential of the project site with
environmental considerations.
3. Revitalize the vacant site with a well-designed and landscaped residential project that is
compatible with the surrounding community.
4. Increase the City's tax base by generating revenue for the City through property taxes.
5. Provide non-traditional home ownership opportunities through the provision of
townhomes and affordable units.
6. Provide recreational opportunities for the surrounding community with incorporation of a
multi-purpose pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian trail and associated amenities.
7. Dedicate approximately 5.6 acres of the project site adjacent to the San Juan Creek as a
conservation area.
8. Locate housing adjacent to available infrastructure to serve the project.
9. Implement the City's General Plan.
151 7/21/2020
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 alternative was considered but rejected as part of the environmental
analysis for the Project:
• Alternative Project Site (Draft EIR, pp. 5-4 through 5-5.)
Finding: The City Council rejects the Alternative Project Site alternative, on the
following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of
this alternative: (1) the alternative would likely not further reduce any of the proposed project's
significant impacts, all of which have been mitigated to less than significant levels; (2) the
alternative is infeasible given that the Project Applicant does not own or control any other
property within the City that would be suitable for development of the proposed project, nor can
the Project Applicant 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; and (3) the alternative would fail to achieve several of the project objectives. Therefore,
this alternative is 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 reduce significant environmental impacts, while still meeting most of the basic
Project objectives. Those alternatives include:
• Alternative 1: No Project/No Development Alternative (Draft EIR, pp. 5-8
through 5-9.)
■ Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative (Draft EIR, pp. 5-9 through 5-17.)
1. Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative
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 (November 7, 2019) would continue to
exist without any changes. The setting of the project site at the time the NOP was
published is described throughout Chapter 4.0 of the Draft 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
152 7/21/2020
project site. The No Project/No Development Alternative anticipates that the project site
would remain primarily as a vacant and undeveloped lot, with no improvements to the
existing condition of the San Juan Creek Trail. Although there would be no
improvements implemented on the project site as proposed by the project, the General
Plan land use designation of Planned Community, General Open Space, and Community
Park, and the Zoning Designation of Planned Community District, would still be
applicable to the project site. Under those designations, future residential development at
density of up to 30 du/acre, or 483 units, could occur. The No Project/No Development
Alternative would allow existing conditions on the project site to remain unchanged.
(Draft EIR, p. 5-8.)
Impacts: The project site is currently undeveloped and vacant. In its existing condition,
the San Juan Creek Trail is publicly accessible from the project site; the trail begins at the
intersection of Calle Arroyo and Paseo Tirador, traverses the project site in a southwest
direction, and terminates at the Pacific Ocean in the City of Dana Point. This alternative
assumes that the existing use of the San Juan Creek Trail would continue to operate into
the future. It is assumed that no improvements or new construction would occur at the
project site.
Under the No Project Alternative, the visual setting of the project site would not be
altered. No new air pollutant emissions or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would be
generated by short-term construction since no new construction is proposed, and new
residents and the residential development would not be present to result in operational
emissions. There would be no impacts related to biological resources or geology and soils
because the project site would remain undisturbed and undeveloped. Unknown potential
archaeological, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources would remain undisturbed.
No changes in energy usage would result because the site would remain undeveloped.
There 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
project site would remain designated for very -low income affordable housing units in the
City's General Plan Housing Element, and the site's use would be consistent with the
General Plan and zoning documents. 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.
The No Project 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 Alternative would result in fewer environmental impacts than the proposed
project because no construction or development would take place. (Draft EIR, p. 5-8.)
Attaimnent of Project Objectives: The No Project Alternative would not achieve any of
the Project Objectives. Without the proposed project, the project site would not be
developed with a 132 -unit residential development (including 14 affordable units),
amenities, and a multi-purpose pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian trail. In addition,
153 7/21/2020
although the project site would remain undeveloped, a 5.6 acre portion of the project site
would not be dedicated as a conservation area. The No Project/No Development
Alternative would not do any of the following: develop a residential development to
increase the City's market -rate and affordable housing stock (Project Objective 1);
develop a project that balances the development potential of the project site with
environmental considerations (Project Objective 2); revitalize the vacant site with a well-
designed and landscaped residential project that is compatible with the surrounding
community (Project Objective 3); increase the City's tax base by generating revenue for
the City through property taxes (Project Objective 4); provide non-traditional home
ownership opportunities through the provision of townhomes and affordable units
(Project Objective 5); provide recreational opportunities for the surrounding community
with incorporation of a multi-purpose pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian trail and
associated amenities (Project Objective 6); dedicate approximately 5.6 acres of the
project site adjacent to the San Juan Creek as a conservation area (Project Objective 7);
locate housing adjacent to available infrastructure to serve the project (Project Objective
8); nor would it implement the City's General Plan (Project Objective 9). (Draft EIR, p.
5-9.)
Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative, on the
following ground, which provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative:
(1) the alternative would not achieve any of the Project objectives.
2. Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative
Description: Alternative 2 would include a reduced intensity residential development
consisting of 100 dwelling units. The Reduced Project Alternative would include 32 two-
story detached single-family units and 68 three-story attached townhome units, which is
the same ratio of detached single-family and attached townhomes as the proposed project.
This alternative would include 11 affordable units, which is 11 percent of the total units,
and a similar percentage of affordable units as provided by the proposed project. The
project site would be divided by unit type, with single-family units and townhomes
constructed on the eastern and western portions of the site, respectively, similar to the
proposed project. The residential density of Alternative 2 would total 6.2 du/ac, which is
substantially lower than the maximum density of 30.0 du/ac allowed on the site, and
lower than the density (8.2 du/acre) proposed under the Proposed Project.
Alternative 2 would also include a 20 -foot (ft) -wide multi-purpose pedestrian, bicycle,
and equestrian trail along the project site's southern boundary. Fewer amenities would be
proposed with Alternative 2, although a gathering area with barbeques, seating, a tot lot,
an equestrian hitching post, bicycle racks, drinking fountains, and trash receptacles would
be provided within the development. This alternative would dedicate approximately 4.2
acres of the project site adjacent to the San Juan Creek as a conservation area, which is a
smaller acreage dedicated than under the proposed project.
For purposes of the alternative analysis, it is
landscaping, and lighting characteristics for
Proposed Project.
assumed that the architectural design,
Alternative 2 would be similar to the
154 7/21/2020
This alternative would be consistent with the site's General Plan land use designation of
Planned Community. There are also small portions of the project site designated as
General Open Space and Community Park. The land uses proposed under Alternative 2
would be consistent with the existing land use designations. The project site is zoned as a
Planned Community District associated with the adopted Ortega Planned Community
Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP 78-01). Alternative 2 would also be consistent
with the existing zoning. Therefore, no General Plan Amendment (GPA) or zoning
changes would be required to implement Alternative 2. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-9 through 5-10.)
Impacts: As stated previously, the project site is currently undeveloped and vacant. The
following sections describe potential environmental impacts that would occur upon
implementation of Alternative 2, Reduced Project Alternative.
Aesthetics. Under Alternative 2, the visual setting of the project site would be altered to a
similar, although lesser, degree as compared to the proposed project. Similar to the
proposed project, Alternative 2 would have less than significant impacts related to scenic
resources, light, glare, and the existing visual character of the project site and its
surroundings. Under Alternative 2, 11 of the townhomes, or approximately 11 percent of
the total units, would be designated affordable and would allow the Project Applicant to
apply for a concession and waivers of development standards. Upon approval of the
concession and waivers requested as part of the project, both the proposed project and
Alternative 2 would be consistent with all applicable General Plan and zoning regulations
governing aesthetics and scenic quality on the property. Additionally, both the proposed
project and Alternative 2 would have no impact associated with State Scenic Highways
because no official State Scenic Highways are located in the vicinity of the project.
Overall, impacts to aesthetics under Alternative 2 are reduced, but similar to impacts
associated with the proposed project. No mitigation is required.
Because impacts related to aesthetics 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.
Air Quality. Due to the reduced size of the project, 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. Further,
Regulatory Compliance Measures AQ -1 through AQ -3 would be applicable to
Alternative 2 and would ensure compliance 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. Overall, construction impacts related to air quality would be less than
significant and would be similar, but slightly less than impacts generated by the proposed
project.
Under Alternative 2, fewer new residents and a reduced residential development would
result in reduced operational emissions as compared to the proposed project. Alternative
155 7/21/2020
2 would result in fewer operational criteria air pollutants than the proposed project. As
such, 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.
Further, both the proposed project and Alternative 2 are not anticipated to produce
emissions that could lead to objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people
because implementation of both projects involves the development of a residential
community, which do not typically produce odorous emissions. Overall, operational
impacts related to air quality would be less than significant and would be less than
impacts generated by the proposed project.
Alternative 2, similar to the proposed project, is consistent with the current General Plan
land use designations 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 rules to reduce emissions. Therefore,
Alternative 2, similar to the proposed project, would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the 2016 AQMP because the construction and operational emissions
would not exceed SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds.
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. Overall, impacts to air quality under Alternative 2 are
reduced as compared to impacts associated with the proposed project. No mitigation is
required. 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, and no mitigation would be required.
Biological Resources. Similar to the proposed project, the project site under Alternative
2 would be cleared, excavated, graded, and paved, and the area of disturbance would be
similar to that of the proposed project. Therefore, Mitigation Measures BI0-1 through
BI0-7 would still be applicable under Alternative 2 to ensure that potential impacts to
biological resources are reduced to a less than significant level. Further, Regulatory
Compliance Measure BI0-1 would also be applicable to Alternative 2 to ensure trail
maintenance during project operation. As such, biological impacts associated with
Alternative 2 are considered to be less than significant with mitigation and similar to
those of the proposed project. However, overall impacts related to biological resources
would be greater under Alternative 2 because a reduced amount of land would be
preserved as conservation area (approximately 4.2 acres as compared to 5.6 acres under
the proposed project). Although this area is not currently developed, a reduction in
conservation area could allow for future development to occur on the 1.4 acres that would
not be conserved under Alternative 2. Overall, Alternative 2 would have less than
significant impacts with respect to biological resources with the incorporation of
Mitigation Measure BI0-1 through BI0-7 and Regulatory Compliance Measure
BI0-1.
Although impacts related to biological resources for Alternative 2 would be greater than
those associated with the proposed project due to smaller area dedicated for conservation,
156 7/21/2020
cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively significant, and no mitigation would
be required.
Cultural Resources. Under Alternative 2, impacts to potential archaeological and
paleontological resources would be similar to the proposed project because the project
site boundaries and disturbance area would be essentially the same as under the proposed
project. Mitigation Measures CUL -1 and CUL -2 would still be applicable under
Alternative 2 in order to protect any unknown archaeological resources and previously
undiscovered buried human remains. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures
CUL -1 and CUL -2, Alternative 2 would have less than significant impacts to
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 because the area of disturbance would remain the same.
Because impacts related to cultural resources for Alternative 2 would be similar to 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.
Energy. Under Alternative 2, less energy would be used during project construction
because of the reduced size of the residential development and other components as
compared to the proposed project. Similarly, less energy would be used during project
operation because the project would accommodate fewer residents under Alternative 2.
Specifically, electricity, natural gas, and construction- and operation -related fuel
consumption would be reduced under Alternative 2. Regulatory Compliance Measure
ENG -1 would still be applicable under Alternative 2 in order to ensure that the project
would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources during project construction and operation. With incorporation of Regulatory
Compliance Measure ENG -1, Alternative 2 would have less than significant impacts
with respect to energy. Overall, impacts to energy under Alternative 2 would be less than
significant and would be less than impacts generated by the proposed project. No
mitigation is required.
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.
Geology and Soils. Under Alternative 2, similar impacts would occur to geology and
soils as compared to the proposed project because the project site boundaries and the area
of disturbance would remain essentially the same as under the proposed project.
Although Alternative 2 would construct fewer residential units than the proposed project,
the project would be located on the same soils with the same geological conditions, and
therefore, 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,
similar to the proposed project. As such, Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-5
157 7/21/2020
and Regulatory Compliance Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3 would be applicable to
Alternative 2, similar to the proposed project. With the implementation of the mitigation
measures and regulatory compliance 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. Overall, impacts to geology and soils under Alternative 2 are similar to
impacts associated with the proposed project.
Because impacts related to geology and soils for Alternative 2 would similar to those
associated with the proposed project, implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1
through GEO-5 and Regulatory Compliance Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3 would
also ensure that Alternative 2, together with cumulative projects, would not result in a
significant cumulative impact.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Due to the reduced size, 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. Similar to the proposed
project, 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. As such, construction -related impacts related to GHG emission
would be less than significant. It is reasonable to conclude that operational impacts
related to GHG emissions would be less that the proposed project due to the reduction in
new residents and fewer residential units constructed Alternative 2. Consequently, GHG
emissions generated under Alternative 2 would also fall under the SCAQMD interim
screening -level bright -line threshold of 3,500 MT of CO2e per year for residential
developments and would be less than significant.
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would not conflict with the goals of the
2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).
Further, 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. Overall, impacts to GHG emissions under Alternative 2 are less than impacts
associated with the proposed project and are less than significant No mitigation is
required.
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.
Hydrology and Water Quality. The modification and installation of existing and new
utilities and infrastructure associated with the proposed project would still occur under
Alternative 2. Similar to the proposed project, the project site under Alternative 2 would
be cleared, excavated, graded, and paved, and the area of disturbance would be
approximately the same. 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 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and City
158 7/21/2020
regulations governing hydrology and water quality. In compliance with these
requirements, drainage facilitates to accommodate stormwater runoff and BMPs to
reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff would be implemented. Therefore, similar to the
proposed project, impacts related to surface and groundwater quality, groundwater
supplies, erosion and siltation, flooding, storm drain capacity, polluted runoff, release of
pollutants, and conflict with water quality and groundwater plans under Alterative 2
would be less than significant.
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would be constructed within a 100 -year
floodplain Zone AE. Alternative 2, similar to the proposed project, would be designed in
compliance with the design requirements of Section 8-11.115 of the City's Municipal
Code, which specifies design requirements for developments within the 100 -year
floodplain. The project under Alternative 2 would be required to obtain an Elevation
certificate, as outlined in Regulatory Compliance Measure WQ-1. In addition, as
specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure WQ-2, the project under Alternative 2
would be required to process a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) or
Conditional Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (CLOMR-F) during final design and a
Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) or Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (LOMR-F)
upon project completion through the City, the Orange County Flood Control District
(OCFCD), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). With compliance
with Regulatory Compliance Measures WQ-1 and WQ-2, Alternative 2 would result in
less than significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Overall, impacts to
hydrology and water quality under Alternative 2 would be similar to those of the
proposed project. No mitigation is required.
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.
Land Use and Planning. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would have less
than significant impacts related to land use and planning. Under Alternative 2, as well as
the proposed project, there would be no impacts related to the division of an existing
community. Though Alternative 2 would represent a reduced project with fewer
residential units, the proposed uses would be the same under the proposed project and
Alternative 2. As such, Alternative 2 would still be consistent with both the existing
General Plan land use designations of Planned Community, General Open Space, and
Community Park and zoning designation of Planned Community District associated with
the adopted Ortega Planned Community Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) 78-01.
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, SCAG's 2008 Regional Comprehensive
Plan, and SCAG's 2016-2040 RTP/SCS.
Under Alternative 2, 11 of the townhomes, or approximately 11 percent of the total units,
would be designated affordable and would allow the Project Applicant to apply for a
concession and waivers to development standards. Similar to the proposed project,
Alternative 2 would be entitled to one incentive or concession under the State density
159 7/21/2020
bonus law and the City's affordable housing ordinance. Additionally, Alternative 2 would
be entitled to waivers of development standards as necessary to prevent physical
preclusion of the project alternative. It is reasonable to assume that these affordable
housing waivers would be approved, unless the City were to find that the waiver to the
development standard would have a specific adverse impact as defined in Section 9-
3.505(d)(3)(L) of the City's Municipal Code, and would result in an adverse impact upon
health, safety, the physical environment, or a designated historical resource. Following
approval of the requested concession and waivers, Alternative 2 would be consistent with
the City's Zoning Ordinance. As such, impacts related to land use under Alternative 2 are
considered to be less than significant and predominantly similar to those associated with
the proposed project. However, under Alternative 2, greater impacts would occur because
fewer residential units would be constructed to meet the City's housing needs, including
both market -rate and affordable units. No mitigation is required.
Although impacts related to land use and planning for Alternative 2 would be greater than
those associated with the proposed project due to the provision of fewer residential units,
cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively significant, and no mitigation would
be required.
Noise. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would encompass the same amount
of acreage within the same proximity to noise receptors. Grading and site preparation
activities are the loudest aspects of construction, and the grading and site preparation
involved with Alternative 2 require a similar amount of, but slightly less, ground
disturbance as the proposed project. However, Alternative 2 would result in the
construction of less residential units and building area as compared to the proposed
project. As such, construction -related noise generated under Alternative 2 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 N0I-1,
which requires adherence to noise restrictions during project construction. Alternative 2
would result in a similar amount of, but slightly less, ground vibration during
construction as the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, vibration levels
under Alternative 2 at the closest commercial buildings would not exceed the United
States Federal Transit Association (FTA) community annoyance threshold of 84 vibration
velocity decibels (VdB) for land uses similar to office uses. In addition, this vibration
level would not exceed the FTA damage threshold of 94 VdB (0.2 in/sec peak particle
velocity [PPV]) for buildings constructed of non -engineered timber and masonry.
Therefore, noise and ground -borne vibration generated from construction activities
associated with Alternative 2 would be similar to impacts under the proposed project.
Overall, construction -related noise and vibration impacts under Alternative 2 would be
less than significant.
The City's exterior and interior noise standards are 65 dBA CNEL and 45 dBA
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), respectively, for single-family and
multifamily residences. Alternative 2 would result in the operation of fewer residential
units and building area as compared to the proposed project. Because Alternative 2 is
proposed on the same project site as the proposed project, exterior noise levels would be
the same in both circumstances. Under Alternative 2, it is assumed that the tot lot and
160 7/21/2020
gathering areas would be located in similar positions on the project site as compared to
the proposed project. The noise sensitive areas under Alternative 2 which are required to
meet the City's exterior standard of 65 dBA CNEL include the private rear yards of the
single-family homes and the common use areas such as the tot lot and gathering areas.
Similar to the proposed project, exterior noise levels would be below 65 dBA CNEL at
the single-family home rear -yards, and no further noise reduction measures would be
necessary.
It is assumed that the tot lot and the gathering areas would be sited in a similar location
under Alternative 2 as for the proposed project. Under the proposed project, noise levels
at the proposed tot lot and gathering areas are projected to exceed the 65 A -weighted
decibel Community Noise Equivalent Level (dBA CNEL) exterior noise standard;
therefore, similar to the proposed project an increased height of the perimeter wall would
be necessary under Alternative 2. Therefore, Alternative 2 would require Mitigation
Measure N0I-2, which would incorporate a minimum 14 -foot -high wall near the
proposed tot lot, thereby reducing noise levels to 64.7 dBA CNEL and all noise sensitive
receptors below the City's exterior noise level standard for playground and park uses.
Similar to the proposed project, under Alternative 2 some of the buildings on the western
portion of the project site would need to upgrade the exterior facades in order to achieve
adequate interior noise reduction. This can be accomplished by installing upgraded
windows, improving wall construction, or a combo of both. As in the proposed project,
Alternative 2 would be required to implement Mitigation Measure N0I-2, which
requires preparation of a Final Acoustic Report to confirm that the interior living spaces
of residential dwelling units will meet the City's interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL
with windows and doors closed. With implementation of Mitigation Measure N0I-2,
on-site interior noise levels would be consistent with the City's Noise Element standards
for residential interior areas under Alternative 2. It should be noted that due to the
reduction in the number of units under Alternative 2, it is possible that the outdoor
amenities and the residential buildings could be relocated further from noise sources and
Mitigation Measure N0I-2 may not be required.
Overall, impacts to operational noise under Alternative 2 would be similar to those of the
proposed project, and mitigation would be required to reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures N0I-1 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- and operation -related noise.
Although impacts related to noise for Alternative 2 would be similar to those associated
with the proposed project, cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively
significant.
Transportation. Alternative 2 would result in the construction of less residential units
and building area as compared to the proposed project, and therefore, a shorter
construction schedule would be necessary. As such, construction -related traffic generated
under Alternative 2 would occur for a shorter period of time than the proposed project,
161 7/21/2020
and construction trips would be reduced. Therefore, similar to the proposed project,
Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts related to construction traffic.
Operation of Alternative 2, similar to the proposed project, would generate more trips
than during construction. The Level of Service (LOS) analyses prepared for the proposed
project determined that the project would not result in any significant operational traffic
impacts. The proposed project has the potential to generate approximately 890 average
daily trips (ADT), including 64 trips (16 inbound and 48 outbound) in the a.m. peak hour
and 82 trips (51 inbound and 31 outbound) in the p.m. peak hour. All study area
intersections, including the hot -spot intersections, are anticipated to operate at
satisfactory LOS based on the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) and Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies. Impacts under the proposed project were
determined to be less than significant. Therefore, it can be concluded that traffic impacts
under Alternative 2 would be less than significant because this alternative represents a
reduced project that would result in fewer trips. Overall, operational traffic impacts under
Alternative 2 would be less that impacts associated with the proposed project. No
mitigation is required.
Since Alternative 2 represents a reduced project that would result in fewer trips, it can be
concluded that this alternative would also generate fewer vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
per capita as compared to the regional VMT per capita. As such, based on the Governor's
Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory (TA) guidance and similar to
the proposed project, Alternative 2 would not have a significant transportation impact.
However, since the City does not currently have thresholds or standards in place for
assessing potential VMT impacts, VMT information is provided for disclosure purposes
only, and the analysis of traffic impacts in this Draft EIR for CEQA purposes are based
on the City's LOS thresholds. No mitigation would be required.
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would be required to comply with General
Plan policies addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities, as well as City Council Policy No. 310, which establishes metrics for
determining traffic impacts, consistent transportation -related goals and policies in the
City's General Plan, and the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP)
(2019).
Because impacts related to traffic for Alternative 2 would be less than those associated
with the proposed project, cumulative impacts would also be less than cumulatively
significant.
Tribal Cultural Resources. Under Alternative 2, impacts to potential tribal cultural
resources would be similar to the proposed project because the project site boundaries
and disturbance area would remain the same as under the proposed project. Mitigation
Measures CUL -1 and CUL -2 would still be applicable under Alternative 2 to protect
any unknown tribal cultural resources and previously undiscovered buried human
remains. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL -1 and CUL -2,
Alternative 2 would have less than significant impacts to tribal cultural resources and
previously undiscovered buried human remains. Overall, impacts to tribal cultural
162 7/21/2020
resources under Alternative 2 would be similar to the proposed project's impacts because
the project site boundaries and area of disturbance would remain the same.
Because impacts related to tribal cultural resources for Alternative 2 would be similar to
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 tribal cultural
resources and previously undiscovered buried human remains.
Construction impacts would be incrementally reduced under Alternative 2 as fewer
residential units would be constructed (approximately 25 percent fewer units). Similarly,
fewer operational impacts would occur as fewer residents, traffic trips, emissions, and
noise would result from a smaller development. Overall, physical impacts under this
alternative would be incrementally reduced due to fewer housing units being constructed
and occupied. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-9 through 5-17.)
Attainment of Project Objectives: Alternative 2 would meet some, but not all of the
project objectives. Alternative 2 would develop a residential development to increase the
City's housing stock (Project Objective 1); develop a project that balances the
development potential of the project site with environmental considerations (Project
Objective 2); revitalize the vacant site with a well-designed and landscaped residential
project that is compatible with the surrounding community (Project Objective 3); provide
recreational opportunities for the surrounding community with incorporation of a multi-
purpose trail (Project Objective 7); locate housing adjacent to available infrastructure to
serve the project (Project Objective 8); and implement the City's General Plan (Project
Objective 9).
However, this alternative would not achieve Project Objective 4, including increasing the
City's tax base generating revenue for the City through property taxes, to the same extent
as the proposed project because a smaller residential development would likely generate
less property tax revenue. Additionally, a smaller residential development would result in
the elimination of affordable units because they would no longer be economically
feasible to construct. As such, this alternative would not meet Project Objectives 1 and 5
to the same extent as the proposed project, because a smaller residential development
would not increase the City's affordable housing stock and providing non-traditional
home ownership opportunities to the same extent as the proposed project. Furthermore,
Alternative 2 would not dedicate as much acreage as the proposed project for a
permanent conservation area adjacent to the San Juan Creek.
Overall, this alternative would meet some of the project objectives, but not to the same
degree as the proposed project. (Draft EIR, p. 5-17.)
Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative, on the
following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for
rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative would likely not further reduce the
proposed project's significant impacts (which have been reduced to less than significant
163 7/21/2020
levels) in biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water
quality, land use and planning, noise, tribal and cultural resources; and (2) the alternative
fails to meet all of the Project objectives.
E. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives to
a proposed Project shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives
evaluated in an EIR. Based on the alternatives analysis contained within the Draft EIR, the
Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative is identified as the Environmentally Superior
Alternative. This alternative would either lessen environmental impacts or result in impacts
similar to those associated with the proposed project in most environmental areas. However,
similar to the No Project Alternative, impacts to biological resources and land use would be
greater because the beneficial impacts of the proposed project would not occur, including
increasing the City's housing stock and dedicating land for conservation to the same degree as
under the proposed project. Although Alternative 2 would achieve some of the project
objectives—specifically the project objectives aimed at providing a residential development to
increase the City's housing stock (Project Objective 1); balancing the development potential of
the project site with environmental considerations (Project Objective 2); revitalizing the vacant
site with a well-designed and landscaped residential project that is compatible with the
surrounding community (Project Objective 3); provide recreational opportunities for the
surrounding community with incorporation of a multi-purpose trail (Project Objective 7); locate
housing adjacent to available infrastructure to serve the project (Project Objective 8); and
implement the City's General Plan(Project Objective 9) – this alternative would not maximize
the potential to maximize the City's tax base generating revenue through property taxes (Project
Objective 4) and would also conflict with Project Objectives 1 and 5, which involve developing a
residential development to increase the City's affordable housing stock and providing non-
traditional home ownership opportunities through the provision of affordable units, respectively.
Furthermore, Alternative 2 would not dedicate the same maximum acreage as the proposed
project for a permanent conservation area adjacent to the San Juan Creek (Project Objective 7).
Therefore, this alternative would meet some of the project objectives, but not to the same degree
as the proposed project.
SECTION IX
ADOPTION OF STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a), the City Council must balance, as
applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Project against its
unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the specific
benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those
environmental effects may be considered acceptable.
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any impacts that are
considered significant, adverse, and unavoidable. All environmental issues were determined to
result in less than significant impacts, or can be reduced to less than significant levels with the
incorporation of mitigation measures. Thus, City Council is not required to and will not adopt a
statement of overriding considerations.
164 7/21/2020
165 7/21/2020
EXHIBIT B
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
166 7/21/2020
c4
�O CIO
-c
w
0
CLO
u
N
L N
L
+J
L
"a
O
-0 CA
4- CA
u
C
c .
L
•L
�
O .]
.O 0
O O 4-.
.L O
r C
u
d bo m
u
d tw m
Ln
Ln
O O
L
N
mo
v
u a
a tiA
v '�
m
c Lnc
ca a)
N
co a
2
N
Z
L
C. (] C
a) L'
C Q 0.�
E
0
f0 C E
C
U
(n lC Q L
Nn f0 i2 O
4
4-O 1
`
O-
*'
O in N u
�_
O
O W
a
C
-O
'O
f' CU
0 0 0
4� m a) i
0 0 0 0
O
U
0
Cr
cr
a Fa O in O a
Y
Y 0
a O a a C Y a f0 U'
O C E N
'C N
i
ate+ .�
CJ 7
Y �"' O v �,. N aa.. v
(6 +�-' C
N
Vf
D
W a) Y hn
a h0 C
OD a L O Y U C O. a
f0 N C T
C
C
u
C a .0 a —
L.+ a s
Y E a fa +.,, M O T
C T
C U
t6 7 0
Q N
ai
a +' C
pa a
'�
ra a O c
m O
`1 m .0 CCL
C -a a
a C
0 0U > o
E Q
W
!w
+L'
o n
v
o
v v
a �^ v v o
3
v
Q
CL
.E
C E
� ?!
Q •�
cu
0a YOcu C
C
7 0 Ln
tY00
O N N
Yn 3 n
O
O
O
Q o a a
e p :
m •� CU c a OL
.c o sv
+
C
C
m o E v v
m n
° a) v o ai •- �a
o
v o
•Q D •0
O
�n u
rp
CO
LJ
N 2
-0i.i
•C Y
a u t c>=
r
o
O
O
a, rco a a)-ou a
a
a Q o a
`n Q p
Y 0
LJ
LJ
v O C Q' '� t
fa ai
YO a is uu m O v
fo �.
a
a)
- O Y a Y
`n
d N
;�
p c — O +' +, vi tv —_
N a '^ .
Y
4-
a..l
Y to C a
U of a N Y +' L
f0 a a
O a a 7p Ca .+A_•' C +O+ Y t6
a O L
O O
t y"
a_
o a
CL a a
> E i1 a
a-" a C v N
a to
a
yj
v
o a
m E E 3
�a
N,,
+a+ O t
°_ Y c
a
E
o
Q o 7 0--o
Q a
'�
m u > a v c
C O> C O L
o ani
a)
+C+
Oo
a
7 C
N 7 C O
C
O 0 �O p,
m
YC
O U 'O a
T aJ
-CR
.fC_0 +�`. W tYa
Ln
ai
f0
•i0
+"� f0 a a) =
7 0 i —
a
f0 L f0 Y
in Y Q Y u -o
Y > O y�
c •N d •-
.- a
u
O
O
o Q. Q U
E a) o
°D i O u E
c
>`
C
a ro c> ami
c E a
c '^
o — a a
m a a� o_ O `—°
o
a •E O
.A
a
Q)
a)
C 7 a o O_
m '� fa C
fa O u T U vi Q
p
L bo Y -p
Y
a O
fa ^
Q 'U a V_I
a LL
3 C f0 Y C a a
Q m C 'O — Y O a
C `% cu
O N
•y
y O
a)
aJ
N N C
C Q
o .n O D
m O�
a CL
>, m t
= C
Ai L
RoN
U
V
U u O 7
•yj U +a+ vi a
s C fv Y C a f6
E C a
i 7
m
Q.
c�
Q
C
.0 c m
a a
^ E
aT+
E u o� c° u a—
a N m� fd
o o c
al ya
C
C
Y ++ ^ Y
m C L �n O
Y
E a E
N i''
U
C N_ U v� 1 L
M��
+� —
Q (O fo
N
VI C
C
.0
O m m 0 c—�
OD N
o�
`~ c c6 o f T M
•j t
�n E� -c �
O
a..+
CO fa .�
CL
Y a_0 m L
N
a L ocu
C U
f6
(O
Q O t O d
C
E
W O
C C O a
C *' '�
C
Q fC C
a�
L Y Y i .� O Q.
Q , au)
Ou
7
C
i
C a a ;� O U 7
f2 ay 7 pa
` GD -0 > U �"�
+a+ W
a
0 O.
N Q
bA
.N
•
.Q Q 7 O a t t
O a v' +''
p c .2C
a 0 `1 O t O"0 t
-0
cu
- C `�• C L
p a
n
H
N d U O_ Y Ln
u Cf � E V
U Y F- d Y
O .-
A
.
a
fD
� (a
Y �
�
N
m
!I6
0
7
C
aJ
C
a)
N
m
m
m
N
O
O
i+ O
O
u
M
d
c
3
c
M
c
O
La1
L
C7
(U
L
O
Z,
0 m
L-(6
O
O
Y
O
Q L
Q
m
m
10
[D
a)
a)
•Cy
Sle
—4
c
0
4-1m
o`
CLO
c
i=
t
m
CL
Q)
c
O
Q
0
N
c
7
,) O
v ac
7 ;r O
CU +, O
m a
C
m
7
c
m
N
4-
0
aJ
to -0 O O
C c 0
aJ
L
i aJ +' O
m = - - QJ Y p
O 0
yr -p
GO -
U
-
T aJ C 'O
C
Y
`
C
C m N O
- N
O m a/ �--r
L O
.F.. m Y
m
O F 'a al T
m
L
a1
C
�
C
aJ O C
Q
O
O
N =
ra m
Ln x
N x +,
�n
aJ ro O N aJ
u
p
7 O`
>
aJ
a1 u
u
`ti
'^
aJ
W m
L `1
-O aJ
"O
yr Q Y L m Y
m aJ N U u
7
�^
u
_O d
a
'EOC aJ W
m
p_ C al
u m
T
0 0 O M
Y
.�
Y
Y i L O CL 'D raN
'� L
O
c (O d N
C
h
(Y6
ria
O .Q
•E
Y Y
C E +' E
j
+'
O
O
V
N
m
m �., ` L
O N i OC C E
}N,
N
u C
N
N
�, in (U �[
Y pC,p
aJ
o -O O
m U p
7 N
yr
aJ
+'
'�
_N
d N O
C
Oa
C ,m m al
U
U aJ
NN N L Q
J� '-
E ,n O N U
C Q
N
r�
C
'
p .�
Y
N C
C
O O U
L
`� C- aJ
O m �_
N ra in p m
E
'°
,�
Q-0
7 _0
C
to
3
m
N
a
7
C Y L E o
Ou
'D
v
o o
Q m-0
C
C
ru
> N
++ O E m
O L C
-O C
al
o
c E '=
o � m
N
o c ami
m
0
3
o ai •E
.�
C o
cu
'O � L C
m "O
- O .Q aj E
aj
aL-+ E O N aJ awl
it
Q`
O L
fa
v u W
l,7
L
Y
w U ,n m
Y i N
C
v m
aJ a' _ _ ,�
QJ a)
on n 3 u Q
C aJ T yr p` Q -
O
-p
�
Y
Y
m
L
rn
C L
m u Ln
00
O
m +; m
a u L aJ Y
'C L Q rLo is
O
O
N
C
OD
E C `1 Y
N m
N aJ Q a/
-O C i1 00 Y N
O
4
QJ O
L
Y
N
N
�n
O v Q
'r j
C
T ° tw 3
.o
o °
°
O
i
rip
�}E++ vi
CL
+0�+ T E
Y
rYa �n aL"'
1i
L
aJ - v
_� O
rTa u +L+ �
E O m 7
vi
Y
E
d i
7
aJ
al 'n T m
7 L
�
V C aJ m
•u
i-�
m"
"O i C aJ
u
C rn to O vYi N U
m aJ c c u
N
:+2
N
a o
a1
- ;r
p
Q
— p
m
c
>'
L O
i
m v- aJ
aJ C L C
p` aJ al Y
>
m .�
Y
n
0
Q�
O
L
_0
'O N
vi
a1 N
aJ •� p Y
U
O L C aJ O_ o
O
*Z
U T
0
O +.p
.�
O m u-
•vr
N
m •� m m
C C
aJ Q `
C •c o
m
m
C aJ
N
W C --
7
N
N N al
-- E U
N E 76L L T �n
C
O
m E
'O
•C al m °
x
E
m C�
E
,n
O m -, O O
O. 3 'n � L E
�
m
o
U°
aJ E C
a
W
C
•E
m
E L
N
p
C r N N
'O
T Q a1 Y = 2 aJ
Y w C
1
-O 2
C
�
m
�
al
� N al
O T C E
C
m
_ N
o
p p ra
Y
+'^+
CL ai
.++
u L CFu
'O
:Lo
,n Z �
N N _0 Q O Q o
C
�
u Y
"O
43 O m
L
E2
C
°
C *' U
uai 0
vi
m>
N
L aJ
=
m
> E m N
L
O
U L .- u
O Y O
U -a aJ �n Y
`�+
O
O
N
m
+�
m
-O U
L C
O
L Y .Q
> c C n
.�
o n
L Y m-
aJ - 3 W m
�+ N C aJ v
v aJ c
°
a
N
N
0 3 L
a
m
E
m o
-O
�° aEi
o
�
C
E T
� v
v L on aJ +'
m +' U 3 m m m
E
O
'++
v
O
u
aJ C N Q
C
t'
t d aJ
m0
U Oa L 3:=3
r N 8O
C C
i-.
yr L O
Y C
u s aJ
N
^� Y
0
m 0 r`a 2
Y- "O L- T C m
7
U
m
O
O m
T
cu c
L
O C
O
u o
Q o v
C u
cYJ Y v �_ O
v u> v Y v
t
o
7^ Y
O
C° T
o
C O
Y
U �. a1
E �,
m Q in L
O. °u Y L Q 3
+'
Q +m+
h
O
m 7 C m
U
-E
L aJ N
O C �O a
O al aJ 0
C
Uj C
Y C 'V
N
.E a aJ -O
Lm O
O aJ
U
O `1
�"'
E
d m n E
O m C m- -
1 Q- aJ �
O
O
?i
N O
O hD a)
C
Y Y m
LL
u
d U >
a CL Q
,O
7
O
e
Lu
v
O
m
aJ
N
Ln Ln
CU
a
c
c •� � Z �
boa.
t a ',n c cn in r_in
a a `° °1
a)"
c E° °c E c r❑o °c E
V1m CLL V) f0 Q
L V) m Q L
O 4' p Vf 0 p N �O
CL V1 a U N
CU w U❑ E U U M E U U m❑
Ln O O a +' >• u m-0 a"' a C C `+- a a) Y y O >- a -O � N a U a "❑ a a '� a
tic
.•i ++ C '.n C '� ,n C .'^ u aa+ O O O m-0 c a Y✓ o H .m m a'c+ a O a ro
m l+ r-+ a- a ._ a O m _O C `•~ +j bn u c
CL U N ++ d a c O 7 �' i? .mc u ° Q c 3 in +, `� ° O C L 7 O V '
Q n Q a� c � m_ —^ E +� +� «' n ro :0 a �a �� Q .o +_ 6 E c m L a�
" E U C `> m O O C C i+ i 'a+ !n CL �p 7• E Q C +. 'O CL U 3 a d t w b a
c .- m a L �n �•+ O O 3 a u a y m d 'n •- C a m L m c C
O C Q •a a O CL �n a v, u u p 'L m L❑ :� "0 m- ca 0 `- a N *' c a �' m o m
m O m ++ ° r0 E +S+ ) O a m do 7� a m M <S m �•+ m L , ,❑ ❑ Y E
CO
a �, -O+ u-0 0- m a �+ +, C O u 7 C a :7A M -N ~ v 0 u ❑ a
�n m a }, T i 3 �' C - a m C m m tS z> 7 CL a❑ G!
L 'o 0 3 N o 'ra ° o¢ d m> N �°-' '> a^ n m c u E `u a"
G) n a° v a c by a v a ami a
E `� " m C w C of a a > !C O ++ a L c ] m of a O
c a Y O
uia ° s 3 '� 2 H v '� Cy m ° 'rYCa ons V .� d a° v +' v `n E
>• N� E i+ a O C Q +�+ 3 O N Q' Q-1 G w w +' a+ �^ +' a Y C
_ c
a N a a a 'O u in n u to N •� O O C U a m Al vi t3 w 0 (Ij U� m a m m CL' 00
L t> m O O Z. a '+ i C> t a 0 C 7 a ++ �-' N
C O m C m N u ❑ 3 .±' aL•+ C in ++ � .Y + ❑ N Q-1 V E L
.N O L m C m to c a a- N m C M Q rp '^ > a a N +� -O D u u > in
O C 0 on Ou +� - L N t w- Ou of C V U❑ +�+ ++ N C m m A❑ C Q a}
3 a 0 ai o" c ,� a m o u f6 m �_ m Q rO w v 3? c o u a`i a m a
c o v 0 c 0 cc a +� c is t' c c m +' a a on O CL u T c
a Q �- CL O m a C C o°> L n Q m o ❑ ,,, a N> `° N .O 0 a N c u G ,m
u p „� a C O 7-C 'C r+ u O on m -Z u s_ '+� a a m
u> a a a� �, t a° ro fO c° E c u y .N u v yr '6 cv_ a > N °_ ❑. v
O m +' "❑ +v� a <n - m O a +' - a7 3 u a y O to C +' •a t1' 7
�O a O a) EO N iJ m i1 vai C C C C 7 d c c a 3 -P N @ � .Y C U w': L o cc U 0
Lvmi }; a n. Q '� m o m L a m m Ou ❑ a d❑ O ❑ ��',, a •> a rN rn +-•
a +T+ N m .vl 'C Y �..' Y m LV1 m = m ate.+ O ❑ a..� u LL U a >` m o Y O a
O O- C O ++ u "n 9 w m u +-^ a m a _ u a E
c E o v c E 3 v °>� o c ruo w m > a c o y a +� v a
m c a 0 41 on 7- m p a> a❑ +�•' C a X m CL a m a C m L U C Q.
Q. . -fl ra L c-0 m Q O a �-' E ❑V '+� a (a � T Y a s O a Ln +' C m a
D �O ° t a 0 0 .a o Q '�' (v FE V �.. al 'a -0 N m '^ °= d c E �O `° h❑
,! 3 v `oCU o ami o ani +" +° a-0 > o a rua m o v CL n a ° T u
v u u c 3 +� c aci c> a a 3� u m > d u m+ ❑.
C r2o 'u^ 2 a Eo a>i m w 2 o io u u N a m m e-0 t— c u U v' " Z
° 0 '^ 0 N *' ` "- '� U O_ v +� Q O '^ u -� `^ � r❑n c a L� p �c c O N
cu Ln
CA O U N w O L Q 'a O a ❑IV Li p_ .d m '> �-^ - O a C 4- N O- N
E a s +� m- a�+ ° m +' a°- O a 7` m T v� to `l C ❑ O m
C bD O cz
u ❑_ O on a12 ° ++ O C 7 C a_ � ,c m d0 m a+ C N fya O N m O a a y 6
o� a' ° •E E CL m o o ❑ a c °' v c v o c u ocn :v +9 m
_ _ a , >
a L a a L w a u N O a O L a a m Ln L W a 0° O L O L O O a L a C m a
,� c❑ o o o m a CL +� + Z a `0 3 oa c 3 Q t +� a D o v ❑
p O
� m m
� a a
LA
�� N
Q) '^ m
f0 a
a �
� � C
0 C ❑
}. ❑
m
OA m bA
'� MC
C
raW
a
}
p
c
0
LA V)
4-
o
+-
o a)
o
•�
E
.;
M
Q 4
p
v
U
a
a
CL
ro
co
L a f4
C
cv
m
i
bn
+- L M
p c
u
v❑
c
u v
c
on
p
Eo
u
a
p `
L a,
1— 2
Z CL =a
D r0 ++
O
Ln Ln
CU
a
c
c •� � Z �
boa.
t a ',n c cn in r_in
a a `° °1
a)"
c E° °c E c r❑o °c E
V1m CLL V) f0 Q
L V) m Q L
O 4' p Vf 0 p N �O
CL V1 a U N
CU w U❑ E U U M E U U m❑
Ln O O a +' >• u m-0 a"' a C C `+- a a) Y y O >- a -O � N a U a "❑ a a '� a
tic
.•i ++ C '.n C '� ,n C .'^ u aa+ O O O m-0 c a Y✓ o H .m m a'c+ a O a ro
m l+ r-+ a- a ._ a O m _O C `•~ +j bn u c
CL U N ++ d a c O 7 �' i? .mc u ° Q c 3 in +, `� ° O C L 7 O V '
Q n Q a� c � m_ —^ E +� +� «' n ro :0 a �a �� Q .o +_ 6 E c m L a�
" E U C `> m O O C C i+ i 'a+ !n CL �p 7• E Q C +. 'O CL U 3 a d t w b a
c .- m a L �n �•+ O O 3 a u a y m d 'n •- C a m L m c C
O C Q •a a O CL �n a v, u u p 'L m L❑ :� "0 m- ca 0 `- a N *' c a �' m o m
m O m ++ ° r0 E +S+ ) O a m do 7� a m M <S m �•+ m L , ,❑ ❑ Y E
CO
a �, -O+ u-0 0- m a �+ +, C O u 7 C a :7A M -N ~ v 0 u ❑ a
�n m a }, T i 3 �' C - a m C m m tS z> 7 CL a❑ G!
L 'o 0 3 N o 'ra ° o¢ d m> N �°-' '> a^ n m c u E `u a"
G) n a° v a c by a v a ami a
E `� " m C w C of a a > !C O ++ a L c ] m of a O
c a Y O
uia ° s 3 '� 2 H v '� Cy m ° 'rYCa ons V .� d a° v +' v `n E
>• N� E i+ a O C Q +�+ 3 O N Q' Q-1 G w w +' a+ �^ +' a Y C
_ c
a N a a a 'O u in n u to N •� O O C U a m Al vi t3 w 0 (Ij U� m a m m CL' 00
L t> m O O Z. a '+ i C> t a 0 C 7 a ++ �-' N
C O m C m N u ❑ 3 .±' aL•+ C in ++ � .Y + ❑ N Q-1 V E L
.N O L m C m to c a a- N m C M Q rp '^ > a a N +� -O D u u > in
O C 0 on Ou +� - L N t w- Ou of C V U❑ +�+ ++ N C m m A❑ C Q a}
3 a 0 ai o" c ,� a m o u f6 m �_ m Q rO w v 3? c o u a`i a m a
c o v 0 c 0 cc a +� c is t' c c m +' a a on O CL u T c
a Q �- CL O m a C C o°> L n Q m o ❑ ,,, a N> `° N .O 0 a N c u G ,m
u p „� a C O 7-C 'C r+ u O on m -Z u s_ '+� a a m
u> a a a� �, t a° ro fO c° E c u y .N u v yr '6 cv_ a > N °_ ❑. v
O m +' "❑ +v� a <n - m O a +' - a7 3 u a y O to C +' •a t1' 7
�O a O a) EO N iJ m i1 vai C C C C 7 d c c a 3 -P N @ � .Y C U w': L o cc U 0
Lvmi }; a n. Q '� m o m L a m m Ou ❑ a d❑ O ❑ ��',, a •> a rN rn +-•
a +T+ N m .vl 'C Y �..' Y m LV1 m = m ate.+ O ❑ a..� u LL U a >` m o Y O a
O O- C O ++ u "n 9 w m u +-^ a m a _ u a E
c E o v c E 3 v °>� o c ruo w m > a c o y a +� v a
m c a 0 41 on 7- m p a> a❑ +�•' C a X m CL a m a C m L U C Q.
Q. . -fl ra L c-0 m Q O a �-' E ❑V '+� a (a � T Y a s O a Ln +' C m a
D �O ° t a 0 0 .a o Q '�' (v FE V �.. al 'a -0 N m '^ °= d c E �O `° h❑
,! 3 v `oCU o ami o ani +" +° a-0 > o a rua m o v CL n a ° T u
v u u c 3 +� c aci c> a a 3� u m > d u m+ ❑.
C r2o 'u^ 2 a Eo a>i m w 2 o io u u N a m m e-0 t— c u U v' " Z
° 0 '^ 0 N *' ` "- '� U O_ v +� Q O '^ u -� `^ � r❑n c a L� p �c c O N
cu Ln
CA O U N w O L Q 'a O a ❑IV Li p_ .d m '> �-^ - O a C 4- N O- N
E a s +� m- a�+ ° m +' a°- O a 7` m T v� to `l C ❑ O m
C bD O cz
u ❑_ O on a12 ° ++ O C 7 C a_ � ,c m d0 m a+ C N fya O N m O a a y 6
o� a' ° •E E CL m o o ❑ a c °' v c v o c u ocn :v +9 m
_ _ a , >
a L a a L w a u N O a O L a a m Ln L W a 0° O L O L O O a L a C m a
,� c❑ o o o m a CL +� + Z a `0 3 oa c 3 Q t +� a D o v ❑
p O
� m m
� a a
LA
�� N
Q) '^ m
f0 a
a �
� � C
0 C ❑
}. ❑
m
OA m bA
'� MC
C
raW
} o
c M
m
v �
°
a C C
° = V)
N
v 0 + V' E
L L
L
OD 7 pp 4- > > o h0
,L CU C •> L
+� °
p a D o coo a tin
V)
a)
a)
U U
•� aJ
on
coo
Ln '^ c Ln '0
CL m +, aj m v
+�
a L °
Z r�o 0 E° c o °J o
`_ cn m Q o V) m a L
0 o N° 4- ,� +, o 0
CL v U o U
U U 0 U u 0
0 -O ' -O C — ,n a) +-' a) aJ m a) -0 a) GO '� C 'O +' a1 L O c +' +'
O C m C m Y m L L fa -0 L +' C t G O m airo .�' L ++ ++ U aa'+ O L L
� �. Cn ° N O O U O O Q a >; O r`o u O O N m m •� O v, +' C 'O al
m m C nj a O N On 7 O ++ +'' Q — O O c
c L 'Q c v� a) > n a a s Oo E° >> +_ v �, = M
m m hn `l C .� O n 7 ya'.� ,n +' L C > +-' U t .c N O m
> O N j, t m H +� O' a m v, ++ v, V m i Q O +-� tVo m +' Op C r>a m C
'Z Q m -o a) > u n v a, E ai a, ai m E Y c c o+ u
v N al a) a/ Ll U L 0o d4 C i +� m X 'O aJ
vl O C Ol +,, -0 m e L +,� O C C C C O L L
N O 'v O N N m � +� in m w C 'O v, .O - 'O O
T O +_+ 0 Q .O N u > +LO+ v7Ni O O '� pimp •al Q +�+ +� 'h E O 0.0 t a'
p O C O m al ,n L v, ,n
s 0 L L n a) m 3 E o= °>�� o f �' o� �� " c c+ �o
c o V) a) m c o n> a) v n m o o Q m y a '3
N U al ++ aJ ++ '> ++ t �- Q. ai a) C - C a) a' r`o C
E oN > +; - v •° 3 m Z> ai 0 a O m m CLe> m c�> E ° on Y m
CO Q (N6 Ont In N m n i' O a) -C 7 m i O O_ L GO C •+>—, a.
> .. m += bow v o c Q Q >+ n 0 Z v an o- � c o u W
> 'n u j, O _c n O a' O U `—n m E 41 > O 'O
c L F v u u ai u 3 v v Q °° t v a
Q) v o c m m c E v a > F- ° ai v, o c c+ m on o
C: O .- c m E '_ LL O Op c •c D O ,m v 'j o n e I v Q .c ai
L O N m m Q 'A '^ > — p '^ m O v, +, 7 .O al •> -O v O .+, v, — �' O fO
O E C ` N> z- ++ -C � t O N u a) t d O two a) r6 a) C: .0 � n E
E ai Q- ai -- O +� o m ny -� c_ Y n z +' 3 ai U ai m
o c v c v v u +� m ocn c v o> m c m S n m c Y m
u ,L m u n m > my E m O° �� ° -�+ v Q�ono ���
u v- u'+ i a)
c a) °+ - c Q) 0-� a 3 O E Q v v Q "E -0+ n v t m .v > 3 c °= -u c _- c
v~ '� v tiD o aro .0 m aci c` - Q u 00 v D m
v > •c �' c u E 4n -0 u c c m v c .� E > n v v o y+ N
+m+ `' n .rC—O ++ ' cu � U ° OU t — �, p p bA fl• _O 'O > Q +' +t+ OO m - ++ O a) > m
C C O �J U 'p —
C Q u Y> m ,n L C U .` Q a) O O n -O c -O ++ •— C pO >— C
u L m = E v o m o 'i ^> L u _ u v E n> �° � U� c '� o m
vl m _ C co Y- C `1 �, p n ++ - hn U a) 0 L
C C, w H a) ° a) O O .� `) 2 O 2 n w- Z c O Q m V v v L a) OO �
t"& 'm c- +' -— o N c n O o ) }' Ln CL O O +� c (U C =03
a) v O m
0 o a) u L o 3 c o o`_ E o a`n) o v y .L co 3 t n aui .� ruo ani
ai E o 'a 0 Q o c o o= u a +� ,, v c m O o a m+ >
�a -o ar = a n - n on a ,°', m u .� m a Y c E °+' c m- += a c c o uu
+� c .+ Q a/ m u t n u O v c p r`o c 3= t. C C O Y u n
m E
c Y c N u 4: o m v Q,> v m E a O N o °� E c `o oc o
c a) o E m Q N 'o (u c> a n o av +. y r g> -io -
CU aJ i' 0 �' C O a' N u °m N E O N p w cj 0 n Q Y O p +>—' p rCa U L r0
O 7 N m j 'W U +� H �O E O m '^ 7 c m 7 ' - C 'O m `1 7 +—O+ +� N
h v c> v N 01 > u v o rma w= c a 3 Y ~ `-' rco o c o o a) ai v aui o u c E
_C rca c Y .c w a v .c U E v t v o u on , m ca a$ E E L 'J L �' u o E
+ u n V U
H
(A
L1 O j
7 m 0 U
� a in ar
41 N N
m
a
c � m g
c " o
V a
0
C
o
Y
ro
c
G
L NLA
O O
OA 7
M
H
J
N
�
uo c
c .1
b N
�
= O
N M L
to -0
C
C +�+ O
-0 O M
(J
�
V
tn
Qci
m
Ln
�
O41
C
U�
M
•cam_
aD
N
CYC
C
C
Z
T
t
00
M
C
M
In N
v
1
� L
O
V1
(A
M ❑.
O
O
O
O
v1 Nu
Q
>-
'Q
OU
o:
ai
U
+� �n a) +-'
az U L L O
i U a) L — N a1
ra iri ro ro n3 L
w
Y aJ
a� L a1
C al aJ T `�- C !� s C C1
" > O O in as O
m w
C �o
L
U aJ ++ N C
'�
c
N U
L i
++ f0 U V U y,,
O 'uf
L O L
�'' —
.ice
00 N y+ Y N ++ 7.
CM �
v
O
O
M bD
O 3 t'
VI a7 J ++ �a � >
Z = w
� N
CL
O. a1 O a) 7
U u
`
a0-� 'n m O O w
`, m
111
}' L
'N c
:ti
O
al bA 'M
"
N ai GA O 7
m +�+
'rp L fa a E
t+
lD
O L O
�' Z
E c O L al o
C �.'
'Y1
OQ aO+
C > ,iN-+-+ -
a+ M v1
fa ....
m c
vl L �1
-o � i Bu
O
L
—
m > T
++ C y>+
O U V
O E
E cu
to al Cl a
a) 7 al
�' fD 7 al 'O "O
t
C v1 O
al O 4 v 2
c O. S,•Z E a
fa
m
T 4- a+ a1 7
O p '� 'O
to �p
O U 4- m=
O_ O to
C
+v-'
i vui to
aL+ a+ N
,� O ++ �n a Z
E C O �^
N
+' 7
y.,
C: .� u
t
iJ
a O E °
c
�+ "O
°0 °1
C t v is
C
C
>O
OLn
m y
Y Do =
E u
aj �' .+-T' y0 a-+ C
C O
M "6 .0 L aJ N
'oD
al C +L+ E-
n L c E� c m >'
Z
3 E
-a
E C c ro
ai ON
u o L
o - D u v
oc
u o w -
ro O1 p v c �;
v o
p +L+ c ,OD QJ
C
a u
C a) O h 'O •�° 0
N U
C O v
w- N S J L m u al 'm
U m
I- N
N
O N s O
O
*' O `�
�7p O Y
2) O` al
O
0 0
+�+
O N N
'^ N al OD
u m 7
, U
L
7 u t6 E aJ U
"O ++ O "
E
O in
O
7 C
'O V1
E a1 L
U o +, y, C E a/
in a1 U Q) E Q aJ -D a)
�
c_ m
O > O
U fV M C .}'
m
C �-i u
m a.+
Oi O O. t0 v1
V �+
`1
H N N
O
L +, N N
o
+'
O v 'O H
a1 0
Cl O `1 in W 0 aJ
E
Cc c
T
ai
-0 c U a) U '++ J O
-0 c
C +' p N
-' ++ Q
a1 Q N V L
CL
C al
.w O
vi u L
Cu O 7 3(Ij O_ c- m (U c
v7i
C C
E L" ai
Q~ .0
2 L O ~' `1 Y
N 3 U:Ll 0
C C Z a1 N O
O D U
Ou N
�O
U
7
U ++
ate/ a+ a1 Gqai
r6
++ n] tD u
C N
Y ++
U U
3 o L •N 3 L O
L 7 f0
al n7 in 7 aJ •a+
c E
U
N �. N
r6 = �, C U
E
c
N
7 +• O C
3
L
>• 7 a-+ C i+
3°
C
'`°
c uo > .on
,L, c o
T c u 2 u
"-
+ v
v U '� a"i w �'
CU
o
_
°
" T a o c v°1i v
a, as
n$ E N c
U u
E m QJ
m y v
O_ � a1 'u
-0 oc o +�
m
c —
o 7 E
v
d0 V CD y,. O
o c c .N c L
L
++
o 3
v T
(v •p a+
+� c
Z
._ E E O C a3
v Q a`i " a`, o o �„ o +�
u `° v= °+ 7
m
v u E> f 6 v
>
7 > o
+' a °ate, u �' t
N -r-
V E
E N*'
-Z f6 O' 't'
t6
ar
OV Y Ou U
a7
�' O L fa T fa E
N al E
W L
O` L vi O Q
f>D
u O
L
q to N to O o
N
C of w
vVli
C > a+ n7 (U `,� H M
E L
vi
N U
N N
'O
` N
to 'v1 .V d oD aJ Q
c v
w,
d •N
N c0 v C
7 C •,', E +L+ p E �-' >, `J
E
L N
v a) v �� 2 v
C 'n N`
O O d0
-0-0 O a)— O
al c 'a p
ro C
O
O v� ai
a) L
p r1 Cu
u 7 Z O J C U++
t
O
O
Y
O
Y
'�
al m m al L-0
- 4--
7
'E O>
'
vi m C
C10 U
fc6 N
N
>
c U
d� OD O L a1 C LD ++
~ O
c O
y� = � 7
O L 'b Z- '^
O fD
E •+0 U
` 7 L
al -O �a a+ i m
e m
�''
to fD C
L C O +�+ [IS lf1 '6
,� O +� E .--I
al ++
E c
L U o
Q) o cD c `o
a
T U n,
N
�- 0 7 c H
4= o o 3
m E
ai
E c M
v o
it
w *= v x ai c v
u v C > x o o E
a 7 ai
E u E
o
=
o E � v
+� Ln
N
0
c o c c �a o a c ;,
o
OU
m m N o c u-o
m N�
c ^ N .� >
o
Q, c
`
c U
n a u c vu_f Z N N N
E E
d
u aj v
> 0 'O
v o
al
v
m O
E
E L
H L CC p M
O
aO+ L �,
U i r0 O O>
>M
C c
al y
yL, .T
C 7 C U O p
cm
O. O
c
7 0 '
+' aO+ u
C N E a) r T w- U J c
CL ai
O. al L
E m o U c
c a
m E U 0n E
m 2
L u
a p ,� o U m
x-+
If
V1
J
N
�
L
(J
�
V
tn
Qci
m
G
�
O41
C
M
•cam_
aD
C
CYC
C
in
c
o
4--
�o
0
V)
on
+,
E
O
V V
W Z
O a) w
E
_
�_
L
E
SO
L
.O c6
O
O �
v O
a
O
00
lu
C L
E Q
m
In m Q L
Q
O 4-O
.Q
Vf
>, >
t m (U ._
U U 0
t' L a
O
L_
C a) a O
a O a) U
O a O L T
w a c a y'
C y
r
t
`) a 0
c +� o
6
ai
t v N c U a +�
c a E
vi C 0
u
O a
°�° O 3
] .K7
a 3 °nai
N fOa b0
L
L
u U o v on
U O E C
n 41
C +L_•' N
bD
T v1 = w
O
(C6 'n
C
H O D V
�n
c
O a f6
•• n v c u n
m '3 +
v
> —
p c v� c
C7 0 o .3 m o v c c
3
0=�
v '0 v v 0
m E a , o
J 7 O w-
vl U L
+,
u u N 6 '++ N fa
al :F `J n3 (O •i I
p
4= N°
O ci
C E
O �+
C Q1 al
(u U N M
a1
a
(O
t a1 U 3 f6 fa0
O
E
al
++ a
Y �-+ O = C
t O ++
L In Y
•Y
C n t p O to
-COU
O C t fo
o O of Fn vi —
0 u E E
o -0
tLo _^ o u
c t � Y
"
c� v>
v � r co o
^ m QJ o
(u u
0 O O °
O
u
p N O `-' � a '�
O UO -0
M
t'' +' V V
T N 'C �
�
n
CU D >' tc0
O- U O �'
E
-0
Gn �
3
�
O N 0
O T
'++ U
•p
M C r
n C u +� hn +� V of
O C C �n
7
61 a C
c 7
'a+
i > n to
� U a u
x +t+ O `�
O in C O
m a� °- m
c 'Y v a ra v
•>
o v E c
v •� O
cc w t' U
0
E 7 a-' c- tu -0co O 7 L'' °
`1
a+ ;c O
_C
r°qo -
-O O c— U V
i0 aJ c O
O U ° O
'
L
E •C +' O O C O O
C
E
`^
O .'� O u ++ --�
N •�
O °
'�
,• v (a0
E N
p C -p ] u a �, o
ra u o n
on ro O
C
C O
N
M" c
U
O N
L
u° O V
U
C�
•p
O O O
i N u l7
N v E .v to
O C a
3°
U O u u al
"�
v a a
w° ,� aJ ra
n
m
N
j:,
al U C C
co
'a+
bQ O O
O C— T
w O O-
bD
E c
CL
Z m � -" E a n .m
m> N
o' L m
r
u
O O a1
>
c
°
L m
E on
E �n a+ C
rco a
C a R.
r o c a� N
C
C VI O m
M i-+ L a
c o o t on
V m
a u v
++
f0 aJ i Vl '.p
i m 7 O X
t
v
U
o+
3° °
um
v f°
c .0 r v a
°J
c a
3 o
> a', aci
c� a c°'o
'D
a m
v
E" +°
a)
.N v c
v c
C O p L m
+,
ai M U m •
U O C T V — U 3 C
c
L
a
Y a> aJ
M -+ a
++ N -° C
L
° Q1 a E c
O >• n
•O O E
E
O
p> ° M
o T E O
a a) al
(J E O
O a— C
'a E O L 0 0� v t'
O
L E-0 u
C> .a
a0-. vi 0 Q 0
0 '� n
E on °u 6 E n a
v
,uF+
v' o E u °1
a o
(U o`
0 L '�- C f0
v
L
O O Q C •Q a1 o a)
(7
o axi
�a L
> = X u O
'3 °'
C E ++ m
°o *' -` °n
Ln
u m v° m v o
r
" L
v> a s
m E_
U +O+ al
(>
CU n 7 c Y p O O
C on L
C
C— ,�+ ++
n o L L E �
E m t
'n
N '^ y,
t0 — b M ++ -0 u
'N
m O-
a U H o O
'� _u u
fa v
O
a+ O C
Q
L O
4- + n O C :1
C
.E
—
3 C L O fa
r C Y O h
'�
H
m L .� �a
�, E
+J
. G C O c a in ns ns c
o p-
m
ai p i
s a `� io a
O
O
N C
cu
ra
0 '+o-' c ,� •`-' a
H a n
3° ,n �, O
LL o° ,� E
a v v v v E
;F
o m E m ono n E p
E
CL
C- m � $
on
°u i = � >
o
O
> a, CO o
C C o
v v
M in a
.0 on 3
K
�
IA
rl
•�
W
L
�
N
C
O
41
CL
M
O
m
O
m
ar
C
0
c
C
m
C
oA
W
i
m
,+'
Ll
N
t�q
V
m
N a> cu
g Q O
a C m a C C
w N E —'" L c O
O
Z �_
on
m L m
L °O ,� °�
a,
a ' 2
c a c +� -
c o
aJ
E
c ^ a) ar ' m aj
Y n
a
c
c
`> °a N °+' m
o a m p c
v
c c f° m L
CU
7 T u
O
m
•.3
u L a
>, a) V �.
.- tw a+
>
O
,n O O L 0 c
v
al 7
a E
of N ++
: E c 0
�'
p 7n pp N a,
w L
E
a c a s ,� c v
m
cr
W
CL o
3
o °c° Z c°
p
a o on
�r
s o
p y,
+� ` oO v
c N
O
fa
al a � O a O L,
o
O` � 02 >
al
a c
al aJ O U
L O
O
m ++ -ma al m—
`1
u
U
v a a
i +' N a1 (IJ p_
a+
a s ,� !n
�, S
u V) m
a
c U
On vi c a N c '+�
C
4-
u
Ol
p ,'
of a) a
bl
al O c
Jol)EO
Q/ -
O
c O -- u au,
m Lr,
N �
V
Q
m ++
I m
0
� �
E c
v�•'i (n
O
3
-Ln
�--1
Q
QJ u E
ti4 O
m On (u + c ++
�,
O �n
M
N m
U
o
m N fp •in N �...
L m r
v
N E a m
N w a+
0
O
E
aJ ++ U �-+ m
al 00 �
m
O
a 7 N m
L O
E
O N� a m
O �
L
E O
O a aJ a, U m L
O +L+ m m O
al L C
N m� 00 O c m
m
m
O N,
O vi
bo 4 n a }'
'+� O 2 'fo
'. n '^ v a�
-
Q a .a O a� N
O L O
0 LJ 3
> a
'J
E dD c a1
O N
E a
N +•' -M
'�.,
] m O a a O
a vOi
,mj c O- c
co
O Q~
L al T m
L
of
'^ L p
O c\ m ++
u
L
++
a
a O
C a C v=i vi C Q *'
x .- 7 m
+� L
,�
a m
0
0
O
c O
E +' D.
fO D - -o
O c m
al Y U
�_ 4- a O
C
p 'p v N p pO a
O
C
O
u =3 U L a
U
E
O- O>
aJ
d O
L
'^ N
c� u
O 'a) u
o
E
'^ -
4
3 c
m fO n> n
o o �^ r r
°J a`_, o Q ai
'c
vi v '° v tr v
m
L<
E
i1 O U E
E $, � m u
� -O ++ m .E
O
J,
O p_ � m � t�0 H a+
w
Q O
O
m u hn p_ A L O
•Q
tm.�
O X c �n 0
O
m O am+
N
E
t' O w e 00 00 L
a c
u �i
N
w- in
E O
y, Lnv N
O
al
a�
a] .- C
a
O
U
C '^
N a1 =-
C0 al v
O
- m m V
Q CL i
vi m '^
N
C --Fu 00 O p t
CU 0
C
m .�
O Y C m
O a 3a) U
E L f—a L�
F-
O L a L ++ m LL a
O
c
L+
C c U 0/ +
aj u1 —
LL + a 0 Ln ` a
R
m
L m
m O
'� L L
a O +' m
al �n a) 7 c L
a)
O 0 0 0>
O
T v a r
N
C on N a/ m
++ E
c �n 00
m 7 W a of v al of
a+ +� L H
� L,, c v�
c
.- O C �, L N
VI
00 O a) a
U-0
m m O
L O
On
i-
O
r °
r c M M
x 3
" v m v t'
N
v
io v
a—
x N`
o 0 3 aTi
�`
a m
m
c c
c
w w v -r
v
c
'J
'a E cL
s 3
c
ai
L a°
` '� a a� '
°°
'� L'- a
`� c v
p
o
v� 0) ti r v 0)
o
Om
a; n
a O
c
E
w
In
>
O
? W L aJ
U ++
m
a
O p m
O. L U E >
C ala i al
— �/1
7
V�
00
C
�J a0., a aJ i Y
f0 U m c c
u
y,
m n-
y,, �1
c o ^
E
E^ $ a
o c ou v
a
'c
v? a 'oO c
m
a o
c o
fO a
on ,o aci
++ CLO m v c c
p
ai w u a� =
t m u U u
c
a v+ a c c 'v E
m N
00 m
m N a U 7 O
u
H O> m i
LA U m =
m
a
N n (n m (U
c
0
m
� v
do 0
c in
ami
m
a
v
.N
c
0
CL
0
Q)
o:
T �",, C) C
al L L ui aJ " 00
L
v� = '° aJ
L — -0
C aJ
— +' -0
— aJ fa a0
E a1 � U
C 0 � ++ .�°- >'
O � O �
� > H m
O u
w= � �
C •� "O
M
O C
al
fa O O
° N
m y
c o
� m (U
o v
°° u=
E m° G
2
L
—
C U aJ O
.E
N al �^ fo
u
O O
U L
O C E t0
+� aJ
O OO
+L+
7 +-'
+G+
O
L
•°
�' aJ 'C
O O
C
+' C
O8
�' C
L aJ
al O N
m v-
7 o
N +L+
C
7
o
L OO
.v
+ +
°Q N
o c a 3
T m��
o E F�
L
:� �
�� o
"
c O v E o a, "
°
+�
" o -°
a
° a) 3
o
O C + OJ v
u c> -° L
"_
aJ
fO 6
3 G o
o
Q
E
u u o - c
aJ m y aJ +=
u
4 a C
° m
c L7
O 0
u a,
ro aJ
aJ v ro
Q " c 3
o v aJ
+
�, c_
O
±�
t C aJ L
C_ U" aJ
O O 'p
N pO C
G f0
O C
Ul
N
aJ
E
u LL
O aJ 7 E
L
L E al 00
p
"
a O
Q
O
.O vi
C +' aJ
"
C .N �"� : " Y
-° Q U
Y u Q
fa
C
fa O aJ O
aJ " u
O 00 al aJ
C N"
E oO
Q Q O
"O t o aL-+ u
O C
vii
-U C Q -O -O
fa
++ fa aJ ++
aJ +O+
u1 ++ a7 Q
u
C :�
al ++
�n
�o
> 0 oo
� v ami u � � �
E v 3 }`� C
Y � � —
� `u
E
� Y O°
� c � �
4 'c
O .1
N O
+� m 0
'�
Q v o
aJ u
c
7 m `^ U
c
•w aJ
v
aJ C
" Q T L
C U 'p
O .F
i
'� N
E in
E
U V 7
O N
n
" m �n �.'
O aJ C
a1 M a., QJ
> n
aJ n E
O
u o c
aJ -0
F-
N i a) M
W m
:� ra
N
a,
E
u aJ
"
U N o0 'O
j U L
+' O
v E
w u O
+, ,u
m" O Q
+i,,
\
+a1+ L
L
C m
al O u
O
al
Q G
00 ++
C O
C N— C
aJ m a7 aJ ++
'O +_+
aJ u O C —
+� O -O aJ
aJ u
C *' +�-'
7 �J
C O l7
41 U N r6 U
O ai
N—
_
Q L C aJ
O a+
al C
E °
w
m Q
O.
,�
`7 —0 N CO Ou �O
y�.�
" N
O +L+
a"J �
Q
N
vOi
'O L
+L+ G
—0 m `,- u fo
'-O
"
LL
OQ
-0 QJ+
+ J
+40
O
E >' N
+O+ Y C n `) O
Q u
Q as C C
C C-0
M
c
al
" E N
VI al C O N O L
+� �"'
.0 a3
Q
L +O+ E
" C
aJ N=
E
3 fa U
��i1 C a7
O
a]
O aJ aJ aJ
Y "
� pO
L FU aJ
~ +, a0 C E
Q cn O aJ
fo M
L c
N " m
T
i.. O
e
v
a u v
o "
a G
m C
G °° Ll
c
3° � ° v E
c
y to o
— r O
" EL
v o
�
° v
v
n3 c� " 'n
Q aJ
v
«. —
mcu o u
m L c L
+'
a m u m
3
u
aJ Q
L L
C"
b
u
Q +..' C
Q ++
r
O N �_
C O t2o 7
> w
N
Q h0
U O C
C O Q
++ 00 L aJ
i=il C L
U> Y +O+ fa vl
'� N O_ U
_N
0 {j z 3
C
Y OD i
N E +L+
U
v+'i al f0
0 O M u u=
O L X 7
aJ Q E u
c 2
0
Q> m
°"
W
c ,a
aJ u C
O
w 3
T aJ �+ m
s} ,� ,
0 0 aJ
u u 0 n
O- O
m E u
al O
l7 v+
C C C
o 00 3Cr- M
a
L
V)
N
m
ca
G
0
m
aA
.c
G
OD
C>
N
O
N
N
1-2
a
o
o
+�
O
a u
a +_c
a to N
E>
C
O L
E c
a
N
u u
Ln Q
a 0
U c U
0
c
Vf
O a m a
OU
N
d OU 'a O
H
d GD
d-0
cuss
u v
a a
cu a
c
L
CD
'B
UD In O aj 'N
ca
In
Caj
3 C
.O
a
Ln� L
— Oj
0
Ln
c
In m Q L
+, v cC
�
a
v- ; o o
0
u L U
+J u
o
CL
C
V) v u
>- > a
a a
o -6 c> a
—
3 a
oaC
+� cu
U U
a m D D
Cl Q
(v c c v v
ha a tD-a o - m
vu
v7
m!H
L m O ba :LU
a) C
C •U a
•uO
mO '�7
•u
j m O U a
a
D N
t
Om
Z U R
C m O
E -'
C
C
m
ubC�
m.
md L
a
O M
y r a s is
u .-& �+ w m
u p a>^ E u
u vi +' O
+N+ +' m O
V
v
y, .w G C C❑
-° U
O
Q E
p L C C m a
r.+
C �O C O
E O 0 N E a
N m `1
T U ❑_ 7
Nm CL
v1 a1
❑-
a a) d E ro O
Q
O_ O U OD m
L
3 U O �' ++ C +�
m d
Q .•i Y h0 L
q1 cu
L m `3 i.+ -❑ •�' C
G O o
oaa U 3
`�
3@ m m E ns E
L c m u
o
n a
`+' a n
c
v Q a
c a m a E l
ai rua m c c❑
a: m a
C ° C ❑_ a
C
a°
VI E O ha
'}+ C
o c
0a — Y O= a)
a°i O
r- d L O m
C
,C
C a .� U 7. c p
m o. +
m Uto m'
°'
CL o c L}a U—
u
of aui _ p
Q N •7 ° •7
0 o 'A — O ,,
U O a C
c p
v •m t E
0a +a+
w v •u; O O O E
-°
N
m L `7 m
al .0 C ip
G9 u v' R �^ i 7 a] �+ a
D O �'
O O_ u 0
C a)
C !� O O C
C M= N a ,� ❑ R. C E
++ 4- w ❑.
m e ° v
m E o u m a
y m p ❑ ❑ w
E c E
v Q - -o a a
l7 L o O L
.'_n c m L EC
a1 o u 'n
•� N O m E �- � n O N°
- O a ¢-
v m m N
O
a
+ N?
C
U U c N O
•QjcN
m v� m v1
O` C 6-0❑ Q
M
O C C N L
L N C
O
C .w O .Oii ++ t+ r
a— C 0 O
O
v-0 O_ -0
m a *' n uq
= ❑ d u
!a +L - v c c
ym
C E O +a+ O
v1 N •° n a
•u d '� C O aJ +' m O
:�
uui
U Q on O
0 E
G. m m c Y
u m m -aa
U 7 �• .c O
m a ❑_ p 0
��•'qv
CN •C
N N" U �^ u
C C c U w 'O ',,-. N
O 0
C
aJ
p a> o a
°
e a u a o m «+
,ra,
c o m m a ❑ w °c
G
c'$ a E
+a+ O N al +a+ u da
C m m d C c N
3 vEi -=i E ++ a y Lai
.d a m
VI V u E 'm L N
c
m 'a C a) E
E
C a C as -0 a - 7 N •• 0
m u
m E n= c-
O
CL c U v O
m N m a -❑ u E 0— a p
N N
6
❑. v_, a m �
c a L
O m U m c
a m v y
'_^ +' t
'C L vvi v
°
v m
C t7. O
w �... v +O
O in w 2 a0 ,� c
c O O O
O ++ 0❑ V1
a c a w °�°
a, �+
Yrs
O
Y m
�+ c m 0
m
p a C 'O
d a— a r
Q' U
tai � o° 0❑
U 7
Z u m a p uj
W N
+L.+ is
Q v- •u
p a Gm0 in ea
u '� "
.Z 7 au C N L C C m—
°w a CL
L j u, C� M ED
+=
a3, (D m
u o °; �
c Cl)
v°i U v o a- u
a
p- E 0. m m v
O�
ami v❑ Y
L a� O,�
c p
a
cc LIV vE a m L
vy, �n 0. O
v w m❑
+' -p
v
++ N C
c
m —
p
U .3 c OY
L v .n m
— cua a-+ U m C N
tLO
� D L�
Le,L
M. m G Z3
U c� O �.-
C-'bA 'bG ° Q O
CL Y r
•� O ++ C m
>
CL -o o c c v
— .-' LO a'
E
° u g R n v e c❑
N
- a o v E v Z a
a c +o O p ._
� •v m
+, m C m a a
m❑ C O ce v a7 a
C
n a c
rL
E
to
C
i A K
w
•�-� c m 40. L 7
_
O m '^ m
•, a` O m
v a Q
CO
v°= o (
m a° v. 1 r«�a a°
L
I n w v— °� 5 m u ;L -
> '^ •*-�'
u
Q ja m o ra„ a1
u l7 U
m u m O a m� a
o m a oc +� a 3
u pp W m m vi al a
m w Ti a u Q n c
l7 u U oa v
vi v
N
m
v
O
O
LLI
l7
l7
LU
N
a
N
%A
W
m
c
�
�
O
+,
c
❑
c
C
c
C
�
m
m
m m
C>
N
O
N
N
1-2
c
o
0
o`On v
_ v
E
L
V) u
o a c co
_ L E c
M
•° E Om
i= n o ao
Q) N
L N N
> a Z c
M c in •C
4J -o
o c o °1 0
L O N L Q L
o c ..-o Q
Q _ o o N u
0 m N . > Ll
ai
CJ Q. U U 0 cl
al • V u m L C aJ +L+ -C 'O on C C L L m O L : t C N
O 00 ~ al Y J �"' �'' �-' — c m t~ Y Y C -O a1 m m Y aJ 'O N m
L O o o pn O �n U �..; m ++ C w N C C
CL o ° v c a a � c aui ai s o Y m> c ° c .� 0 o m C
v c L° 0 0 0 0 c .o > c> ro v> o 3 u aai a 0
yL, O C 'N a p + p ' ' 'in m al .+_' a1 +�+ O al 0 N N
a) is E �F o al U a o > vl 0 H� u ` 0 0 •+ a Q U
C Q V u "a T vOi m N p N L N .t' y N d C L L O `J C _u u C aJ al .0 N
>c'J„ o aci o c a� v iu o Cl. *' o a) QJc u 0a m° ° E� 0 a o Y
v m c E °c°u 3 Y° a 3 v ^ u c >? c` L o o t ai
Y 2 uo c r ai •E ° +T' `-' o. 48
a o c c E v o c cYno � ro m E m U
c v m o m Y m= c z 0 °1 ar o vi m o o a_ E o- x o v u a c �{
c a �' d C L n O d T N N t d o J •V C m U al C> = al E W
' O *' Y •0 N OA Y U +� O O J-0-0 Q O L ?= N 7 O +� }' C -j
m E m '8 0 -0 v 3 t ° o v c m Q o ° a c 0 o” aci o= L
m on a v
b0 +' C a 0 0+°� L •0 u H O — m v a _0 .a m N a _O .N L O U 0 O
a` E v a. maui N a� m o cn N v v a L o c v 0 1 m Y 0 °J° o o o� L
p Y c o ai
C v a) in CL
s t c u omL,o a o 0 0 °° c 0` v o r c Y E o v ° m v E
�. E> a v 3 +' E a; *' v r '3 3 °p _- m 3 a u 0- m
aj C} v c 0 f9 0 E v ,��, o^ o°° r c a o v v J v on
Oa al "a yr "O w C m O �n .0 ? 'O vYi a� in in Y O OL c
v t v o .� 3 v v io a s `o ` v° a E o o nn E
U v a^ > o� ar � u 4 0 o m a 6 c a m o° a T 3: E v" a w n
a` a 0 a� N c o o o E c v 0 .E v E w o w ° a •c o ai �°>
-0 CLis E O u o O "a E al v� c +' — al -0 a) C t a p ,_ C in
a)
0 a Y m aJ a) c L 6 C m c Oa -C J > a/ (U a0+ -0 O N o°
N a) m m m L Y U O Y m •� U m C p L U Q/ E Y a p Y E
" '° a, '° v n ra c °; 0 ocu CL~ m v E fO E m-0 On
tea, a, a o o
o u ma •� a t a• o c 3 �' 0 0 c0 0 3 ; u 0 0
CU on OL N m O J_ Oa w O N Y U 0 O+ L O 3 J L al v Y C C ++ +� u `1
C O d a o 0 H i1 0 o C m 0 E '^ Y a O p *' -0 u in 0 O
o c 0 0 o au LA o on io ��� E� v c a uo v e t v.
u v o J
U C a 0 m C on 'U U c a o u m al O L Ql i N Ql
O >' ++ ,' al m On v O -O N � m W is -0 Y Y in — J J E 0 L
On m m m al L L hn m Y m u O o m c
O m E On > a .` C -O O LO y 0 Q N 'Y o .. A r-- a L p 0 j L
a N *' u m v o o p 'on O •c - o LA- o p E t 0 3 0 t v �' x
O U U omn c N aJ oa c0 '� cu O O umi O O O 6/ N ra o O C (�O
ar J u c o P c o a c c c 0 v a� x o c c v E c +� Y+ u w m
anaE`L°� cu E
�Ev a,v m 006av�00vvv �uo0 °'13J3v mum
- m a o a° a 3 E a E E v °c a E E a a a .� aci n u° o° a _° J
Ln W
L
al
N L
(O 7
IMA
a!
C
o c
zl O
m M
;c COC
G C
O
O
Y
u
n
E
al
E
0
E
0
E)
v
c L
on �
'^ o
r-
0
c
>
o
O
u
Q-
7
Q -
L
(Q
{n
a1
0
u
0
aA
4-
v
L-
LO
O
0
p
a
r-
L
a)
�
v
v
O
L
ami
Cr
L
C
L
`�
O
C O
. of
C
�
V
C
O
V1 n (d
O
O
two
V)
+J
`�
O v1
OA
� .Q
O
O
CU U
E
u
C
C
O
m
OA'O
O C w _0
O
p
ro n3
ro
c
ra
?� '++ O Y
u
L
d4
ro
n
C a1 EO
i
aJ
O
p
o y
C
r
c
O
v
C
ra
.p
+v
u � E c
�n
u
0
o
$
W
v
v
E c
ai
v
-0
o$ °1 c
a)
4L
O
o O
O`
_CL
Cu
7 as 0
Cu
E
CL
v
N�
�.
a)
ti4
O vi
T
•�
7 m, C
C u
3
�
`
v
O
c m -
Q1 VI
oro
'O^
o
h >
aY' ;Y
u1 O 0 .+T' +O+
u a, 3 u
'a 4s
c
c
3
as
m12+L'� v r
VI
•�
L
i
E C fa
i C�a
W
ba 0
� Q Cu m +L, +'
'�
C
(O fa C
Y y„�
N
N a1 vl
)
E C^ U Y
a,
o
N
"`
E
Y "— a'
ro $ E a, w m
�n
3
ID
E
f
O rp
a�
+,
O ++
a c>
•al
V1 ` O C
�a a`) t o
UD
^ (a C
N
{"'
N
, -0 j.d
,�
O utxo E
0 Om c
.Q }O+
t
'p
�J C
0 O a) —_
f0
E 42
u
).
W
O
T
0
O
al
_� al O
N 7 N -00
O
O
Cu
V1
O
0
t`
C
0
?
'Y
0 0
Cu O
ra c
3
C
o
O
ai
cu
Cu
E
cu
0
3°+
c o
Y ti4
v
C
Y
Cc
x ++
nr
co �_ o
Y T 3 a
o oa
f0
c
aJ al O
`�
O
yL_, O u
G �n ha .c
-OU
+.I
4-
+.+
N
Y C Y
G
L
a
am)u
C vi O O _ O
O
Q
-0 Cu
N
O
N
ra tYa
0u a/ -0
v
v
v
E
'a
v
a E _
o
a
o
-
ai Q
o
�
o �,
't
Cu
L
L
m
ai -0
•Y �n
u
QJ
�/1
Yo
!
by r- a)
C O ++
ar c
U (a Ql
ul
M
0
40
�
�
o
+>—
o v
o
u
m c: 0
u
U
u
u U
fua T C
U 7
i
Y
q VY -1 bfl > C
Q
'�
C C
7 E
(a
>
C C-
--0 v v 2 of
cQ
C
CQC
C
C Q
.O .` O
H
C
al Q
N
O Y C Q m
Ou -O
u u
C C
O
C
O. C >
- H •C W o.
4
C
C
C
2D
N
0
aj
7
t0 'D u
u
�
-
•�
u
u
u vOi
a� a
},
c o c-
c
E
w u
3 '°
CL d L
,°, 0 E R Y v
p O
O o
fa t0
-_
p
a6i
Cu t
O o 0 E 0 0
as
t
Yu
aE
�
O
Y.0 Y
C
�3 C u•— a
c
OA
C
OA
OQ
C
OA
Cu v
E
u
v u
C
• N
Y
J
n. Y
?
�C
�-
I--'
J
W
d
(6
M
3
fD
C
m
T
c
a
z
z
+
C
'O
4-
+1
f0
wwmC
C
a
a
m
c
O
c
c
m
w
�
�1
a.
4.1
'p
`1
•�
0
tv
�,
co
C
to
z
C
L1
=
aimp
i+
OBD
H
I—
9i
H
r-
N
tiom
'Z
a
ao
c
o �
v
C:Ln
M
�
w
v v
U 4J
'C
v�
dq
V)
m
In
O_
a -O
H
C
N
Q)
C
i
N
0�
Q i
O
O
O
Ln
Q
>
N
L
aJ
L
�u07
7
0
L-
L
4
m O m O ' r4 L 0a O
N
7
Y c 'n p,a C L +L+
7 +' m °
M c 3
Z
0 O m b 3 �^ YO d J aJ 3 '00
0
ra C YO C o •E a) a H Z m C o
m
N
m .ca � E m C � L u v
++
N
° v o a 3 3 m +' — o¢ a v
`o
O
+
`m a v E o o � �o m y 7
a
u
O m o v¢ u E v a v u m Q
`1 ° U Ln w
O
N
Ln
i N m N i"' m N y... Oa
CL 3 — =
o°
L
V av +° -a m pQ
°
ai
v
m u a� m y � m a s tin
O
C
txo
C t%1 C C '-0 V 7 ,-
m O a ,n d 7 N C Y ,n C m t
>
_a
u c E tea; ai u^ m a a� p o rn o •+Y Y
�+
O
Q al E L > m U V 'L L vi .�
-0
O
Y o cu 3 -� Cc: .0 C N� m C
O Y W �
al Q C O Ol L 7 m E al C
4+
m
4J
_0
al a=
'�a --u D E
�
-0
>
wC u
m QJ i
Q
QG
CL)vaCL)
F +, „ L o a p 0 .� E O m
N
i1
+; o a *' c u o a r
*'
r°
`, U
F.
U
YO
C U a al N L O O a)
o D C ai
m^ u
o axi a m m a a +L ` a N
'S v a ar o E
v
�
a, a
X c w O> a
!
N
u io c a°i ro
0
p �, ai _ U m d •v� c O. E N •n pa ,n
O
L-
J
Q OV +O+ a) b0 O_ � O t 7 �
C C
U
U
L W
cu Y a Z C N 7 C W C C O i �. °
m
j C
ra o t N" U ar o m 3 8 3 o a r
c
,�
a a" m QJ Q-0 o a' a ° c .g
m
m CL v> m— v o c a+ a
a io I— fO a� a a� 3 Y
+�
m m c c
m ++ L O i N O 7 a C
C
J
Ln m 7
v� b4 C t -, - — 'Y '� m C
° Z.m
Q Y 7 Oa
m
U
U C L m a W C ai CLJ Q aj
>O v a) o
0J
vi
v > pn+-' *'a a Y
°o
°? w o x w o U o f° 3 c u. ami
7
CL H a W W w ,s. U m a U $ a � LL ,H E
N
N
in
r6
f0
41
G
0
c
V
m
M
O
4-
v
t
n
m
0.
V
tko
O
C
C
i1
o
r°
O
OA
a)V-1
L
P4
ai
N