Loading...
Resolution Number 20-12-07-04RESOLUTION NO. 20-12-7-04 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 HISTORIC TOWN CENTER MASTER PLAN REPEAL, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, AND ORDINANCE CHANGE PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2019049084), ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING THE PROJECT WHEREAS, in 2012, the City of San Juan Capistrano ("City") approved an update to the City's 1995 Historic Town Center Master Plan ("HTCMP"), establishing policies and recommendations for guiding future development of the Historic Town Center, significantly expanding the HTCMP area to encompass 150 acres of the City's downtown area, and establishing a Form -Based Code ("FBC") to be used in the HTC area in lieu of the City's existing Zoning code (i.e., Title 9 of the San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code) ("Zoning Code") to implement the goals and polices of the 2012 HTCMP; and WHEREAS, on April 3, 2012, the City Council implemented the 2012 HTCMP and FBC with adoption of four resolutions and enactment of one ordinance, making certain changes to the City's General Plan and incorporating the FBC into the City's Zoning Code to be utilized in the HTC area only, but did not make certain key amendments to the General Plan that were necessary to implement the 2012 HTCMP, resulting in inconsistencies between the adopted 2012 HTCMP, the City's General Plan, and the FBC; and WHEREAS, the City now proposes to remedy such inconsistencies by repealing the 2012 HTCMP and FBC and revising the Zoning Code and General Plan Land Use Element to replace the FBC ("Project"); 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, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, land use/planning, and transportation; and WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study, the City further determined that impacts to agricultural resources, biological resources, energy, geology and soils, hazards and 1 12/7/2020 hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, noise, population/housing, public services, recreation, tribal cultural resources, utilities/service systems, and wildfire, would be less than significant and thus need not be analyzed in detail in the EIR; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, on April 15, 2019, the City sent to the Office of Planning and Research a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") stating that an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number #2019049084) would be prepared; and WHEREAS, seven (7) comment letters were received in response to the NOP; and WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") was prepared, incorporating comments received in response to the NOP; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR determined that mitigation measures were required to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level for aesthetics; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR further concluded that despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the proposed Project would nonetheless result in significant and unavoidable impacts relating to air quality and cultural resources; 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 April 15, 2019; 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 April 15, 2019; and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the Draft EIR and technical appendices were available for review and inspection at City Hall and on the City's website; 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 June 22, 2020 to August 5, 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 two (2) written comment letters on the Draft EIR; 2 12/7/2020 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 November 25, 2020; and WHEREAS, on October 27, 2020 and November 10, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted publics hearings to consider the Draft EIR, General Plan Amendment 18-001, and Code Amendment 18-001 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 October 21, 2020, the City released the 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, 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 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 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 3 12/7/2020 WHEREAS, the City finds that even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR that are significant and unavoidable are described in Section IV of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section V of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the potential significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from the proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section VI of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the existence of any growth -inducing impacts resulting from the proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section VII of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, alternatives to the proposed Project that might further reduce the Project's potential environmental impacts are described in Section VIII of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Statement of Overriding Considerations that indicates the benefits of the Project outweigh the unavoidable significant environmental effects is described in Section IX of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, all the mitigation measures identified in the EIR and necessary to reduce the potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project to a level of less than significant are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in Exhibit B to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including but not limited to the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City and no additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation of the EIR or additional environmental review of the Project under Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and WHEREAS, on December 7, 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 12/7/2020 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 and Statement of Overriding Considerations, which where 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, CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, 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 12/7/2020 APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day Qf D cember 2020. JOHN TALOR, MAYOR r ATTES MART k --R tiS; CITY CLE 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. 20-12-07-04 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of San Juan Capistrano at a Regular meeting thereof, held the 7th day of December 2020, by the following vote: AYE ' COUNCIL MEMBERS NOE COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSE COUNCIL MEMBERS RECO D\ COUNCIL MEMBERS R610, CITY CL K Hart, Bourne, Farias and Mayor Pro Tem Reeve None None Mayor Taylor IA 0 12/7/2020 EXHIBIT A CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 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 and Statement of Overriding Considerations made by the City of San Juan Capistrano, in its capacity as the CEQA lead agency, regarding the Historic Town Center Master Plan Repeal, GPA, and Ordinance Change 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. - 1 - 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 ["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"].) Although 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 Irm 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.) 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 Scenic Resources Threshold: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Findin Less than significant. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 19.) Explanation- Scenic resources are the landscape patterns and features that contribute to the aesthetic distinction of designated highways or corridors (or routes), and hillsides and ridgelines. Eligible scenic highways are located approximately 1.5 miles north (Route 74, Ortega Highway) and 3.1 miles south (Pacific Coast Highway 1) from the Project Area (Caltrans 2018). Ortega Highway is designated as a state Scenic Highway Landscape corridor east of the 1-5 freeway, outside of the Project Area (Caltrans 2018). Travelers along this portion of Ortega Highway are not able to view the Project Area (Google Earth 2019). Travelers along Pacific Coast Highway are also not afforded views into the Project Area due to hills and distance. The proposed repeal of the HTCMP would not affect the character, intensity, or location of existing or future development in the Project Area. Other Project features, including the proposed changes to the zoning code that address setbacks, building heights, allowable FAR in particular circumstances, and the repeal of the FBC would also not damage scenic resources. The City's existing Heritage Tree Ordinance would remain in force, there are no rock outcroppings or state scenic highways in or adjacent to the Project Area (Municipal Code Section 9-2.349). Impacts would be less than significant. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 19.) -3- 2. 14 1. iq 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 B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 20.) Explanation: Illumination standards are regulated by the City in Zoning Ordinance Section 9-3.529. These regulations would remain in effect and would not be affected by Project implementation. The proposed repeal of the HTCMP, associated clarifications to the Zoning Code would not affect any existing language governing light and glare and would not allow future development of a significant nature such that new, substantial sources of light and glare would be permitted in the Project Area. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 20.) AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES Farmland Conversion Threshold: Would the Project convert Primate Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide significance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Finding: No impact. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 21.) Explanation: No designated farmlands are located within the Project Area (FMMP 2016). No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 21.) Agricultural Zoning Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Fid: No impact. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 21.) Explanation: No areas within the Project Area are zoned for agricultural use and no Williamson Act contract are on any lands within the Project Area (FMMP 2016). In addition, the Proposed Project would not impede the City's General Plan goals and policies related to agricultural land preservation (General Plan 1999). No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 21.) -4- 3. Forestland Zoning Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(8)? Finding: No impact. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 21.) Explanation: No farmland or forest land is present in the Project Area (FMMP 2016). No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 21.) 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? Findin : No impact. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 21.) Explanation: No farmland or forest land is present in the Project Area (FMMP 2016). No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 21.) 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 B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 21.) Explanation: No farmland or forest land is present in the Project Area (FMMP 2016). No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 21.) C. AIR QUALITY 1. 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, pp. 53, 56.) -5- Explanation: The Proposed Project itself would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non -attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard. The following section calculates the potential air emissions associated with the construction and operations of the Proposed Project and compares the emissions to the SCAQMD standards. Construction Emissions The construction emissions have been analyzed for both regional and local air quality impacts. Construction -Related Regional Impacts The CalEEMod model has been utilized to calculate the construction -related regional emissions from the Proposed Project and the input parameters utilized in this analysis have been detailed in Appendix C of the Draft EIR. The worst-case summer or winter daily construction -related criteria pollutant emissions from the Proposed Project for each phase of construction activities are shown in Table 3-3 (see Draft EIR, p. 53) and the CalEEMod daily printouts are shown in Appendix C of the Draft EIR. Table 3-3 (see Draft EIR, p. 53) shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the regional emissions thresholds during either demolition, site preparation, grading or the combined building construction, paving, and architectural coatings phases. Therefore, a less than significant regional air quality impact would occur from construction of the Proposed Project. (Draft EIR, p. 53.) Operations- Related Local Air Quality impacts Project -related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. The Proposed Project has been analyzed for the potential local CO emission impacts from the Project -generated vehicular trips and from the potential local air quality impacts from on-site operations. The following analyzes the vehicular CO emissions and local impacts from on-site operations. Local CO Hotspot Impacts from Project -Generated Vehicular Trips CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality impacts. Local air quality impacts can be assessed by comparing future without and with Project CO levels to the State and Federal CO standards of 20 ppm over one hour or 9 ppm over eight hours. At the time of the 1993 Handbook, the Air 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 technologies on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the Air Basin and in the state have steadily declined. According to the SCAQMD Air Quality Data Tables, in 2007 the Saddleback Valley had maximum CO concentrations of 3 ppm for 1 hour and 2.2 ppm for 8 -hours and in 2018 the Saddleback Valley had maximum CO concentrations of 1.2 ppm for 1 -hour and 0.9 ppm for 8 -hours, which represent decreases in CO concentrations of 60 percent and 59 percent, respectively between 2018 and 2007. In 2007, the Air Basin was designated in attainment for CO under both the CAAQS and NAAQS. SCAQMD conducted a CO hot spot analysis for attainment at the busiest intersections in Los Angeles during the peak morning and afternoon periods and did not predict a violation of CO standards. Since the nearby intersections to the Proposed Project are much smaller with less traffic than what was analyzed by the SCAQMD and since the CO concentrations are now approximately 60 percent lower than when CO was designated in attainment in 2007, no local CO Hotspot are anticipated to be created from the Proposed Project and no CO Hotspot modeling was performed. Therefore, a less than significant long-term air quality impact is anticipated to local air quality with the on-going use of the Proposed Project. (Draft EIR, p. 56.) 2. Sensitive Receptors Threshold: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 57-59.) Explanation: The Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The local concentrations of criteria pollutant emissions produced in the nearby vicinity of the Proposed Project, which may expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations have been calculated for both construction and operations, which are discussed separately in the DEIR. The discussion in the DEIR also includes an analysis of the potential impacts from toxic air contaminant emissions. The nearest sensitive receptors to the HTC Area are the residences located on the west side of the railroad, approximately 40 feet west of the HTC -7- Area. The nearest schools to the project site are San Juan Elementary School located on the north side of Spring Street, approximately 60 feet north of the HTC Area and Junipero Serra High School located on the north side of Acjachema Street, approximately 40 feet north of the HTC Area. Construction -Related Sensitive Receptor Impacts The construction activities that may occur for implementation of the Proposed Project would typically include: 1) Demolition, 2) Site preparation, 3) Grading, 4) Building construction, 5) Paving, and 6) Application of architectural coatings. Construction activities may expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of localized criteria pollutant concentrations and from toxic air contaminant emissions created from onsite construction equipment, which are described below. Toxic Air Contaminants Impacts from Construction The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the Proposed Project. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of "individual cancer risk". "Individual Cancer Risk" is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 70 -year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk -assessment methodology. It should be noted that the most current cancer risk assessment methodology recommends analyzing a 30 year exposure period for the nearby sensitive receptors (Vista 2020). Given the relatively limited number of heavy-duty construction equipment, the varying distances that construction equipment would operate to the nearby sensitive receptors, and the short-term construction schedule, the Proposed Project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 30 or 70 years) substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk. In addition, California Code of Regulations Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 regulates emissions from off-road diesel equipment in California. This regulation limits idling of equipment to no more than five minutes, requires equipment operators to label each piece of equipment and provide annual reports to CARB of their fleet's usage and emissions. This regulation also requires systematic upgrading of the emission Tier level of each fleet, and currently no commercial operator is allowed to purchase Tier 0 or Tier 1 equipment and by January 2023 no commercial operator is allowed to purchase Tier 2 equipment. In addition to the purchase W:10 restrictions, equipment operators need to meet fleet average emissions targets that become more stringent each year between years 2014 and 2023. Therefore, since the majority if not all construction within the HTC Area would occur in 2023 or later, when the most stringent equipment standards will be in effect, no significant short-term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during construction of the Proposed Project. As such, construction of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Operations -Related Sensitive Receptor Impacts The on-going operations of the Proposed Project may expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of local CO emission impacts from the project -generated vehicular trips and from the potential local air quality impacts from onsite operations. The following analyzes the vehicular CO emissions. Local criteria pollutant impacts from onsite operations, and toxic air contaminant impacts. Local CO Hotspot Impacts from Pro'ect-Generated Vehicle Tri s CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential impacts to sensitive receptors. The analysis provided above shows that no local CO Hotspots are anticipated to be created at any nearby intersections from the vehicle traffic generated by the Proposed Project. Therefore, operation of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant exposure of offsite sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Operations -Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts Particulate matter (PM) from diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in most areas and according to The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition, prepared by CARIB, about 80 percent of the outdoor TAC cancer risk is from diesel exhaust. Some chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde have been listed as carcinogens by State Proposition 65 and the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants program. Due to the nominal number of diesel truck trips that are anticipated to be generated by implementation of the Proposed Project, a less than significant TAC impact would occur during the on-going operations of the Proposed Project and no mitigation would be required. Therefore, operation of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (Draft EIR, pp. 57-59.) 3. 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. (Draft EIR, pp. 60-61.) Explanation: The Proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Individual responses to odors are highly variable and can result in a variety of effects. Generally, the impact of an odor results from a variety of factors such as frequency, duration, offensiveness, location, and sensory perception. The frequency is a measure of how often an individual is exposed to an odor in the ambient environment. The intensity refers to an individual's or group's perception of the odor strength or concentration. The duration of an odor refers to the elapsed time over which an odor is experienced. The offensiveness of the odor is the subjective rating of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of an odor. The location accounts for the type of area in which a potentially affected person lives, works, or visits; the type of activity in which he or she is engaged; and the sensitivity of the impacted receptor. Sensory perception has four major components: detectability, intensity, character, and hedonic tone. The detection (or threshold) of an odor is based on a panel of responses to the odor. There are two types of thresholds: the odor detection threshold and the recognition threshold. The detection threshold is the lowest concentration of an odor that will elicit a response in a percentage of the people that live and work in the immediate vicinity of the Project site and is typically presented as the mean (or 50 percent of the population). The recognition threshold is the minimum concentration that is recognized as having a characteristic odor quality, this is typically represented by recognition by 50 percent of the population. The intensity refers to the perceived strength of the odor. The odor character is what the substance smells like. The hedonic tone is a judgment of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the odor. The hedonic tone varies in subjective experience, frequency, odor character, odor intensity, and duration. Potential odor impacts have been analyzed separately for construction and operations below. -10- Construction -Related Odor Impacts Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of coatings such as asphalt pavement, paints and solvents and from emissions from diesel equipment. The objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project site's boundaries. Due to the transitory nature of construction odors, a less than significant odor impact would occur and no mitigation would be required. Operations -Related Odor Impacts The Proposed Project would consist of removing inconsistencies that currently exist between the HTCMP, General Plan and FBC. The proposed revisions to the HTCMP have the potential to result in slightly higher densities of non-residential land uses within the HTC, while removing the residential component within the HTC. Land uses typically associated with odors include wastewater treatment facilities, waste -disposal facilities, specialized industrial uses that include chemical manufacturing, fiberglass manufacturing, and painting/coating operations, or agricultural operations. None of these types of uses would be allowed within the HTC Area. As such, the Project's long-term operational activities are not anticipated to create odor emissions that would generate numerous odor complaints. Therefore, a less than significant odor impact would occur from operation of the Proposed Project and no mitigation would be required. (Draft EIR, pp. 60-61.) D. 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: No impact. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 26.) Explanation: The only natural features in the Project Area that are protected by laws or regulations with respect to biological resources are Heritage Trees, addressed in Municipal Code Section 9-2.349. The repeal of the HTCMP, clarifications to the FBC, and the changes to the FBC parking table would not affect Heritage Trees as none of these - 11 - Project features would allow development that would conflict with relevant provisions of the Municipal Code. Clarification of building heights and an increase in allowable FAR for buildings classed as public gathering space do not have the potential to affect biological sensitive species or their habitat. No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 26.) 2. Riparian Habitat Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: No impact. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 26.) Explanation: The Project site is an urbanized area. No identified riparian habitat, wetlands, or other sensitive natural community exists within its footprint (USFWS 2018). No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 26.) 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: No impact. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 26.) Explanation: There are no documented wetlands in or adjacent to the Project Area. No impacts would occur (USFWS 2018). No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 26.) 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: No impact. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 26.) Explanation: The Project Area is completely urbanized; no wildlife corridors or nursery sites are present in or adjacent to the Project Area (USFWS 2018). No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 26.) -12- 5. Local Policies and Ordinances Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Finding: No impact. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 26.) Explanation- The proposed repeal of the HTCMP and amendment of the FBC, along with associated actions including an increase of allowable FAR, increased building heights for hotels, setback adjustments, and the changes to the FBC parking table would have no effect on existing policy related to the protection and removal of trees in the Project Area. Municipal Code Section 9-2.349, Heritage Trees, would remain in effect. No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 26.) 6. Habitat Conservation Plans Threshold: Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Finding: No impact. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 27.) Explanation: As the repeal of the HTCMP and amendment of the FBC associated with Project implementation primarily serves to repeal a policy document that addressed the form of development, rather than the location of that development, and it was never enforced due to conflicts with the City's adopted General Plan, FBC, and Zoning Code, no impacts would occur. Future development in the Project footprint would still be guided by the General Plan and Zoning Code, and none of the proposed clarifications to the FBC or the changes to the FBC parking table could potentially affect adopted habitat conservation plans. No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 27.) E. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Archaeological Resources Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15064.5? Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 28.) Explanation: Archaeological resources have been documented in the Project Area. However, no Project actions would affect the footprint of any -13- existing or future development in the Project Area and would actually serve to potentially decrease the footprint of new construction adjacent to existing historical resources. As such, no impacts to archaeological resources would occur as a result of the proposed repeal of the HTCMP. Other Project actions, including an increase in allowable FAR, clarification of two-story building and three-story hotel heights, and the amendment of the Zoning Code would not affect the footprints of existing buildings or the form or location of future development. The only exception would be the proposed clarifications to the Zoning Code that new construction must be setback from existing historic structures at least one foot for every foot in new building height. Future activity would continue to be regulated by the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance that would be amended as described above. As no Project feature would increase the allowable footprint of current or future development, impacts would be less than significant. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 28.) F. ENERGY 1. Wasteful Use of Energy Threshold: Would the Project result in potentially significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Finding: No impact. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 30.) Explanation: The proposed repeal of the HTCMP and FBC and associated changes in FAR, building heights, and setbacks would not affect the energy consumption of either existing or proposed structures. The HTCMP is a policy document that was intended to guide the appearance of new development in the Project Area and does not affect energy consumption. No aspects of the Project propose specific new development, and relevant policies in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance would remain in effect. No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 30.) 2. Energy Efficiency Plans Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state of local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Finding: No impact. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 30.) -14- Explanation: The implementation of the HTCMP and FBC did not affect policies or plans for renewable energy usage or energy efficiency. The repeal of these documents and the associated changes in building heights, and setbacks would therefore not result in conflicts with or obstruction of State or local plans on these topics. No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 30.) G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 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: No impact. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], pp. 31-32.) Explanation: Fault Ru Lure The implementation of the Proposed Project does not have the potential to cause potential adverse effects with respect to earthquake faulting. The Project proposes the repeal of a policy document and other land use plan revisions. No aspect of these actions could affect development in areas known to be prone to faulting as no faults are known to traverse the Project Area. In addition, CEQA requires an examination of Project impacts on the environment, not the environment's potential to affect a Project. As no future development in the Project Area that could be affected by Project implementation has the potential to exacerbate existing faulting hazards, no impacts would occur. Seismic Ground Shaking Any development that would occur following the Proposed Project would continue to be subject the provisions of the City's General Plan Safety Element, Zoning Ordinance, and the California Building Code (CBC). As a result, the form, location, and nature of future development would not be impacted by Project implementation. In addition, CEQA requires the analysis of a Project's potential impacts on the environment. Any adverse effects, such as strong seismic ground shaking, that could affect development in the Project Area would be an example of the environment affecting the Project. This is not an adverse impact under CEQA. Therefore, no impacts would occur. -15- Seismic -Related Ground Failure The Proposed Project does not include features that would change the footprint or the general nature of development in the Project Area. The ability for future development to be located in areas prone to seismic -related ground failure would be unaffected by Project implementation. In addition, any development that would occur following the repeal of the HTCMP, amendment of the FBC, and associated adjustments in allowable FAR, building heights, setbacks, and changes to the FBC parking table would continue to be subject to the provisions of the City's General Plan Safety Element, Zoning Ordinance, and the CBC. As a result, adverse effects regarding liquefaction would not occur. In addition, CEQA requires the analysis of a Project's potential impacts on the environment. Any adverse effects, such as liquefaction, that could affect development in the Project Area would be an example of the environment affecting the Project. This is not an adverse impact under CEQA. Therefore, no impacts would occur. Landslides There are no slopes in or adjacent to the Project Area that could cause landslides affecting people or structures as the Project Area itself is generally flat and is separated from hillsides by 1-5. In addition, no Project feature would place people or structures in such zones; land use in the Project Area would be governed by the General Plan Land Use Map, Safety Element, Zoning Ordinance, and the CBC. No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], pp. 31-32.) 2. Soil Erosion Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Finding: No impact. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 33.) Explanation: The repeal of the HTCMP would not significantly affect the form, location, or nature of future development. Other project features, including changes in FAR under specific circumstances, clarification of building heights, setbacks, and the changes to the FBC parking table do not have the potential to affect soil erosion. Any future development in the Project Area would continue to be regulated by the City's General Plan Safety Element, Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, the amended FBC, and the CBC. This includes regulations covered under the State's Construction General Permit (CGP), enforced by the preparation of and adherence to Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) -16- that would detail appropriate project -level Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to minimize erosion. Impacts as a result of Project implementation would therefore be less than significant. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 33.) 3. Unstable Soils Threshold: Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Finding: No impact. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 33.) Explanation, The Proposed Project does not have the potential to affect soils in the Project Area such that future development would be at increased risk of adverse impacts associated with unstable or expansive soils. The Project proposes the repeal of a policy document, clarifications to the FBC including setbacks and allowable FAR, and the changes to the FBC parking table. None of these actions could affect soils in the Project Area. In addition, all relevant provisions of the General Plan Safety Element, Zoning Ordinance, and CBC would remain in effect. In addition, future projects in the Project Area would be required to implement BMPs as detailed in a SWPPP that complies with the State's CGP. No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 33.) 4. Expansive Soils Threshold: Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? Finding: No impact. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 33.) Explanation: As with potential impacts associated with unstable soils, the Project would not affect the location or general nature of future development, including the potential for it to be located on expansive soils. In addition, all relevant provisions of the General Plan Safety Element, Zoning Ordinance, and CBC would remain in effect. In addition, no aspect of the Proposed Project has the potential to create or exacerbate risks from expansive soils. No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 33.) -17- 5 6. H 1. 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 B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 34.) Explanation: The adopted HTCMP and FBC do not address sewer or septic connections, and existing City policy requires new development to connect to the sewer system (Municipal Code). No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 34.) Paleontological Resources Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 34.) Explanation: The Proposed Project does not call for any specific new development; it would serve to clarify the form of future development in terms of setbacks from historic structures, increase in allowable FAR, and height limits on hotels. Future projects would be required to undergo their own project -specific environmental review, including potential mitigation measures that would address the possibility of encountering paleontological resources during excavation or other construction. As a result, impacts on paleontological resources as a result of the implementation of this Project would be less than significant. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 34. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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, pp. 83-85.) Explanation: Implementation of the Proposed Project may generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The Proposed Project would consist of the operation of the proposed land uses as detailed in Table 3-2 of the Draft EIR. Operational activities would result in 9M 2. GHG emissions of: (1) Area sources that include emissions from landscaping equipment; (2) Energy usage that include natural gas and electrical appliances; and (3) mobile sources that include emissions from automobile and truck trips generated by the proposed land uses. The data provided in Table 3-8 of the Draft EIR shows that implementation of all potential development within the HTC Area with adoption of the Project would create 7,076.54 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year, which is equivalent to 1.24 MTCO2e per year per service population. According to the threshold of significance, a cumulative global climate change impact would occur if the GHG emissions exceed 4.0 MTCO2e per year per service population for the year 2040. Therefore, a less than significant generation of greenhouse gas emissions would occur from construction and operation of the Proposed Project. (Draft EIR, pp. 83-85.) 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? Fi_ nding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 85.) Explanation: The Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The proposed project would consist of removing inconsistencies that currently exist between the HTCMP, General Plan and FBC. The proposed revisions to the HTCMP have the potential to result in slightly higher densities of non- residential land uses within the HTC area, while removing the residential component within the HTC area. The Proposed Project is anticipated to create 7,076.54 MTCO2e per year, which is equivalent to 1.24 MTCO2e per year per service population, which is well below the 4.0 MTCO2e per service population for the year 2040 that was determined through linear interpolation of the 2017 Scoping Plan goals of 6 MTCO2e per service population for the year 2030 and 2 MTCO2e per service population for the year 2050. Utilization of the thresholds provided in the Scoping Plan represent the rate of GHG emission reductions necessary for the City to achieve its fair share of statewide GHG emission reductions necessary to meet the State's long-term GHG emissions reduction targets. It should also be noted that the entire HTC area is within walking distance of the San Juan Capistrano Metrolink/Amtrak Station, the Project would conform to the goals -19- provided in the RTP/SCS that include Goal 8: Encourage land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and active transportation. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. (Draft EIR, p. 85.) 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 B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], pp. 36-37) Explanation: The HTCMP does not have specific language governing the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Such materials have been governed by the goals and policies of the General Plan Safety and Circulation elements, as well as the Zoning Code. As a result, the repeal of the HTCMP would not impact how hazardous materials are used, transported, or disposed of in the Project Area. Other aspects of the Proposed Project, including clarifications to the FBC with respect to setbacks adjacent to historic structures, building heights, changes in allowable FAR, and change to the FBC parking table, do not have elements that would impact hazardous materials in the Project Area. Impacts would be less than significant. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], pp. 36-37) 2. Accident or Upset 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: No impact. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 37) Explanation: The proposed repeal of the HTCMP itself would not generate impacts with respect to the potential for release of hazardous materials in the Project Area. The HTCMP document does not address this issue directly as it is covered in the relevant portions of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. No other Project features associated with clarifications in the FBC would impact existing conditions such that there could be an increase in the risk for -20- release of hazardous materials; these elements clarify specific restrictions on land use only. In addition, all federal, State, and local regulations governing such materials would continue to be enforced. Impacts would be less than significant. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 37) 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? Fin_ ding: No impact. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 37) Explanation: The proposed repeal of the HTCMP would not affect land uses in the Project Area as they relate to protentional hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous materials. There are no specific structures proposed as part of the Project, and the clarifications to the FBC would not affect hazardous emissions or materials as outlined in State or federal regulations, or the General Plan. Impacts would therefore be less than significant. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 37) 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 B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 37) Explanation: Although hazardous materials sites are in the Project Area, development on these sites has been governed by the General Plan as the tenets of the HTCMP were never enforced. As a result, the repeal of the HTCMP would not change the location or nature of future development in the Project Area. Elements related to the clarifications proposed to the FBC do not have the potential to significantly affect future development as they are related to setbacks, building heights, and allowable FAR. No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 37) 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? -21- 6. 7. Finding: No impact. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 37) Explanation: The Project Area is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or public use airport (Google Earth 2019). No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 37) 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 B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 38) Explanation: The HTCMP was never enforced as it conflicted with the City's General Plan. As a result, its repeal would not change the nature or location of future development in the Project Area. The setback and building height clarifications proposed for the FBC would not interfere with adopted emergency response plans as they do not affect roadway usage, including any increases in traffic or road closures. Increases in allowable FAR are proposed. The resulting increase in density would not represent a significant change in existing conditions. Because no Project elements would directly lead to road closures or increased traffic, and the changes to the FBC parking table would not impact traffic on Project Area roadways, impacts would be less than significant. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 38) 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: No impact. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 38) Explanation- The footprint of development in the Project Area would not significantly change because of Project implementation, and a prohibition on residential land uses in the Project Area would be clarified. In addition, there are no wildlands in or adjacent to the Project Area. Although portions of the City, and areas surrounding the City are designated as "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones," none of these areas are located within or adjacent to the Project Area (Cal Fire 2007, 2011). No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 38) -22- J. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Water Quality Standards Threshold: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], pp. 39-40.) Explanation: No elements of the Proposed Project would affect surface or ground water quality. None of the Project elements affect land use in the Project Area in terms of potential impacts to the general nature of development that could affect water quality. Because the form, nature, and location of development would be unaffected, surface and groundwater would also be unaffected. In addition, any new development that would occur after Project implementation would be required to conform to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations with respect to water quality. This includes compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements under the Clean Water Act (CWA), including the implementation of BMPs on construction sites as detailed in SWPPPs. Impacts would be therefore less than significant. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], pp. 39-40.) 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? Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 40.) Explanation: No aspect of the Proposed Project would affect the form, location, or nature of development in the Project Area in any way that could result in an increase in impervious surfaces in the Project Area, thereby affecting groundwater recharge. The Proposed Project would make clarifications to allowable land use but would not cause an increase in the footprint of development. New setbacks associated with the Proposed Project with regard to historic structures could lead to a decrease in impermeable surfaces in the Project Area. As a result, groundwater recharge potential would be unaffected by Project implementation. Impacts would be less than significant. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 40.) -23- 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? Findin : Less than significant. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 40.) Explanation: No aspect of the Proposed Project would affect the form, location, or nature of development in the Project Area in any way that could result in an increase in impervious surfaces in the Project Area, thereby affecting groundwater recharge. The Proposed Project would make clarifications to allowable land use but would not cause an increase in the footprint of development. New setbacks associated with the Proposed Project with regard to historic structures could lead to a decrease in impermeable surfaces in the Project Area. As a result, groundwater recharge potential would be unaffected by Project implementation. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further study is required. The Proposed Project does not propose specific development and as a result would not directly lead to the potential for an increase in erosion or siltation associated with construction. Future projects that could occur in the Project Area would have similar erosion - related impacts as future projects that could occur without implementation of the Proposed Project, and would themselves be subject to environmental review, including potential project design features or mitigation associated with stormwater runoff including effects such as erosion or siltation. This could include the implementation of stormwater control measures (BMPs) detailed in SWPPPs. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further study is required. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 40.) 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 B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 40.) Explanation: The Proposed Project does not propose specific development and as a result would not directly lead to the potential for an increase -24- surface runoff as a result of an increase in impermeable surfaces. The Proposed Project would also increase setbacks associated with new development adjacent to historic structures thereby potentially serving to reduce the amount of impermeable surfaces in the Project Area. Future projects that could occur in the Project Area would have similar runoff -related impacts as future projects that could occur without implementation of the Proposed Project, and would themselves be subject to environmental review, including potential project design features or mitigation associated with surface runoff. Impacts would be less than significant. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 40.) 5. Runoff Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantially additional sources of polluted runoff or impede or redirect flood flows? Finding'. Less than significant. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 40.) Explanation: The Proposed Project neither proposes specific development nor allows future development of a nature that could affect existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Specific future development would be required to undergo environmental review that would include an evaluation of potential impacts on stormwater drainage systems. Runoff would be managed by both temporary (construction -related) and permanent BMPs. Impacts would be less than significant. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 40.) 6. Flood Hazard Threshold: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the Project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Finding: No impact. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 41.) Explanation: The Project Area is not in a flood hazard zone, is far enough inland that it is not at risk from impacts associated with tsunamis, and there are no bodies of water in or adjacent to the Project Area that could produce seiche conditions (General Plan 1999). No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 41.) -25- 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: No impact. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 41.) Explanation: Project implementation would not affect the form, nature, or location of future development in the Project Area. As a result, any existing water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan would be unaffected by Project implementation. In addition, all future development would be required to comply with CWA Section 402 NPDES requirements, including the implementation of BMPs as described in a SWPPP for construction sites. No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 41.) K. LAND USE AND PLANNING 1. Established Communities Threshold: Would the Project physically divide an established community? Finding: No impact. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 43.) Explanation: Land use in the Project Area would continue to be governed by the General Plan and Zoning Code. No new specific development is proposed, and none would be allowed under the General Plan Land Use Map or Zoning Ordinance that would specifically permit the construction of features such as roadways that could serve to divide the Project Area. Therefore, no impacts would occur. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 43.) 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? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 96-106) Explanation: The purpose of the Proposed Project is to resolve inconsistencies between the policy documents guiding development within the City. Currently, there are development guideline inconsistencies between the HTCMP (City 2012a), the City of San Juan Capistrano General Plan (City 1999), and the FBC (City 2012b). As such, the Proposed Project proposes several actions to remedy the -26- inconsistencies, as identified above. The City not only intends to initiate the General Plan Amendment but is also proposing to repeal the HTCMP and the FBC. The repeal of the HTCMP document and the FBC would clarify allowable land uses in the Project area as it would leave the General Plan and the Zoning Code as the policy documents regulating land use in the Project area. This clarification would be furthered by the proposed language in the accompanying GPA and Zoning Ordinance clarifying FAR, building heights, parking, and setbacks in the Project area by way of amendment to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. In addition, repealing the HTCMP would result in maintaining the existing roadway network and eliminate the identified future roadway connections proposed in the HTCMP, including the proposed extensions of Forster Street, Yorba Street, and Avenida Los Amigos. Although the FBC will be repealed, the Zoning Code text amendments will include incorporating elements of the FBC into the zoning code for the HTC area, specifically for the TC and TCE Districts. In addition to the GPA and Zoning Code that will clarify inconsistencies between existing planning documents, the Proposed Project is proposing to make additional revisions including adopting height limits for two story buildings as well as three story hotels within the HTC area, requiring additional setback for structures proposed adjacent to historic buildings, and readopting and affirming the Park Once Program. The Proposed Project uses are compatible with the existing urban activities. These revisions are consistent with the existing General Plan, as no changes in General Plan -designated land use would be proposed through the Proposed Project. Any new buildings or modifications applied for through a Building Permit will be reviewed for consistency with the development standards. Further, under the HTCMP, residential uses were proposed within the HTC and would be located adjacent to non-residential uses, including retail, office and mixed-use development, thereby resulting in potentially incompatible uses. Under the HTCMP, incompatibility may exist between the potential residential uses and non-residential on-site noise generators, which include parking structures, and parking lots, loading docks, and music associated with commercial activities. These potential incompatibilities would be eliminated under the Proposed Project. In order to adequately determine the Proposed Project's compliance with applicable plans related to transportation, future -27- transportation conditions for the 2040 horizon year of the Proposed Project have been calculated and compared to the No Project scenario conditions. Roadway Network The Proposed Project and the No Project Scenario would provide a circulation network to maintain capacities of existing roads, accommodate multiple modes and improve operations. The City's current 7 -Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 2016-2023 also includes: • Construction of a new left turn at the intersection of Ortega Highway and Del Obispo. The left turn will be from westbound Ortega Highway into the Del Taco driveway. The No Project scenario also provides extensions of local roads (Yorba Street, Forster Street, and Avenida Los Amigos from Camino Capistrano to portions of Del Obispo and EI Camino Real). These extensions are not assumed as part of the Proposed Project. Although analyzed as part of the HTCMP Program EIR, these roadway extensions were not implemented and were not incorporated into the General Plan Circulation Element. Traffic Forecast The horizon year 2040 was chosen to be consistent with the Orange County Transportation Analysis model, to analyze impacts in future years. The traffic volumes were first developed for the Proposed Project, which represents a lower number of vehicle trips within the Project area and then the No Project forecast were developed using the Proposed Project as a basis. Traffic Operations Intersection and roadway operations were evaluated for the No Project and Proposed Project. IntPrcPrtinnc Under both the No Project and Proposed Project all study intersections meet the City's LOS standard using the ICU method. The hot spot study intersections are forecasted to operate at LOS E or better and the non -hot spot, are expected to operate at LOS C or better. A comparison of both alternatives shows that differences in intersection operations are minimal. Similar to the ICU method under both the No Project and Proposed 'I• Project all study intersections meet the City's LOS standard using the HCM method. All non -hot spot study intersections operate at LOS D or better during the weekday peak hours intersections and all hot spot intersections meet the LOS E standard. Based on the review of intersection operations, no additional impacts are identified for the Proposed Project alternative. Generally, the No Project intersection operations are anticipated to have slightly higher V/C ratios and delays compared to the Proposed Project. This is due to the No Project including residential uses in the Project area, which would add population density to the Project area. However, the Proposed Project has slightly higher v/c ratios and delays at intersections along the Ortega Highway corridor from Camino Capistrano to Del Obispo Street and at the Camino Capistrano/Verdugo Street intersection. These results are consistent with the comparison of traffic volume forecasts for the two scenarios. Roadways All the study roadway segments meet the LOS standard except for two segments: Ortega Highway between Rancho Viejo Road and I- 5 NB Ramp and Del Obispo Street between Camino Capistrano and Paseo Adelanto. These segments are anticipated to operate at LOS F in 2040 under both the No Project and Proposed Project with the No Project volumes and v/c ratio slightly higher than the Proposed Project. Both Ortega Highway and Del Obispo Street segments are approximately 800 -feet long with the major intersections. Operations along both the Ortega Highway and Del Obispo Street segments are mainly controlled by the intersections given the short length. There is additional capacity along both these segments with the turn lanes that are provided at the major intersections at Rancho Viejo Road and 1-5 NB Ramp along Ortega Highway and at Camino Capistrano and Paseo Adelanto along Del Obispo Street. The intersection operations show that Ortega Highway/Rancho Viejo Road, Ortega Highway/1-5 Northbound Ramp, Camino Capistrano/Del Obispo Street, and Paseo Adelanto/Del Obispo Street all meet the City's LOS standard during the weekday AM and PM peak hours for both the No Project and Proposed Project. The purpose and result of implementation of the Proposed Project will be consistency between the policy documents regulating land use in the Project area, as well as revisions to height, setbacks, and parking requirements within the HTC which would not conflict with the applicable land use plans and policies. As demonstrated above, activities associated with implementation of the Proposed -29- Project would not substantially conflict with adjacent land uses. The Proposed Project is intended to provide a variety of commercial opportunities within an existing employment center and area of urban activity. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 96-106) L. MINERAL RESOURCES 1. Regional and Statewide Mineral Resources Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Finding: No impact. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], pp. 43-44.) Explanation: The Project Area is located along the eastern flank of the San Joaquin Hills. It is underlain by Pleisto-cene to Holocene -aged alluvium and non -marine terrace deposits, in addition to Older and Younger Alluvial Deposit. The Project Area is not located within any known mineral resources areas (HTCMP EIR 2011). No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], pp. 43-44.) 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 B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 44.) Explanation: The Project Area is located along the eastern flank of the San Joaquin Hills. It is underlain by Pleisto-cene to Holocene -aged alluvium and non -marine terrace deposits, in addition to Older and Younger Alluvial Deposit. The Project Area is not located within any known mineral resources areas (HTCMP EIR 2011). No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 44.) M. NOISE 1. Noise Standards Threshold: Would the Project result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? -30- Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], pp. 44-45.) Explanation- The Proposed Project does not include specific construction but would permit an increase in FAR for buildings that include provisions for public gathering space, clarify the FBC parking standards, allow an increase in height to 45 feet for three-story hotel buildings, and clarify setbacks from historical structures. However, because the Project Area would remain a developed, urban environment — consistent with existing conditions — and because the Project elements described above would not apply to the entirety of the Project Area, impacts with regard to noise levels would be expected to be less than significant. This is in great part because noise generated within the Project Area without implementation of the Proposed Project, and noise generated within the Project Area with implementation of the Proposed Project, are not expected to be substantially different. In addition, future construction that would occur subsequent to Project implementation would be subject to the City's General Plan Noise Element and Title 9, Land Use Code regulations (General Plan 1999). (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], pp. 44-45.) 2. 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. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 45.) Explanation: Construction of new development or renovation of existing - structures that could occur upon Project implementation would remain subject to the City's General Plan Noise Element and Title 9, Land Use Code regulations (General Plan 1999). The nature of such development would remain substantially consistent with that which is currently allowed as the HTCMP was never implemented due to conflicts with the City's General Plan, and in allowable building heights would only occur in parts of the Project Area. Impacts would therefore be less than significant. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 45.) 3. Airport Noise Threshold: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? -31 - Finding: No impact. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 45.) Explanation: The Project Area is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan (Google Earth 2019). No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 45.) 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 B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 46.) Explanation: The population of Orange County surpassed three million people as of the 2010 Census. The City's population was 34,593 at that time (U.S. Census 2010). The Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) has contracted with California State University, Fullerton to update demographic projects for the County every three to four years to incorporate General Plan Amendments and changes in land use policy at the jurisdictional level. According to these projections, the County's population is expected to exceed 3.5 million people by 2020, with the City of San Juan Capistrano's population reaching 40,742. Current projections run through 2035, at which time the City's population is expected to level off at just over 41,000 people (HTCMP EIR 2011). The proposed repeal of the HTCMP would result in clarifying the General Plan Land Use Map's prohibition on residential land uses in the Project Area (General Plan 1999). Further clarifications to the Zoning Ordinance would not affect population in the Project Area as the clarifications are related to setbacks, buildings heights, and increases in allowable FAR under non-residential conditions. As a result, population growth would not occur in the Project Area because of Project implementation. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 46.) 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? -32- Findin : No impact. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 46.) Explanation: The proposed repeal of the HTCMP would clarify allowable land uses under the General Plan, specifically through repealing language allowing housing in the Project Area. The proposed clarifications to the FBC would not affect people or housing as they relate to minor land use clarifications with respect to setbacks, buildings heights, allowable FAR for buildings classed as public gathering space, or the changes to the FBC parking table. As a result, no impacts on housing or the displacement of people would occur. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 46.) O. PUBLIC SERVICES 1. Fire Protection Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection? Finding: No impact. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 47.) Explanation: Implementation of the Project would result in the repeal of the HTCMP and the FBC, neither which affected land use or intensity within the Project Area as both were inconsistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Although changes in allowable FAR, building heights, setbacks would occur under the Proposed Project, these do not represent a significant departure from existing conditions and would therefore not require the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities related to fire protection. Existing fire protection would remain adequate for the Project Area. No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 47.) 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? -33- Finding: No impact. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 48.) Explanation: Implementation would result in the repeal of the HTCMP and amendment to the FBC, described above, that would affect allowable FAR, building height limits for hotels, changes to the FBC parking table, and setback adjustments to bring certain existing properties into conformance with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. None of these actions would affect the need for police services as they would not result in a change in land use or intensity of development such that additional police would be needed in and around the Project Area. No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 48.) 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: No impact. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 48.) Explanation: The HTCMP is proposed to be repealed due in large part to the fact that it conflicts with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, specifically in that it would allow housing in the Project Area. The repeal of this document would therefore clarify that housing would not be an allowable land use in the Project Area. Therefore, the repeal of the HTCMP would not necessitate the need for new or altered governmental facilities. In addition, Project aspects with respect to FAR, setbacks, building heights, and the FBC parking standards have no features that could result in a need for new or altered governmental facilities. No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 48.) 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: No impact. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 48.) Explanation: The Proposed Project would not increase population in or around -34- the Project Area. As a result, there would not be a need for new or expanded park facilities as a result of Project implementation. No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 48.) 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? Finding: No impact. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 48.) Explanation_: Because no growth would occur in or adjacent to the Project Area as a result of Project implementation, no impacts with regard to public facilities would occur. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 48.) P. RECREATION 1. Increased Use Threshold: Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Finding: No impact. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 49.) Explanation: Implementation of the Proposed Project would affect neither housing nor population growth in or adjacent to the Project Area. The area is largely built out and future development would not increase density or change land use in the Project Area at a significant level. Parks would be unaffected. No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 49.) 2. Construction and Expansion Threshold: Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Finding: No impact. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 49.) Explanation: The Proposed Project does not include recreational facilities and would not induce population growth. No new facilities would be required, nor would existing facilities need to be expanded as a -35- result of Project implementation. No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 49.) Q. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC 1. Plans, Policies, and Ordinances Threshold: Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 111-113.) Explanation: Vehicle Miles Traveled The review of VMT impacts focuses on how land use projects influence automobile use and removes the focus on intersection and roadway traffic. The City of San Juan Capistrano has adopted VMT guidelines and thresholds that were used in this analysis. The City's VMT threshold strives to keep the project VMT per service population less than the current City average even with growth related to land use development. Achieving this VMT threshold means that there would be less vehicle miles traveled by HCT population compared to the City as a whole. Cities and developments are able to achieve this threshold by providing alternatives to driving alone such as transit, telecommuting, rideshare, walking and biking facilities as well as increasing land densities and mixes of uses so that people do not have to travel long distances for living, working and playing. Following the City's CEQA Analysis VMT screening guidance, areas within a Y2 mile of an existing major transit stop or corridor are considered to have a less than significant impact on VMT. As shown on Figure 8 of the Draft EIR, the majority of the HTC area is within Y2 -mile of the San Juan Capistrano Station, which is considered a major transit stop and corridor. The exception is a small portion of the HCT in the south near 1-5, which is outside of Y2 -mile of the Station. Depending on the land use proposal for the area of the HTC outside Y2 -mile of the Station detailed VMT analysis may or may not be needed; therefore, VMT analysis was conducted to analyze potential VMT impacts of the Alternatives. The No Project Alternative would not meet the City's VMT threshold while the Project Alternative would be below the City's VMT threshold. The VMT per service population is higher for the No Project Alternative due to the residential land uses that would be -36- allowed. The analysis shows for the Project Alternative the VMT impact is not significant, but it could be significant with the No Project Alternative. As described previously, the majority of the Project area is located within '/2 -mile of the San Juan Capistrano Station and VMT impacts would be considered less than significant for those parcels for both the No Project and Project Alternatives. Other areas of the Project area not within '/z -mile of the San Juan Capistrano Station could also have less than significant VMT impacts with the No Project Alternative depending on the specific land use proposal. Non -auto options are readily available in the Project area; and, as transit, transportation demand management, rideshare, and non - motorized improvements are made, vehicle miles traveled would be reduced. The Project area is a walkable part of the City with sidewalks provided on the street network and multipurpose trails. In addition, train and bus access is provided for commuting and regional trips. Access to transit, bicycle facilities and walkable routes is anticipated to be similar for all alternatives. Transit As documented in the HTCMP, the No Project Alternative would promote public transit ridership by proposing non -motorized infrastructure improvements along Ortega Highway and Camino Capistrano and extending local streets. However, no service changes are proposed with the No Project Alternative. The Proposed Project would rely on long-range planning as proposed by the General Plan and transit agencies. The General Plan includes goals related to promoting an advanced public transportation network and providing an extensive public bicycle and pedestrian system. In addition, the OCTA 2018 Long -Range Transportation Plan for 2040 does not have any additional routes added that will serve the Project area. Transit service and connections with the No Project and Proposed Project are anticipated to be similar with no major changes by OCTA, Metrolink, and Amtrak and connections provided to promote use of the system and reduce reliance on auto. Non -motorized The No Project includes improvements such as widened sidewalks, additional crosswalks, pedestrian lighting, and sidewalk bulb -outs along Ortega Highway, Del Obispo Street, and Camino Capistrano as documented in the HTCMP. Additionally, the new pedestrian -37- and bicycle connectors are proposed to the San Juan Capistrano HTC from the north (EI Horno Street underpass), west (new bridge over Trabuco Creek and enhanced Verdugo Street), and from the east (1-5/Ortega Highway realignment for incorporating bicycle lanes). The 1-5/Ortega Highway realignment is completed. As describe above, the Proposed Project would rely on long-range planning as proposed by the General Plan and OCTA. The OCTA 2018 Long -Range Transportation Plan proposes an additional Class 1 Bike Path along Camino Capistrano from Del Obispo Street to La Zanja Street within the study area. Additional connections and improvements with the Proposed Project would be related to development that occurs within the Project area. Parking The No Project includes parking infrastructure projects, the Park Once Program, and 2012 FBC, which includes shared parking and "in -lieu" payments. Although the HTCMP discusses parking and public infrastructure projects, including a parking structure, the Park Once Program itself only involves parking standards that would allow visitors to park one time and be able to access desired locations within a five minute walk from the City -owned public parking lots. The Proposed Project would clarify parking requirements in the HTC area by affirming and readopting the Park Once Program. The Zoning Code would be amended to clarify parking standards consistent with the existing Park Once Program. Conclusion The Proposed Project generally results in less traffic to and from the Project area and traffic operations that are generally similar to or slightly better than the No Project scenario; therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a new significant impact. Implementation of the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impacts with regards to compliance with existing transportation plans covering the Project area. (Draft EIR, pp. 111- 113.) 2. VMT Threshold: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines sections 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 113.) Explanation: The Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts based on the VMT analysis above. Although height of hotels and SEE allowable FAR within the HTC area would be potentially increased, the overall VMT would be reduced with implementation of existing City transit goals. The Proposed Project incorporates the goals and policies of the City's General Plan including measures to increase safety, encouraging developing Complete Streets facilities, and increasing regional connectivity. The City's policies will also require complete streets and consideration of alternative modes, which could encourage alternative travel and potentially reduce vehicle trips especially with improvements that encourage walking between uses thereby reducing excess vehicle trips travelling between uses within the Project area. Orange County Transportation Authority has a LOS E threshold for the CMP Highway System intersections. CMP intersections within the study area include: 1-5 Northbound Ramp/Ortega Highway and 1-5 Southbound Ramp/Ortega Highway. The Proposed Project would not result in any CMP intersections operating at LOS E or below; therefore, this impact is less than significant. In addition, the Proposed Project impacts would be under the VMT thresholds outlined by the City; thus, VMT impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 113.) 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 B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 51.) Explanation: The Proposed Project would not affect existing street design as no aspect of it calls for changes to the existing circulation pattern. In addition, uses of existing transportation infrastructure in the Project Area would be consistent with current conditions. The Proposed Project would eliminate the roadway extensions proposed in the HTCMP including extending Forster Street, Yorba Street, and Avenida Los Amigos to proposed extensions of Del Obispo and EI Camino Real. The repeal of the HTCMP would remove these roadway extensions but would not increase hazards in the Project Area. No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 51.) 4. Emergency Access Threshold: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 51.) -39- Explanation: The Proposed Project would not cause significant impacts regarding evacuation routes and emergency access. There are no installations of permanent blockades that would prevent the accessibility of emergency services, and no road construction would occur. The Proposed Project would eliminate the roadway extensions proposed in the HTCMP including extending Forster Street, Yorba Street, and Avenida Los Amigos to proposed extensions of Del Obispo and EI Camino Real. The repeal of the HTCMP would remove these roadway extensions but would not result in inadequate emergency access in the Project Area. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 51.) R. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Tribal Cultural Resources Threshold- Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: (i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k); or (ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in Public Resources Code section 5024.1? Finding: Less than significant impact. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 52.) Explanation: The Proposed Project would clarify discrepancies between the HTCMP, the FBC, and the General Plan. The Project could include new construction on properties adjacent to historic buildings but would not necessarily involve any excavation or exterior demolition. Future projects would require project -level environmental impacts evaluation, including the potential for impacts to historical resources. This Project has no aspects that could disturb native soils and would not affect any listed tribal cultural resources (HTCMP EIR 2011). Impacts would be less than significant. The Proposed Project is in an urban setting which has been previously disturbed and is currently entirely urbanized. The Project would not disturb any native soils and would not affect any eligible or listed tribal cultural resources. There is no potential of resources being exposed during the Project's development since ground disturbance to any native soils would not occur. The City reached -40- out to interested tribes that had requested AB 52 consultation for future projects as well as required by SB 18 due to the Project including a General Plan Amendment. These tribes included the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, and the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians. None of these tribes requested formal consultation. Impacts would be less than significant. S. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 1. Wastewater/electric/natural gas/telecommunications facilities 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? Findin : Less than significant. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 54.) Explanation: The Proposed Project consists of the repeal of the HTCMP owing to that document having inconsistencies with the General Plan. In addition, the FBC would be amended regarding setbacks, building heights, allowable FAR, and changes to the FBC traffic table. No Project features would result in an increase in wastewater as allowable land uses would not change as a result of Project implementation. As such, drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities would not be impacted. Impacts would be less than significant. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 54.) 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? Finding: No impact. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p.54.) Explanation: As the Project does not propose specific development but would instead serve to clarify land uses and aspects of land use that would not affect the need for additional water, no impacts would occur. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p.54.) 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 -41- adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Finding: No impact. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 54.) Explanation: There are no Project elements that would result in a significant change in land use, land use intensity, or expanded development footprints within or adjacent to the Project Area. As a result, wastewater discharge would not increase as a result of Project implementation. Future development would require evaluation of wastewater treatment needs on a project basis. No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 54.) 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: No impact. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 55.) Explanation: Project implementation would not allow for an increase in development in the Project Area beyond what is already allowed under the City's adopted General Plan. There would therefore not be an increase in the amount of solid waste generated in the Project Area upon implementation. No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 55.) 5. Solid Waste Laws Threshold: Will the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Finding: No impact. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 55.) Explanation: There are no elements of the Proposed Project that would lead to an increased intensity of land use such that increases in solid waste generation could occur. Therefore, no impacts would occur. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 55.) 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? -42- 2. 3. Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 56.) Explanation, The Project does not propose specific development, nor would any aspect of its implementation affect any emergency response or evacuation plans. No construction would occur as a result of the Project implementation, including infrastructure that could permanently significantly impact the transportation network. Impacts would be less than significant. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 56.) Pollutant Concentrations Threshold: Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the Project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire? Finding'. No impact. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 56.) Ex lanation: The Project does not propose development and would not change the regulations governing future development in the Project Area as the HTCMP and FBC were not implemented in their entirety due to conflicts with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the Project site is already built -out and generally flat. No impacts would occur. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 56.) 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 B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 56.) Explanation: As the Proposed Project consists of document that would not affect the adopted Ordinance, its implementation would not new infrastructure or changes to existing elements that could affect fire risk. No (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], -43- the repeal of a policy General Plan or Zoning result in the creation of infrastructure, including impacts would occur. p. 56.) 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? Finding: No impact. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 56.) Explanation: As the Project does not propose construction of any kind, including infrastructure, and its implementation would not affect the general form of future development, no impacts would occur as a result of its implementation. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 56.) SECTION III IMPACTS THAT ARE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED The City Council hereby finds that Mitigation Measures have been identified in the EIR and these Findings that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The potentially significant impacts, and the Mitigation Measures that will reduce them to a less than significant level, are as follows: A. AESTHETICS 1. Scenic Vista Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 38-40.) Explanation: The Project area is currently largely developed in nature. The visual character of the Project area would change over time due to future development and redevelopment of land uses resulting in a thriving and diverse HTC area with a greater intensity of uses. The buildings associated with these uses would comply with the FAR, setback, and height restrictions identified in the Draft EIR, Chapter 2 — Project Description, which may result in a change in building height and scale within the Project area. Some foreground views would be blocked by the addition of new buildings or taller buildings within the Project area; however, distant views of the surrounding hillsides to the west, north and south would still be afforded from the Project area and surrounding roadways. Thus, the addition of buildings to the HTC area, including the potential for taller hotel buildings, would have the potential to impact a scenic vista including views from the arterial streets, views of Mission San Juan Capistrano, and views of the surrounding hillsides and ridgelines. Views of the Project area from the east are largely obstructed by I- 5. Since 1-5 is elevated, views from the 1-5 Freeway are presently characterized by the downtown urbanized area with a variety of land uses, associated parking lots and mature ornamental trees, combined with a view of the surrounding foothills in the background and can be considered visually pleasing by many viewers traveling the freeway. The Proposed Project would provide a framework for new infill development and redevelopment that would be in character with the existing and surrounding development through application of the City's Architectural Design Guidelines. Surrounding land uses and roadways to the north and south are all at a similar elevation as compared to the Project area. Therefore, existing views do not extend far beyond the onsite buildings and/or Project area boundaries. Views of the Project area from the north and west will remain largely unchanged since the Proposed Project does not propose a change in land uses, from what is outlined in the General Plan, within these areas. However, the implementation of elements of the Proposed Project including greater allowable FAR, greater building height for hotel buildings, and the removal of the potential for mixed use development within the Project area would result in a change from what was previously analyzed in the HTCMP EIR. Views of the Project area looking north by travelers along Camino Capistrano and the Metrolink Amtrak railroad would also remain similar since they are at similar elevations as the Project area. Similarly, the implementation of elements of the Proposed Project including greater allowable FAR, greater building height for hotel buildings, and the removal of the potential for mixed use development within the Project area would result in a change from what was previously analyzed in the HTCMP EIR. The increase in allowable FAR would have the potential to increase the density of units or uses within the HTC area; however, the increase in FAR would not have a material impact on a majority of sensitive views. In addition, the change in height allowance would only apply to three story hotel buildings within the HTC area; and the potential for an increase of 10 -feet in building height for three-story hotel buildings in the HTC area would not make a material difference of a majority of sensitive views. The provision of setback requirements for new construction adjacent to historic buildings is also intended to self -mitigate for impacts of both future hotel buildings and any -45- other projects adjacent to historic structures. In addition, distant views of the hillsides and ridgelines in the background would be maintained. During construction, the presence of construction equipment and in -process site development have the potential to impact scenic vistas on a temporary basis. Due to the potential construction impacts that may occur, mitigation measures AES -1 and AES -2 , provided below, will help guide future development projects in the Project area. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have a significant effect on a scenic vista with incorporation of mitigation measures. (Draft EIR, pp. 38-40.) 2. Visual Character or Quality of Public Views 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? In urbanized areas, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 40-41.) Explanation: The Proposed Project would result in allowing greater FAR within the HTC area as well as increased building height for hotels in the HTC area. Since the HTCMP and associated FBC are being repealed as part of the Proposed Project, the General Plan itself will continue to encourage similar architectural styles, forms, and massing with the existing and surrounding development, therefore creating a cohesive visual character within the Project area. Individual site-specific projects will be subject to public discretionary review through the Commission review process for compliance with those City Guidelines including design policies and provisions specific to development within the Project area. These review processes would evaluate future projects on a project -by -project basis to determine whether significant impacts would occur under CEQA. Further, all future projects in the Plan Area would conform with the City's Architectural Design Guidelines and individual site-specific projects will be subject to public discretionary review through the Commission review process for compliance with those City Guidelines including design policies and provisions specific to "Downtown Commercial" development. During construction of future projects within the Project area, construction activities could result in a potentially adverse impact due to a temporarily disturbed condition on the site, including -46- stockpiling, noise barriers, or demolition. Overall, construction impacts would be temporary in nature, but impacts would be minimized through implementation of mitigation measures AES -1 and AES -2, outlined below. Implementation of the Proposed Project is not only expected to "not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Project area and its surroundings" but it would maintain the existing visual character and quality of the Project area and its surroundings by establishing and enforcing protection of the visual character of the Project area. (Draft EIR, pp. 40-41.) MM AES -1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits for site specific development, the project applicant shall prepare a Construction Staging Plan that identifies that location(s) of staging areas, including equipment and vehicle storage areas, stockpile areas, etc. These areas shall be located as far away from the existing view corridors as practical. In addition, the Construction Staging Plan shall also identify the manner in which the staging and equipment storage would be screened (e.g., temporary fencing, landscaping, berms, or a combination of these and other methods) subject to the approval of the Public Works Director and Development Services Director, to ensure that the temporary visual impacts would be minimized within the viewshed. MM AES -2: Prior to the issuance of grading permits for site specific development that includes the construction of noise barriers (e.g., berms or sound walls) the project applicant shall prepare plans (i.e., soundwall plans, berm grading plans, landscaping plans, etc.) that demonstrate that landscaping and setbacks would provide a visual buffer between noise barriers and surrounding viewsheds to the Development Services Director or their designee for review and approval; who may refer such plans to the Design Review Committee for review. B. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Disturbance of Human Remains Threshold: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 28.) Explanation: Because of the developed nature of the Project Area it is unlikely that human remains would be encountered during excavation associated with future development. The proposed repeal of the -47- HTCMP and FBC would not affect the form or nature of future development in the project footprint as the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance would continue to govern the specifics of such development. Adjustments to FAR and hotel heights would not affect human remains, if encountered. The following mitigation measure would ensure that any future potential impacts to human remains encountered in the Project Area would be less than significant. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 28.) MM CUL -2 In the event that human remains are encountered in the Project Area following the implementation of the Proposed Project, excavation would immediately halt, and the Orange County Coroner will be contacted. The Coroner will then contact the appropriate persons or groups whom have the authority to determine treatment or disposing of human remains as provided in Public Resources Ordinance Section 5097.98. SECTION IV IMPACTS THAN CANNOT BE FULLY MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and in these Findings, the following environmental impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included herein: A. AIR QUALITY 1. Conflict with Air Quality Plan 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: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. 51-52.) Explanation: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable General Plans and regional plans (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125). The regional plan that applies to the Proposed Project includes the SCAQMD AQMP. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended GP Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A Proposed Project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency: (1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. (2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. Both of these criteria are evaluated in the following sections. Criterion 1 - Increase in the Freguency or Severity of Violations? Based on the air quality modeling analysis performed for the Project, short-term regional construction and ongoing operations of the potential buildout of the Proposed Project would generate air pollutant emissions that are inconsequential on a regional basis and would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD thresholds of significance discussed in Appendix C. As detailed above, however, the Project is a repeal of a Master Plan and the adoption of proposed land use regulations, and therefore, no specific projects are being evaluated. As such it is not possible at this time to assess if a significant construction -related local impact may be created from a potential future development that may occur in the future under the land use regulations adopted through the Proposed Project. Therefore, there is a potential for a significant construction -related local air quality impact to occur from implementation of the Proposed Project. Mitigation Measure AQ -1 has been incorporated into this analysis and requires all future development projects within the HTC Area that require either earthmoving activities or extensive demolition or building construction to prepare a project specific air quality assessment that analyzes the construction and operational regional and localized air impacts created from the specific project and address all CEQA-related air quality and GHG emissions checklist questions. If the air quality assessment finds a significant impact, the air quality assessment shall develop all feasible mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce those impacts. Therefore, based on the information provided above, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -1, the Proposed Project would have the potential to result in significant, unavoidable impacts. -49- Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP? Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the Proposed Project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to ensure that the analyses conducted for the Proposed Project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The AQMP is developed through use of the planning forecasts provided in the RTP/SCS and FTIP. The RTP/SCS is a major planning document for the regional transportation and land use network within Southern California. The RTP/SCS is a long-range plan that is required by federal and state requirements placed on SCAG and is updated every four years. The FTIP provides long-range planning for future transportation improvement projects that are constructed with state and/or federal funds within Southern California. Local governments are required to use these plans as the basis of their plans for the purpose of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. The Proposed Project would consist of removing inconsistencies that currently exist between the HTCMP, General Plan and FBC. The proposed revisions to the HTCMP have the potential to result in slightly higher densities of non-residential land uses within the HTC, while removing the residential component within the HTC. The RTP/SCS promotes higher densities for areas that are in close proximity to transit hubs as well as walkable communities. Since, the entire HTC area is within walking distance of the San Juan Capistrano Metrolink/Amtrak Station, the Project would conform to the strategies provided in the RTP/SCS. 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 second criterion. (Draft EIR, pp. 51-52.) MM AQ -1: All land use development projects within the HTC Area that require either earthmoving activities or extensive demolition or building construction shall prepare a project specific air quality assessment that analyzes the construction and operational regional and localized air impacts created from the specific project and addresses all CEQA-related air quality and greenhouse gas emissions checklist questions. If the air quality assessment finds a significant impact, the air quality assessment shall develop all feasible mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce those impacts. 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- -50- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. 52-57.) Explanation: The following section calculates the potential air emissions associated with the construction and operations of the Proposed Project and compares the emissions to the SCAQMD standards. Construction Emissions The construction emissions have been analyzed for both regional and local air quality impacts. Construction -Related Local Impacts Construction -related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the Project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. As detailed above, the Project is a repeal of a Master Plan and the adoption of proposed land use regulations, and therefore, no specific projects are being evaluated. As such it is not possible at this time to assess if a significant construction -related local impact may be created from a development that may occur in the future under the land use regulations adopted through the Proposed Project. Therefore, there is a potential for a significant construction - related local air quality impact to occur from implementation of the Proposed Project. Mitigation Measure AQ -1 has been incorporated into this analysis that requires all future development projects within the HTC Area that require either earthmoving activities or extensive demolition or building construction to prepare a project assessment that analyzes the construction and and localized air impacts created from the address all CEQA-related air quality and GHG questions. If the air quality assessment finds the air quality assessment shall develop al measures that could avoid or reduce those even with implementation of Mitigation potentially significant local air quality imps construction of the Proposed Project. Operational Emissions specific air quality operational regional specific project and emissions checklist a significant impact, I feasible mitigation impacts. Therefore, Measure AQ -1, a ct could occur from The on-going operation of the Proposed Project would result in a long-term increase in air quality emissions. This increase would be -51 - due to emissions from the Project -generated vehicle trips, emissions from energy usage, and onsite area source emissions created from the on-going use of the Proposed Project. The following section provides an analysis of potential long-term air quality impacts due to regional air quality and local air quality impacts with the on-going operations of the Proposed Project. Operations -Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Analysis The operations -related regional criteria air quality impacts created by the Proposed Project have been analyzed through use of the CalEEMod model and the input parameters utilized in this analysis have been detailed in Appendix C of the Draft EIR. The worst-case summer or winter VOC, NOx, CO, SO -2, PM 10, and PM2.5 daily emissions created from the Proposed Project's long-term operations have been calculated and are summarized in Table 3-4 (see Draft EIR, p. 54) and the CaIEEMod daily emissions printouts are shown in Appendix C of the Draft EIR. The data provided in Table 3-5 (see Draft EIR, p. 55) shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the regional emissions thresholds. Therefore, a less than significant regional air quality impact would occur from operation of the Proposed Project. In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502 (also referred to as "Friant Ranch"), the California Supreme Court held that when an EIR concluded that when a project would have significant impacts to air quality impacts, an EIR should "make a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project's air quality impacts to likely health consequences." The Court developed a three part test that includes the following: 1) The air quality discussion shall describe the specific health risks created from each criteria pollutant, including diesel particulate matter. The analysis in Appendix C of the Draft EIR details the specific health risks created from each criteria pollutant. In addition, the specific health risks created from diesel particulate matter is detailed in Appendix C of the Draft EIR . As such, this analysis meets the part 1 requirements of the Friant Ranch Case. 2) The analysis shall identify the magnitude of the health risks created from the Project. The Ruling details how to identify the magnitude of the health risks. Specifically, on page 24 of the ruling it states "The Court of Appeal identified several ways in which the EIR could have framed the -52- analysis so as to adequately inform the public and decision makers of possible adverse health effects. The County could have, for example, identified the Project's impact on the days of nonattainment per year." Table 3-4 (see Draft EIR, p. 54) shows that the primary source of operational air emissions would be created from mobile source emissions that would be generated throughout the Air Basin. As such, any adverse health impacts created from the Proposed Project should be assessed on a basin -wide level, since the air emissions created from implementation of the Project would have the potential to impact a large portion of the Basin. The Air Basin has been designated by EPA for the national standards as a non -attainment area for ozone, PM2.5, and partial non - attainment for lead. In addition, PM10 has been designated by the State as non -attainment. It should be noted that VOC and NOx are ozone precursors, as such they have been considered as non -attainment pollutants. According to the 2016 AQMP, in 2016 the total emissions of: VOC was 500 tons per year; NOx was 522 tons per year; SOx was 18 tons per year; and PM2.5 was 66 tons per year. Since the 2016 AQMP did not calculate total PM10 emissions, the total PM10 emissions were obtained from The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition, prepared by CARB, for the year 2020. Development that could cause increased pollutants within the Project area would be limited to either the few undeveloped sites remaining, or renovation or redevelopment of existing buildings within the Project area. Therefore, the potential for increased amounts of criteria pollutants is considered low. The Project would increase criteria pollutant emissions by as much as 0. 00 15 percent for PM10 in the South Coast Air Basin. Due to these nominal increases in the Air Basin -wide criteria pollutant emissions and the fact that none of the criteria pollutant emissions would exceed existing thresholds, no increases in days of non -attainment are anticipated to occur from operation of the Proposed Project. As such, this analysis meets the Part 2 requirements of the Friant Ranch Case. 3) If addressing the magnitude of the health risk is not possible, then explain why not possible. Also explain if any mitigation provided is deferred mitigation. Since Part 2 adequately explains the magnitude of the health risks created by implementation of the Project onto the Air -53- Basin through outlining the Project's percent of air emissions in the Air Basin, Part 3 is limited to analyzing if Mitigation Measure AQ -1 is deferred mitigation. Mitigation Measure AQ -1 requires all future development projects within the HTC Area that require either earthmoving activities or extensive demolition or building construction to prepare a project specific air quality assessment that analyzes the construction and operational regional and localized air impacts created from the specific project and address all CEQA-related air quality and GHG emissions checklist questions. If the air quality assessment finds a significant impact, the air quality assessment shall develop all feasible mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce those impacts. Since the Mitigation cannot guarantee that all future development meet the air quality thresholds, it is possible for a specific development project to be constructed in the Project Area that would create significant levels of air emissions could have the potential to create adverse health impacts. As such, this analysis meets the Part 3 requirements of the Friant Ranch Case. However, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -1, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Operations -Related Local Air quality Impacts Project -related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. The Proposed Project has been analyzed for the potential local CO emission impacts from the Project - generated vehicular trips and from the potential local air quality impacts from on-site operations. The following analyzes the vehicular CO emissions and local impacts from on-site operations. Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Onsite Operations Project -related air emissions from onsite sources such as architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, and onsite usage of natural gas appliances may have the potential to create emissions areas that exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the Project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. As detailed above, the Project is a repeal of a Master Plan and the adoption of proposed land use regulations, and therefore, no specific development projects are being evaluated. As such it is not -54- possible at this time to assess if a significant operation - related local impact may be created from a development that may occur with implementation of the Proposed Project. Therefore, there is a potential for operation -related local air quality impact to occur from implementation of the Proposed Project. Mitigation Measure AQ -1 has been incorporated into this analysis that requires future development projects within the HTC Area that require either earthmoving activities or extensive demolition or building construction to prepare a project specific air quality assessment that analyzes the construction and operational regional and localized air impacts created from the specific project and address all CEQA-related air quality and GHG emissions checklist questions. If the air quality assessment finds a significant impact, the air quality assessment shall develop all feasible mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce those impacts. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -1, a potentially significant local air quality impact would occur from operation of the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, and this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. 52-57.) 3. Sensitive Receptors Threshold: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. 57-59.) Explanation: Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Construction The Project is a repeal of a Master Plan and the adoption of proposed land use regulations, and therefore, no specific development projects are being evaluated. As such it is not possible at this time to assess if a significant construction -related local impact may be created from a development that may occur with implementation of the Proposed Project. Therefore, there is a potential for construction -related local air quality impact to occur from implementation of the Proposed Project. Mitigation Measure AQ -1 has been incorporated into this analysis that requires future development projects within the HTC Area that require either earthmoving activities or extensive demolition or -55- building construction to prepare a project specific air quality assessment that analyzes the construction and operational regional and localized air impacts created from the specific project and address all CEQA-related air quality and GHG emissions checklist questions . If the air quality assessment finds a significant impact, the air quality assessment shall develop all feasibly mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce those impacts. Therefore, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -1, construction activities that may occur from implementation of the Proposed Project would have a significant and unavoidable construction -related impact to local air quality. (Draft EIR, pp. 57- 58.) Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Onsite Operations Project -related air emissions from onsite sources such as architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, and onsite usage of natural gas appliances may have the potential to create emissions areas that exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the Project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. As detailed above, the Project is a repeal of a Master Plan and the adoption of proposed land use regulations, and therefore, no specific projects are being evaluated. As such it is not possible at this time assess if a significant operation -related local impact may be created from a development that may occur with implementation of the Proposed Project. Therefore, there is a potential for operation -related local air quality impact to occur from implementation of the Proposed Project. Mitigation Measure AQ -1 has been incorporated into this analysis that requires future development projects within the HTC Area that require either earthmoving activities or extensive demolition or building construction to prepare a project specific air quality assessment that analyzes the construction and operational regional and localized air impacts created from the specific project and address all CEQA-related air quality and GHG emissions checklist questions. If the air quality assessment finds a significant impact, the air quality assessment shall develop all feasible mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce those impacts. However, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -1, a potentially significant local air quality impact could occur from operation of the Proposed Project. (Draft EIR, p. 59.) -56- B. 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? Fid: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. 67-69) Explanation: With implementation of the Proposed Project, the HTCMP and FBC would be repealed, which could have the potential to affect the protections formerly afforded to historic resources in the HTCMP. The intent of the HTCMP was "to ensure that the historic character and function of the Town Center as the civic and commercial heart of the City is preserved, enhanced and expanded over time" (City 2010, page 2). However, in order to retain the elements that provided protections to historic resources, the Proposed Project includes height and setback requirements that will continue to protect the integrity of the historic buildings in the HTC area. Based on a review of previously recorded historic built environment resources and observations made during the April 23, 2019 field visit, PaleoWest determined that buildings constructed 45 -feet in height would likely result in some level of visual impact on historic built environment resources within the Project area. The NRHP recognizes a property's historic integrity through seven aspects or qualities. These include location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. For a property to be eligible, it must retain some, if not most, of the aspects. Buildings 45 -feet in height or taller are inconsistent in massing to the Project area and may fundamentally affect the integrity of setting and feeling for NRHP eligible/listed historic built environment resources and well as properties listed on the Local Register. With the Proposed Project, building heights would be limited to 45 -feet for three-story hotel buildings only. As with other future projects, three-story hotel buildings of 45 -feet in height would be required to go through City review and CEQA review processes to evaluate impacts. Site- specific development plans are required to evaluate the impacts of three-story hotel buildings within the Project area and complete a historic resource evaluation to provide an updated historic integrity determination of nearby designated historic sites. Appropriate mitigation measures to reduce impacts of these hotel buildings on historic structures include CUL -1, below. Considerations such as the proximity of the Proposed Project to historic resources and the design of the project must be taken into consideration in order to -57- accurately assess the project's impact on historic resources. This impact is considered potentially significant; and even with implementation of mitigation measures CUL -1, noted below, impacts to historic resources would be significant and unavoidable. Other aspects of the Proposed Project include removing the potential for residential uses in the HTC area, an increase in the allowable FAR, adopting FBC language into the Zoning Code, increasing required setbacks from historic buildings, and readopting and affirming the Park Once Program. Although residential uses were proposed in the HTCMP, the HTC area does not include residential uses. The residential units allowed under the existing HTCMP would vary in massing and aesthetic value and would likely contrast with the neighboring historic buildings thereby adversely impacting aesthetic views of the surrounding historic resources. These adverse aesthetic impacts to views of the existing historic resources would not occur under the Proposed Project. The HTCMP EIR provided a mitigation measure to reduce impacts to historic structures, MM -CLT -1. This mitigation measure requires site specific CEQA review, historic resource evaluation, compliance with stringent design guidelines for sites adjacent to any such historic resources, and site specific measures include but are not limited to re -orienting or adjusting the location of proposed buildings or improvements; incorporating features and elements consistent with architectural design guidelines; reducing the height and/or massing of the proposed structure or building; increased setbacks and screening of the structure with native trees. The HTCMP MM - CLT -1 mitigation measure is retained under the Proposed Project as CUL -1, and, therefore, would continue to afford protection of the existing historic resources. . The increase in allowable FAR would encourage a more village - scaled development and would largely impact the interior uses of buildings; therefore, the increase in allowable FAR would not have a significant impact on historic resources. Adopting previous FBC language into the Zoning Code would not result in any changes to existing conditions, except for the repeal of the FBC. The repeal of the FBC and revising of the Zoning Code would not result in changes to physical conditions of the Project area and would not result in significant impacts to historic resources. The increase in required setbacks from historic buildings, including requiring a foot of setback for every foot in height of the building, would have a positive impact on historic resources by requiring additional setbacks from existing conditions. With the new setback requirements, designated historic buildings within the HTC and HTCMP areas would be further protected for future development. Lastly, the re -adoption and affirming of the Park Once Program NOE would not cause any significant impacts to historic resources, as this would not result in a physical change from existing conditions. Although the FAR, Zoning Code, setbacks, and Park Once Program components of the Proposed Project would not result in significant impacts, the Proposed Project's allowance of three-story hotel buildings to be 45 -feet in height would result in significant unavoidable impacts. (Draft EIR, pp. 67-69) CUL -1: Prior to the approval of discretionary entitlements and associated CEQA review for future site-specific development associated with the Project area that either 1) impacts an historic structure or 2) is located adjacent to an historic structure, the project applicant shall complete, or cause to be completed the following: a. Prepare a historic resources evaluation to provide an updated historic integrity evaluation of the historic site pursuant to the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines, the National Register of Historic Places criteria and the Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation (often referred to as "NABS documentation"). In the event the evaluation concludes the site retains its historic integrity, the requirements governing the significance of impacts and mitigation of impacts to historical resources set forth in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5 (b) and 15126.4(b) shall be addressed in the CEQA document prepared for the project. In the event the evaluation concludes the site does not retain its integrity, then the City shall submit the report to the California Office of Historic Preservation for a concurrence determination pursuant to National Register of Historic Places procedures. b. For buildings or improvements proposed adjacent to an historic structure listed in the National Register of Historic Places, site- specific development plans shall be evaluated to determine if the design of the proposed structures is compatible with the adjacent historic resource in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b) and 15126.4(b). Stringent design guidelines shall be required for projects located adjacent to historic buildings taking into account the potential for indirect and visual impacts. Mitigation measures must be recommended and incorporated into future site specific projects to reduce indirect visual impacts as part of the discretionary entitlement and CEQA review process. Specific measures may include but are not limited to re -orienting or adjusting the location of proposed buildings or improvements; incorporating features and elements consistent with architectural design guidelines; reducing the height and/or massing of the proposed structures or buildings; increased -59- setbacks and screening of the structure with native trees. SECTION V CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Regarding the Project's potential to result in cumulative impacts, the City hereby finds as follows: A. AESTHETICS Development occurring in the vicinity of the Project area, would have the potential to alter scenic resources and change the visual character and quality of the general area. The Project area is located in an urbanized portion of the City and development changes to the aesthetic environment are ongoing. New development and redevelopment of the Project area would further develop the urban character of the Project area through potential demolition or renovation of existing structures and construction of new structures. Future site-specific development projects within the Project would be of quality design in conformance with the City's Architectural Design Guidelines and site design review. Chapter IV of the Architectural Design Guidelines provides design concepts and direction for all commercial projects, encourages high quality and innovative design solutions, and recognizes the importance of storefront visibility as well as parking and circulation design to the success of commercial enterprises. These Guidelines take into account architectural design, pedestrian access, and scale, as well as preservation of natural site amenities such as trees and hillside views. Compliance with the City's Architectural Design Guidelines and the site design review process is a City-wide requirement; however, with the Project area -specific guidelines such as setback restrictions, future projects within the Project area would be reviewed within the strict guidelines of the HTCMP and HTC areas. As a result, the Proposed Project has a less than significant cumulative impact on the visual character and scenic resources within the City. (Draft EIR, pp. 41-42.) B. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES The Project would have no impact on agriculture and forestry resources. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], pp. 4-6 through 4-8.) As a result, no cumulative impact would occur. C. AIR QUALITY As defined in Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects within the cumulative impact area for air quality. The cumulative impact area for air quality related to the proposed Project is the Basin. A project could contribute to an existing or projected air quality exceedance because the Basin is currently in nonattainment. With regard to determining the significance of the cumulative contribution from the Proposed Project, the SCAQMD recommends that any given project's potential contribution to cumulative impacts be assessed using the same significance criteria as for project -specific impacts. Because the Project is a repeal of a Master Plan and the adoption of proposed land use regulations, and no specific projects are being evaluated, it is not possible at this time to assess if a significant air quality impact may be created from a potential future development that may occur in the future under the land use regulations adopted through this Project. Thus, there is a potential for a significant air quality impact to occur from implementation of the Project. As discussed previously, even with Mitigation Measure AQ -1, a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant could occur from the Project. (Draft EIR, pp. 52- 57.) Accordingly, the cumulative air quality impact would be cumulatively considerable. 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. Implementation of cumulative projects would contribute to the local and regional loss of native vegetation types in the region that potentially provide habitat for special -status plant and wildlife species, as well as riparian habitat and federally protected wetlands. The potential also exists for the cumulative projects to conflict with local policies and ordinances and with habitat conservation plans/natural community conservation plans. Development of cumulative projects could result in direct take of special -status species, construction and post -construction disturbances, special -status habitat conversion, and/or disruption of wildlife corridors. However, as with the proposed Project, all future cumulative development would undergo environmental review on a project -by -project basis, to evaluate potential impacts to biological resources and ensure compliance with the established regulatory framework. As such, cumulative impacts to biological resources within the City would be mitigated on a project -by -project basis. The Proposed Project's contribution to the cumulative loss of native habitat would have no impact. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 26.) Overall, cumulative Project impacts on biological resources would be less than significant. E. CULTURAL RESOURCES Potential impacts related to historical resources would be significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of existing requirements and mitigation measures. Future construction projects in the area that increase local population will lead to accelerated degradation of the cultural resources, including historical resources. However, each development proposal received by the City undergoes environmental review and would be subject to the same resource protection requirements as the Proposed Project. If there is a potential for significant impacts on historic resources, an investigation will be required to determine the nature and extent of the resources and identify appropriate mitigation measures such as mitigation measure MM -CUL -1. (Draft EIR, p. 70.) F. ENERGY -61 - Quantifying and/or analyzing energy consumption by cumulative projects in the area would be speculative in nature, as the proposed land use types, intensities, and sizes of projects are unknown at this time. However, each cumulative project would require separate discretionary approval and CEQA assessment, which would address potential energy consumption impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. The Proposed Project would not result in significant energy consumption impacts. The Proposed Project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary with regard to energy. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 30.) Thus, the Proposed Project and cumulative projects are not anticipated to result in a significant cumulative impact. G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS The Proposed Project does not call for any specific new development; it would serve to clarify the form of future development in terms of setbacks from historic structures, increase in allowable FAR, and height limits on hotels. Future projects would be required to undergo their own project -specific environmental review, including potential mitigation measures that would address the possibility of encountering paleontological resources during excavation or other construction. The Proposed Project would have less than significant impacts on geology and soils. (Appendix B of Draft EIR [Initial Study], pp. 31-34.) Therefore, the Project's contribution to cumulative geotechnical and soil impacts is less than significant. 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 above are not project -specific impacts to GCC, but are the proposed Project's contribution to this cumulative impact. The impact of project -related GHG emissions would not result is a reasonably foreseeable cumulatively considerable contribution to GCC. Additionally, the proposed Project, in conjunction with other cumulative projects, would be subject to all applicable regulatory requirements which would further reduce GHG emissions. Further, the proposed Project would not conflict with SCAG's 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. (Draft EIR, pp. 83-85.) 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. I. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS As defined in Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects within the cumulative impact area for hazards -62- and hazardous materials. The Proposed Project does not call for any specific new development; it would serve to clarify the form of future development in terms of setbacks from historic structures, increase in allowable FAR, and height limits on hotels. Thus, the individual project -level impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials were found to be less than significant. Furthermore, the proposed Project and all other projects in the cumulative area are required to be consistent with the existing regulations related to hazards and hazardous materials. Consistency with federal, State, and local regulations would prevent the proposed Project as well as other projects from creating cumulative impacts in terms of hazards and hazardous materials. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], pp. 36-37.) For the reasons outlined above, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in an incremental contribution to cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that are cumulatively considerable; therefore, cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts are considered less than significant. J. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality generally occur as a result of incremental changes that degrade water quality. Cumulative impacts can also include individual projects which, taken together, adversely contribute to drainage flows or increase potential for flooding in a project area or watershed. Future projects in the area would result in a cumulative increase in stormwater runoff that would drain into the existing stormwater drainage system in the city. The Proposed Project does not call for any specific new development, and thus impacts would be less than significant. Future projects would be required to conduct environmental review and construct project -specific drainage features in accordance with the provisions of the City's Master Drainage Plan. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], pp. 39-41.) Since the Proposed Project would not have a significant impact on existing stormwater drainage facilities, the Project would not combine with other cumulative projects to result in significant impacts regarding stormwater drainage. K. LAND USE AND PLANNING Cumulative redevelopment that results in revitalization of the HTCMP area and HTC area over time is specifically anticipated in the San Juan Capistrano General Plan (1999). The growth anticipated in the General Plan will occur in areas of the City determined to be more suitable for development. The cumulative redevelopment is consistent with the long-range goals, policies, and objectives adopted in the City in the General Plan and SCAG. Future development of cumulative projects will be required to comply with the adopted land use standards, policies and ordinances, and will be compatible with land uses in the areas surrounding the Project site. Development of related projects and areas surrounding the site will be governed by policies, implementation measures, and programs to ensure orderly urban development. Cumulative land use impacts are not considered cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 106.) -63- L. MINERAL RESOURCES The Project would have on impact on mineral resources because there are no known mineral resources are present on the Project site nor is the Project site located within an area known to contain locally important mineral resources. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], pp. 43-44.) No cumulative impacts would occur. M. NOISE The Proposed Project does not include specific construction but would permit an increase in FAR for buildings that include provisions for public gathering space, clarify the FBC parking standards, allow an increase in height to 45 feet for three-story hotel buildings, and clarify setbacks from historical structures. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], pp. 44-45.) Thus, the Project would have less than significant impacts, and cumulative noise impacts are not considered cumulatively considerable. N. POPULATION AND HOUSING The Project will have less than significant impacts on population and housing. As such, the Project would not induce substantial population growth or accelerate development in an underdeveloped area, and any impacts to population growth would be less than significant. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], pp. 46-48.) Thus, no cumulative impacts would occur. O. PUBLIC SERVICES The Project will have less than significant impacts on public services. Although implementation of the Project in conjunction with other related projects in the area may 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. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], pp. 47-48.) P. RECREATION The Project would not include recreational facilities nor develop residential uses that would require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse effect on the environment and therefore would not have impacts. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 49.) No cumulative impacts would occur. Q. TRANSPORTATION The No Project and Proposed Project analyses contained above assess the traffic impacts of all cumulative development anticipated by the Year 2040. As shown above, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in any new impacts associated with VMT or service standards when compared to the No Project scenario; the Proposed Project would not require any new mitigation to reduce potentially significant impacts. The future 2040 traffic volumes for the Proposed Project are based the future 2040 volumes presented in The Farm Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (Farm TIA) (LSA, February 2018). The Farm TIA is consistent with the objectives and requirements of the City's Administrative Policy No. 310 and the City's General Plan Circulation Element and Growth Management Element (December 1999). The traffic forecast volumes in the Farm TIA were prepared using the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM), the long-range traffic modeling tool used for sub -regional traffic planning in the area. The OCTAM is a travel demand model that provides more specific land use and network information for Orange County and is derived from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Model. The use of the 2040 traffic volumes included potential future cumulative impacts, and with the 2040 traffic volumes, no additional impacts to service standards would occur. As such, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in less than significant cumulative impacts. (Draft EIR, pp. 113-114.) 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 Proposed Project would clarify discrepancies between the HTCMP, the FBC, and the General Plan, and impacts would be less than significant. 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 -65- 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. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 52.) S. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The Proposed Project would clarify discrepancies between the HTCMP, the FBC, and the General Plan, and impacts would be less than significant. No significant cumulative impacts is anticipated regarding utilities and service systems, and the Project's contribution is not cumulatively considerable. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], pp. 54-55.) T. WILDFIRE The Project would have less than significant impacts on wildfire risks, and therefore no cumulative impacts would occur. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR [Initial Study], p. 56.) SECTION VI 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. Implementation of the Proposed Project will allow construction activities that will entail the commitment of non-renewable and/or slowly renewable energy resources (including fossil fuel), human resources, and natural resources such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, lead, other metals, and water. The commitment of resources will be long-term obligations and resulting construction may result in permanent alteration of land once developed. Similarly, operation of the Proposed Project will result in the commitment of limited, nonrenewable resources and slowly renewable resources such as natural gas, electricity, petroleum-based fuels, fossil fuels, and water. Natural gas and electricity will be used for lighting, heating, and cooling of buildings and operation of project facilities. The Proposed Project will not result in a significant impact related to the provision of natural gas or electricity. In addition, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations requires conservation practices that will limit the amount of energy consumed by the proposed Project. Notwithstanding the energy conservation features of Title 24, and the type and location of proposed land uses being of a nature that supports reductions in VMT, implementation of the Proposed Project will result in increased demands for energy and other resources that represent a long-term commitment of nonrenewable resources. The commitment of limited, slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources required for construction and operation of the Proposed Project will limit the availability of these resources for future generations or for other uses during the life of the project. However, continued use of such resources is consistent with regional and local plans and projected growth in the area. No other significant irreversible changes are expected to occur as a result of project implementation. (Draft EIR, p. 122.) SECTION VII GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS Section 15126.2(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a Draft EIR to discuss the ways the Project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e), a Project would be considered to have a growth -inducing effect if it would: • Directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing in the surrounding environment; • Remove obstacles to population growth (e.g., construction of an infrastructure expansion to allow for more construction in service areas); ■ Tax existing community service facilities, requiring the construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; or • Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. In addition, CEQA Guidelines that that growth inducement must not be assumed. Growth -inducing effects are not to be construed as necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2 (d)). This issue is presented to provide additional information on ways in which the Proposed Project could contribute to significant changes in the environment, beyond the direct consequences of developing the land use concept examined in the preceding sections of this EIR. It should also be noted that while implementation of the Proposed Project could result in the establishment of new businesses within the Project area, the associated increases in development and employment are not considered to be the result of growth inducement, but rather reflects the accommodation of growth -67- anticipated to occur within the region. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in direct or indirect growth inducing impacts. (Draft EIR, p. 123.) SECTION VIII ALTERNATIVES A. BACKGROUND The Draft EIR analyzed two 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: (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, p. 115: 1. Repeal the HTCMP and the FBC. 2. Initiate a General Plan Amendment and a Zoning text amendment to address the various inconsistencies identified by the Planning Commission ad-hoc committee, including removal of residential land uses, permitting minor alteration of nonconforming uses, and eliminating Freeway Edge Overlay and Town Center Edge Overlay. 3. Preserve and enhance the role of the Project area as the civic and commercial heart of the City. 4. Codify height and setback requirements for new buildings in the TC and TCE Districts adjacent to any historic buildings. 5. Provide increased FAR in the Project area, especially for areas that provide public gathering spaces. 6. Encourage hotel uses in the Project area, including allowing three story hotels; which will encourage economic generators in the Project area. 7. Encourage an expanded mix of retail, commercial, and civic uses to create a lively mixed-use environment. 8. Readopt and affirm the Park Once Program parking standards. C. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS The alternatives selected for further detailed review within the EIR focus on alternatives that could the Project's significant environmental impacts, while still meeting most of the basic Project objectives. Those alternatives include: • Alternative 1: Reduced Height Alternative (Draft El R, pp. 118-119) • Alternative 2: No Project Alternative (Draft El R, pp. 116-118) 1. Alternative 1: Reduced Height Alternative Description: The Reduced Height Alternative assumes that the Proposed Project would be implemented as proposed, except for the building height element. Under this alternative, the building heights for all buildings in the HTC area, including hotel buildings, would be limited to 35 feet in height. All other elements of HTCMP Repeal, General Plan Amendment, and Ordinance Change Project would remain the same. The purpose of this alternative is to reduce impacts associated with taller, three-story buildings of up to 45 -feet in height. Impacts: Aesthetics Aesthetic impacts would be similar but less under the Reduced Height Alternative than for the Proposed Project, since building heights would be limited to 35 feet rather than increased to 45 feet for three-story buildings. The Reduced Height Alternative would have reduced impacts in comparison to the Proposed Project. Air Quality Under the Reduced Height Alternative, the only change in potential construction or operational emissions from the Proposed Project would be fewer potential hotel units, as three-story hotels would be limited to 35 -feet in height. The Reduced Height Impact would have lesser construction and operational air quality impacts in comparison to the Proposed Project. However, similar to the Proposed Project, even with implementation of mitigation measure AQ -1, impacts will remain significant and unavoidable. -70- Cultural Resources Cultural resources impacts would be less under the Reduced Height Alternative than for the Proposed Project since no increase in the height of buildings would be approved. With the Reduced Height Alternative, all buildings within the HTC area would be limited to 35 -feet in height. This alternative would have reduced cultural resources and historical resources impacts in comparison to the Proposed Project. With implementation of mitigation measure CULA, impacts would be considered less than significant. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Reduced Height Alternative, the only change in potential construction or operational emissions from the Proposed Project would be fewer potential hotel units, as three-story hotels would be limited to 35 -feet in height. The Reduced Height Impact would have lesser construction and operational GHG emissions impacts in comparison to the Proposed Project. Land Use Under the Reduced Height Alternative, all of the Proposed Project elements would be implemented except the increase in allowable building height to 45 -feet for 3 -story buildings. This alternative would correct inconsistencies between the HTCMP, FBC, and General Plan, and would provide clarifications through the ordinance change. Compared to the Proposed Project, the Reduced Height Alternative would have similar beneficial impacts to land use. Transportation Transportation impacts under the Reduced Height Alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project, as the only difference between the two are the increased allowable building height under the Proposed Project. The Reduced Height Alternative would remove the possibility of residential land uses within the HTC area, and would correct other inconsistencies between the General Plan, HTCMP, and FBC. This alternative would have similar impacts in comparison to the Proposed Project. Attainment of Project Ob'ectives: Compared to the Proposed Project, the Reduced Height Alternative would further reduce the impacts relating to aesthetics and cultural resources. However, under the Reduced Height Alternative, some of the project objectives would not be achieved. For example, the Reduced Height Alternative would not achieve the objective of encouraging three story hotels. Providing three story hotels would have been expected to encourage economic generators in the Project area; however, since this alternative would limit the height of three story hotels to 35 feet, it would have the potential to reduce the economic potential of those structures. -71- Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 1: Reduced Height Alternative, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet most of the Project objectives; and (2) the alternative fails to avoid or reduce the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts relating to air quality. 2. Alternative 2: No Project Alternative Description: Under this alternative, the Proposed Project would not be implemented. The HTCMP would remain in place and would not be repealed, which would continue to allow for residential land uses in the area. In addition, the FAR would not be increased in the Project area, the maximum building height for all buildings in the HTC area would remain 35 feet, and no new setbacks would be introduced. Impacts: Aesthetics Aesthetic impacts would be less under the No Project Alternative than for the Proposed Project, since no taller buildings would be allowed under the No Project Alternative. However, as described in Section SS, the aesthetic impacts of the Proposed Project are less than significant. The maximum height in the HTC area would remain at 35 -feet in height for all buildings. The No Project Alternative would have reduced impacts in comparison to the Proposed Project. Air Quality Implementation of the No Project Alternative would include continued use of the HTCMP, which would include residential land uses. As shown in Table 3-2 above, the No Project Alternative would include greater Com merciaVOffice, Civic, and Residential square footage and units than the Proposed Project; however, the No Project Alternative would result in lesser square footage of Hotel and Retail uses as compared to the Proposed Project. On balance, the air quality impacts with the No Project Alternative are considered to be less than those of the Proposed Project. Cultural Resources Cultural resources, and particularly historic resources, impacts would be less under the No Project Alternative than for the Proposed Project as the No Project Alternative would not increase FAR or building heights within the HTC area. However, the No Project Alterative would result in some increased impacts as the No Project Alternative would not include the new setback requirements. The setback requirements as outlined in the Proposed Project are intended to provide greater protection for historic resources. Due to the Proposed Project's -72- allowance of three story hotel buildings, the Proposed Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts to historic resources, and would overall have increased impacts in comparison to the No Project Alternative. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Implementation of the No Project Alternative would include continued use of the HTCMP, which would include residential land uses. As shown in Table 3-2 above, the No Project Alternative would include greater Commercial/Office, Civic, and Residential square footage and units than the Proposed Project; however, the No Project Alternative would result in lesser square footage of Hotel and Retail uses as compared to the Proposed Project. On balance, the GHG emissions impacts with the No Project Alternative are considered to be less than those of the Proposed Project. Land Use Under the No Project Alternative, the HTCMP and FBC will not be repealed and inconsistencies with the General Plan and Zoning Code would not be corrected. This alternative would keep the HTCMP which allowed residential uses in the HTC area; however, this is inconsistent with the land uses outlined in the General Plan. The No Project Alternative would have increased impacts in comparison to the Proposed Project. Transportation The No Project Alternative would continue to allow for residential uses in the HTC area which has the potential to generate new traffic to residential uses; however, it would also allow residents within the area the ability to walk to the commercial uses in the Project Area. The No Project Alternative would also provide roadway connections including the proposed extensions of Forster Street, Yorba Street, and Avenida Los Amigos. The No Project Alternative VMT could have a significant VMT impact. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have increased transportation impacts compared to the Proposed Project. Attainment of Pro'ect Ob'ectives: The No Project Alternative would result in keeping the HTCMP in place without any changes to the General Plan or FBC. Compared to the Proposed Project, the No Project Alternative would further reduce the Proposed Project's impacts relating to Aesthetics and Cultural Resources, but would result in greater impacts in the areas of Land Use and Transportation. While the overall impacts associated with the No Project Alternative would be slightly less, under the No Project Alternative none of the project objectives identified in Section 4.2, above, would be achieved. Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 2: No Project, on the following ground, which provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet any of the Project objectives. -73- D. 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 1: Reduced Height Alternative is identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. The alternatives discussed above were evaluated in the Final EIR and a summary comparison of the alternatives is provided in Table 7.2 1. Table 7.2 1 provides a comparison of alternatives to the Proposed Project and rates each impact as reduced, potentially reduced, increased, or potentially increased compared to the corresponding impacts of the Proposed Project. The range of alternatives studied in the EIR reflects a reasonable range of alternatives that would potentially be capable of reducing the environmental effects of the Proposed Project while accomplishing most of the basic project objectives. The alternatives analysis is sufficient to inform the City Council and the public regarding the tradeoffs between the degree to which alternatives to the Proposed Project could reduce environmental impacts and the corresponding degree to which the alternatives would meet the City's ability to achieve its project objectives. The Reduced Height Alternative would limit the ability for hotels of three stories and 45 -feet in height to be built in the Project area. However, this alternative would limit the City's opportunity to encourage hotel uses in the Project area, including allowing three story hotels, which could potentially limit economic generators in the Project area. Therefore, the Reduced Height Alternative would not meet all of the Project Objectives. Table Error! No text of specified style in document. -1: Summary Comparison of Potentially Significant Impacts of Proposed Project and Alternatives Environmental Proposed Project Reduced Height No Project Issue Area ,_ Alternative J Aesthetics Lessthan _ _ _ Reduced _ T _Alternative Reduced Less than Significant Less than Significant Significant Agriculture & I No Impact Similar Similar Forestry Resources No Impact No Impact Air Quality Significant and ' Reduced Significant and Reduced Less than Unavoidable Unavoidable Signification Biological No Impact Similar Similar Resources No Impact No Impact Significant and Reduced Reduced Cultural Resources Unavoidable Less than Significant with Less than Mitigation Significant Energy No Impact Similar Similar No Impact No Impact Less than Similar Similar Geology and Soils Significant Less than Significant Less than Si nificant Greenhouse Gas Less than Reduced Reduced Emissions Significant Less than Si nificant Less than -74- Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities and Service Systems Wildfire Less than Significant No Impact Less than Significant No Impact No Impact No Impact Less than Significan Less than Significan Less than Significant Similar Potentially Less than Significant Significant Similar Similar No Impact _ Similar Less than Similar Similar Less than Significant Less than Significant Significant Similar Less than Similar Less than Significant Less than Significant Significant Increased Less than Significant No Impact Less than Significant No Impact No Impact No Impact Less than Significan Less than Significan Less than Significant Similar Potentially Less than Significant Significant Similar Similar No Impact _ No Impact Similar Similar Similar Less than Less than Significant Si nificant Similar Similar No Impact No Impact Similar Similar No Impact NoI n Similar f Similar No Impact No Impact Increased Less than Significant Similar Less than Less than Significant Si nificant Similar Similar Less than Significant Less than Significant 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. Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Project to the extent feasible by adopting the mitigation measures; having considered the entire administrative record on the project; the City Council has weighed the Benefits of the Project against its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation in regards to air quality and cultural resources. While recognizing that the unavoidable adverse impacts are significant under CEQA thresholds, the City Council nonetheless finds that the -75- Similar Potentially t Less than Significant Significant Similar Similar Less than t Less than Significant Significant Similar Less than Significant Similar Less than Less than Significant Si nificant Similar Similar Less than Significant Less than Significant 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. Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Project to the extent feasible by adopting the mitigation measures; having considered the entire administrative record on the project; the City Council has weighed the Benefits of the Project against its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation in regards to air quality and cultural resources. While recognizing that the unavoidable adverse impacts are significant under CEQA thresholds, the City Council nonetheless finds that the -75- unavoidable adverse impacts that will result from the Project are acceptable and outweighed by specific social, economic and other benefits of the Project. In making this determination, the factors and public benefits specified below were considered. Any one of these reasons is sufficient to justify approval of the Project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City Council would be able to stand by its determination that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into this section, and in the documents found in the Records of Proceeding. The City Council therefore finds that for each of the significant impacts which are subject to a finding under CEQA Section 21081(a)(3), that each of the following social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project, independent of the other benefits, outweigh the potential significant unavoidable adverse impacts and render acceptable each and every one of these unavoidable adverse environmental impacts: 1. The Project will repeal the HTCMP and the FBC. 2. The Project will initiate a General Plan Amendment and a Zoning text amendment to address the various inconsistencies identified by the Planning Commission ad-hoc committee, including removal of residential land uses, permitting minor alteration of nonconforming uses, and eliminating Freeway Edge Overlay and Town Center Edge Overlay. 3. The Project will preserve and enhance the role of the Project area as the civic and commercial heart of the City. 4. The Project will codify height and setback requirements for new buildings in the TC and TCE Districts adjacent to any historic buildings. 5. The Project will provide increased FAR in the Project area, especially for areas that provide public gathering spaces. 6. The Project will encourage hotel uses in the Project area, including allowing three story hotels; which will encourage economic generators in the Project area. 7. The Project will encourage an expanded mix of retail, commercial, and civic uses to create a lively mixed-use environment. 8. The Project will readopt and affirm the Park Once Program parking standards. 9. The Project will, consistent with the Development Service Department's goal to partner with community leaders as well as other City Departments, insure the community benefits from new development, maintain the high quality of existing uses and facilities, and take the necessary steps to preserve the City's heritage. -76- u C7 0 w v c � 0 r % 5 o �° w� rR b > D cD < < N. s c o cu CrJ CD o CSD G .o W <D CD m CD cD Cr1 H d� °; a��b xt ao nk,`�d O • O w '+ CD N y rn C7 wo, O 7 n CCD CSD `" y �. o G v — CD b o CD CD O. '. r; • � " v �'. w ^b = ff o CD M o' .*i n Dn fJ w O rt O 3 C) p' w n O n QQ -wi w O n O. C C/) SD aK w7 �'ID o ° WCD ID o'er'ID p 0 w a� ID 0° D a. a 0^, NtZ, CD CD w n • is CD < CD c C7 w c " Q° o c GQ cn CD 0 rfa a vrt w CCD CD o� �' `0 CD U,Q S CCD QCD CCD O OQ c ' ira W — O CD — w ' ° CD w UIQ CD O �' Cs — CD 5' `° °° — 0 s3 'ACD O w O w n b -i, o CD' (I- ai w o °�' 0 P w c`oD v~i CC CCD 5-' CDD �" Vn '� SD CCD =$ (D 3 N .CD ?� 'O • o " CD Ln , vo d o o rt a w ao CD w R. '�. O. 'b rt CD 5 ¢' rt vo CCD CSD 3rt�., �' CD n o w "�� O. CSD '" � R `<CD w as d CD WD � C7 ¢' O CCD CC. ^ fn �•CD w ° ) W n En o vo �' p rt o' CD � c O O n' CD CCD [wn CD 0Ln 0 3 rt c f1 r•F Y O ('1 rF -*. O O O 3 3 d v n n cu O o L Lf) (A N 0) d 3 N 7 3 3 O c O c N of 3 3 L! r Ll r CM � 2. 7 ami c S N 3 rt 3 K 3 t�; ao O 3 O 3 rr O 3� GO 0! 3 O. m 'O O 4 3 OQ 0! 3 N t / / \ 2 k> 7 \ k :3 2 \ � 0 2u u � § 2 U 0 / » @ 8 ƒ 2 � °•S — � E a Qe En cn \ \ 0) \ / Q § / m • t % ®c § n t •e A 2 a 4 5\ I g k) G E c _ \ © u•- u § g Q = _ ;.= t 09\\5f2/;./� E c]$ A E e u =•0 « o o»_ E'/ / a / Wl u ■ kC8.\r.zz: 2.-aw©�=�oQ�ce 'E \ O \ § — _ •° o M 2 R •§ Q=ae « - 24=0558@$$•2%4 d N Z v 6 z n m D_ N— v - n Q p G) v n- a d n v, Ln a Ln m A Q„ o (DD (D d N a-0 j n0 O c ni p rD O c c c O M r3+ C E)* o c n °� c cM �' c m D S< m m ID rrDD -1 CLrnr rn+ 7o r+ - O 3 O S �+ cr n vm 3 -� D) N = a w n --h m O C- °J �' _ rD 7 n - a 0 r+ r3•r r* A S �� N N n N v, m ,•+ O N r3•r �. m 0 m 3 0 - mm 0 s D 3 O 3 M. _ c a p m 3� a a n� o m w rj d o v 04 v o o O_ N r+ CL 3 �? O 1 m s h 'r- a n o 0 0 " n m a� f D O D° r+ a (D o r� 0 _ rt a v 0 O m a 3 m s y S h O_ d r+ a O m rte+ O O < Ln r+ r+ ,� m rnr a r+ � 3 K Z M h O S d r+ M N m 7 -1; 'n m m v v m m Ln w O 1 n a 'a m fl. � r+ w n 0 w in a a N 0 m - m r+ n 0� 0 -, n � �' O n '�' rD a C m y 3 n a O =+ �. n m 0 M 0 3- o � ,n '!aq rp < -h � 3 r* d rm+ n- rrDD um 0 7 v � y � m 0 =r rD v m an d (D vm F, n y °, 3 O �. c N ?r? v r3+ � d� O r+ N 3 N r•r < S O _ M rD m 3 m S- < < n O O Q m Q a S Q O w m r+ m m A rn O N U i -h m �^ 7 m O m DJ d � 3 N v 3 3 n m O m m m r QO < m C C 0 1 -* m :3v O r+ v V) A O r+ W D O O 30 3+ r+ r+ O O 3 r+ d O m 3 D n v, m 3 Ln M LA n m -h O O - 0 n m m -< W, C7 �G c Ln 3 w oD < D� 3 O. 3 +) Q n cu Dr rD @ 2 E - n / \»%k)0 �/o % 0 �) Ln / \ � u = = 2 £ a E �2 ) ) 2 / \ 3 (E \ 0 a. a >"5>W. -2a ° = 2 % a $ = 4.1 \ g E 2 t o§ _ CL : / B M/ e A mƒ _ cu w < S = 2 - @/£a2y/35 - —0 \7 \ 2 = k R % 7 _ E_ g 5 � a 2 k \ \ 2 ` $ % _ & o= n 2 n Lai _ / � 7£§ u g 7\ 7 5 _ & ; r m 5 \ \ u Ln G 0/) 0///7 %�a _ M \ \ \ \ c - / _ #' W s/ E 0 3 k _ 3 E to c E o 7@ k/° 3\\ 2 / 2 U/ o k c 2 E) _ @ s ® e 2 q§ m E\ t 3°/ 2 ƒ % \ E / \ / 7 to . 5 5 5$ 2/( 2 CU a o = _ 0 8 = § \ _ _ E Q) 0— a ƒ 2 8¥ a R 2 E$± b E « @ ƒ % E ± U u 6 -0 o T 7 3 CL Lu \ / E a/ q£ 2/ S E# k 7 £ § 0 ®E q C r r -D%= 8@ g 7 c 9 / Eƒ\ Q. § J / - q } ] $ 0 0=/ i_ e w 2 $=\W CL CL rD § ) \ \ \ \ / 2 § ' 2 7 rD £ r - W CU E � 2 ° � J 0 = §/Ef Rq'0 2& 7 q CL 2 $ a\ m ] n > \ 0 (D i 0 cu .< 0o?_\ £ # ®:3� a o E 3§ a R\ 7° S a w $` x$ 2 n 5 n § k \ ƒ a i - 2 � cr a ] / f / / ) ) �\. /^ : � 0 � f � ) / D S c : L! r UQ \ : \ / . } � )