Loading...
22-0719_LS-SAN JUAN LLC_Agenda Report_E15City of San Juan Capistrano Agenda Report TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Benjamin Siegel, City Manager SUBMITTED BY: Thomas Toman, Public Works Director PREPARED BY: Joe Parco, P.E., City Engineer Jeremy Hohnbaum, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer DATE: July 19, 2022 SUBJECT: Final Map and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 18148 -Petra Avelina, 132 Residential Units (Applicant: LS-San Juan LLC). RECOMMENDATION: 1.Approve the Final Tract Map for Tract No. 18148 - Petra Avelina, 132 Residential Units (Applicant: LS-San Juan LLC) as it conforms to the requirements set forth in the Subdivision Map Act and the Vesting Tentative Tract Map 18148 conditions; and, 2.Authorize the City Engineer and the City Clerk to execute the Final Tract Map for Tract No. 18148; and, 3.Authorize the City Manager to execute the Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract No. 18148 and to accept the corresponding securities; and, 4.Direct the City Clerk and City Engineer to forward the Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract No. 18148 to the County of Orange for recordation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Petra Avelina development consists of 132 units comprised of single-family detached homes and attached townhomes on an existing 16.6-acre parcel. The development is located at 27000 Calle Arroyo as shown on the attached location map (Attachment 1). The applicant, LS-San Juan LLC, is requesting approval of the Final Map for Tract No. 18148 (Enclosure 1). The grading and subdivision improvement plans, as well as the Final Map, have been reviewed by the City Engineer and were found to be in substantial 7/19/2022 E15 City Council Agenda Report July 19, 2022 Page 2 of 4 conformance with the Tentative Tract Map (TTM 18148) and the Subdivision Map Act. Additionally, all appropriate bonds have been posted and fees have been paid to the City. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: On July 21, 2020, the City Council approved Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 18148 and a Floodplain Land Use Permit by Resolution No. 20-07-21-02. (Attachment 2). The subdivision improvement plans, and the Final Tract Map have been reviewed by the City Engineer and were found to be in substantial conformance with TTM 18148 and the Subdivision Map Act. All applicable conditions of approval set forth in Resolution No. 20- 07-21-02 for TTM 18148 have been met. These conditions of approval are required to be completed prior to Final Map approval. The applicant has signed the Subdivision Improvement Agreement for the Tract Map (Attachment 3), posted the proper bonds, and paid the appropriate engineering and impact fees. The public improvements to be constructed for this subdivision will be funded by the applicant. Landscaping, streets, public landscape/recreational areas, private parks, and a multi-use public trail within the development will be maintained by the Homeowners Association (HOA). Landscaping located along the outside perimeter of the tract boundaries and within the public right-of-way, as well as improvements on the City’s parcel adjacent to the existing well site, will be maintained by the HOA under a separate Landscape Maintenance Agreement. The public utilities that are being improved within the public right-of-way by the applicant include potable water, sanitary sewer, and storm drain. This public utility infrastructure will be maintained by Santa Margarita Water District (water and sewer) and the City (storm drain). Based on the findings mentioned above, staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1) approve the Final Tract Map 18148; 2) authorize the City Engineer and the City Clerk to execute the Final Tract Map; 3) authorize the City Manager to execute the Subdivision Improvement Agreement for the Final Tract Map and accept the corresponding securities; and, 4) direct the City Clerk and City Engineer to forward the Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Final Map to the County Recorder’s office. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the City with respect to the construction or operation and maintenance of the public improvements associated with this development. Additionally, the applicant has paid all engineering and impact fees due prior to approval of the Final Map. Pursuant to a condition of approval, Performance Bonds and Labor and Materials Bonds in an amount equal to 100% of the subdivision improvements have been posted and are summarized in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. City Council Agenda Report July 19, 2022 Page 3 of 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: On July 21, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 20-07-21-01 thereby adopting the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project (SCH# 2019110154) pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (Attachment 4). The Final EIR determined that all environmental impacts could be reduced to a level of less than significant through the incorporation of mitigation measures. PRIOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: On July 21, 2020, the City Council adopted a Resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report and Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. The City Council also adopted a Resolution conditionally approving Tentative Tract Map No. 18148 and Floodplain Land Use Permit (FP) 20-001. Lastly, the City Council adopted a Resolution declaring its intent to sell certain real property (i.e., 0.14-acre portion of 666-131-08) pursuant to the purchase and sale agreement with the project developer (Attachment 5). COMMISSION/COMMITTEE/BOARD REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS: On June 9, 2020, the Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of: • Floodplain Land Use Permit (FP20-001), Tentative Tract Map (TTM17-002), and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report through PC Resolution 20- 06-09-01 (Attachment 6). • Architectural Control (AC) 17-033, Grading Plan Modification (GPM) 17-013 and Sign Permit (SP) 20-012 through PC Resolution 20-06-09-02 (Attachment 7). • The finding that the sale of a 0.14-acre portion of City-owned property for inclusion of the Project was consistent with the City’s General Plan (Attachment 8). NOTIFICATION: Shannon Whitaker, Landsea Homes First American Title County of Orange, Surveyors Office Dale Keith Brewer L.S., X Engineering and Consulting, Inc. City Council Agenda Report July 19, 2022 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT(S): Attachment 1: Project Location Map Attachment 2: Resolution No. 20-07-21-02 Attachment 3: Subdivision Improvement Agreement Attachment 4: Resolution No. 20-07-21-01 Attachment 5: Resolution No. 20-07-21-03 Attachment 6: Resolution No. 20-06-09-01 Attachment 7: Resolution No. 20-06-09-02 Attachment 8: Resolution No. 20-06-09-03 Enclosure 1 - Final Map of Tract No. 18148, prepared by X Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Petra Avelina Location Map Address: 27000 Calle Arroyo, San Juan Capistrano CA 92675 ATTACHMENT 1 LJ I LJ LJ RESOLUTION NO. 20-07-21-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM) 17-002 AND FLOODPLAIN LAND USE PERMIT (FP) 20-001 FOR THE TIRADOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECT LOCATED AT 27000 CALLE ARROYO, CONTINGENT ON CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR FOR THE PROJECT WHEREAS, Watt Communities (the "Applicant") is proposing the Tirador Residential Project ("Project"), an 16.1-acre residential project at 27000 Calle Arroyo. The Project entitlements required for the Tirador Residential development include, among other approvals, Floodplain Land Use Permit (FP) 20-001 and Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 17-002; and WHEREAS, Land Use Code Section 9-4.203 requires a tentative tract map for all subdivisions creating five or more lots. The proposed map entails subdividing the 16.1-acre site into five (5) lots ranging in size from approximately 20,119 (0.46 acres) to 266,295 (6.11 acres) square feet. The lots have been designed to accommodate the proposed and future uses on the site; and WHEREAS, before the City Council may approve a tentative tract map, it must make the findings set forth in Land Use Code Section 9-4.223; and WHEREAS, before the City Council may approve a floodplain permit application, it must make the findings set forth in Land Use Code Section 9-2.321, subsection (e); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the tentative tract map and floodplain land use permit applications and has recommended approval because the corresponding findings can be made; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") that analyzed the proposed Project's environmental impacts in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The DEIR was made available to the public for review and comment for 45 days between March 4, 2020, and April 17, 2020. During and following the close of the public review period, the City received five comment letters and e-mails on the project. For those letters and e-mails that raised CEQA-related issues, the City has prepared Response to Comments as required by CEQA, which are included in the Final EIR. The Final EIR determined that all environmental impacts could be reduced to a level of less than significant through the incorporation of mitigation measures. The Draft EIR and Final EIR for the project are available on the City's website at: http://sanjuancapistrano.org/Departments/Development -Services/Planning. The City Council certified the Final EIR prior to consideration of this resolution; and 1 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 2, Page 1 of 26 WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the applications, all the information submitted by the Applicant, the public, and city staff in connection with the Project, including the agenda report prepared by staff for these and other Project approvals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the recitals above are incorporated herein by reference as findings of the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, after careful consideration of the agenda report, including its detailed discussion of these findings, and all the other evidence that was presented in connection with this Project, the City Council of the City of San Juan Capistrano does hereby make the following findings as required by Section 9-4.223, Findings for approval of tentative maps, of Title 9, Land Use Code of the City of San Juan Capistrano: 1.The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan and the applicable specific plan and comprehensive development plan because the land uses proposed are allowed within the Ortega Planned Community, Comprehensive Development Plan 78-1, Sector B-3, and under the current General Plan land use designation of Planned Community and the Project is consistent with the Comprehensive Development Plan and General Plan goals, policies, and standards as discussed above in connection with the Planning Commission's approvals for the Project. Additionally, the project is not located within a specific plan area; and, n 2.The design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and the applicable comprehensive development plan because the nproposed subdivision has been designed to accommodate the Project, and the Project design itself is consistent with those policy and regulatory documents, The proposed project would establish a 132-unit residential community and has been designed to meet all applicable development standards and provisions oflitle 9 of the San Juan Capistrano Municipal code including lot coverages, setbacks, height requirements, use regulations, and affordable housing requirements which allow for concessions and waivers to standards such as setbacks, floor to floor ratio, and RV parking requirements. Furthermore, the project's character, scale and quality of the architecture, site design and landscaping are consistent with the adopted Design Guidelines of the City because the project incorporates materials and colors consistent with the approved structures and signage on properties surrounding the site along Calle Arroyo and similar residential uses located within the City of San Juan Capistrano; and, 3.The site is physically suitable for the type of development because the General Plan land use designation would allow for the development with a density of up to 30 dwelling units per acre and the applicant is proposing to develop individual parcels with a density of up to 14.6 dwelling units per acre. The project is an infill, previously graded, largely unused site, with convenient access to Calle Arroyo and located to provide a well-designed buffer between the proposed residential development and the adjacent creek and commercial area. Furthermore, the n Ortega Planned Community, Comprehensive Development Plan 78-1, Sector 8-3 would allow residential uses; and, 2 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 2, Page 2 of 26 I I u u u 4.The site is physically suitable for the proposed intensity of development because the existing topography and infrastructure provides suitable conditions sufficient to accommodate the proposed improvements. Located generally along the same grade as Calle Arroyo, the site is relatively flat and large enough to accommodate the uses and development proposed. Additionally, the site will be served by existing or extension of utilities from adjacent sources; and, 5.The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) includes an assessment of the Project's potentially significant biological resource impacts and concludes the Project's impacts to such resources would be sufficiently mitigated through the proposed mitigation measures established by the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP); and, 6.The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision because the Project proposes to honor or extend all public easements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, after careful consideration of the agenda report, including its detailed discussion of these findings, and all the other evidence that was presented in connection with this Project, the City Council of the City of San Juan Capistrano does hereby make the following findings as required by Subsection (e) of Section 9-2.321, Floodplain land use permit, of Title 9, Land Use Code of the City of San Juan Capistrano: 1.The application complies with all the location and land use standards for uses or structures as set forth in Section 9-3.405 of the Land Use Code because the site will be graded to elevate the proposed buildings above the 100-year floodplain elevation, and the applicant will pursue a CLOMAR and LOMAR or a CLOMR-F and LOMR-F through the Federal Emergency Management Agency to adjust the FIRM Maps to reflect current and proposed grades. 2.Approval of the application will not result in a discernible net increase in water surface elevation, will not create or exacerbate erosive velocities within special flood hazard areas, and will not contribute to flooding of other properties not previously inundated by the 100-year storm event because in order to raise the existing grades above the 100-year floodplain elevation, the Project proposes to fill portions of the site with approximately 17,950 cubic yards of import soil to raise levels one foot above the Base Flood Elevation. Although the Project site is within a 100-year floodplain, the proposed Project includes a Water Quality Management Plan specifying that proposed buildings would be elevated above flood depths anticipated for site development as well as plans to process a CLOMAR and LOMAR or a CLOMR-F and LOMR-F through the Federal Emergency Management Agency to adjust the FIRM Maps to reflect current and proposed grades. 3 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 2, Page 3 of 26 3.Development and use of the property as proposed are consistent with General Planpolicies regarding flood control, public safety, aesthetics, and resource protectionbecause the proposed Project will complement the existing aesthetics of the area andexisting grade elevations of the adjacent properties, while consistent with the following n General Plan Goals and Policies:Land Use Element, Policy 3.2: Limit density of development in the hillsides,floodplains, and other high-risk areas. The project is designed below the maximumdensity of 30 dwelling units per acre.Conservation and Open Space Element, Policy 5.2: Ensure that new developmentintegrates and preserves areas designated for scenic, historic, conservation, or publicsafety reasons. The project has been designed to elevate proposed buildings abovethe 100-year floodplain elevation and integrate an existing City trail along San JuanCreek.Floodplain Management Element, Goal 1: Protect life and property from floodwaters.The development of the site will assist in managing floodwaters from the public byraising the site above the 100-year plain elevation and providing best practicesmethods to collect and appropriately discharge runoff into the creek.4.The proposed use and development of the property are consistent with all otherapplicable requirements of the Municipal Code and of the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, California Fish and Game Department, United States ArmyCorps of Engineers, and Regional Water Quality Control Board req uirements in effect n at the time the application was deemed complete. The project is designed incompliance with Title 9, Land Use Code for new development projects. The proposedproject is consistent with all other applicable requirements of the Municipal Code,California Fish and Wildlife Department, United States Army Corps of Engineers, andRegional Water Quality Control Board requirements in effect at the time the applicationwas deemed complete. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicantis conditioned to demonstrate that the proposed project complies with the FederalEmergency Management Agency.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby approves Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 17-002 and Floodplain Land Use Permit (FP) 20-001 for the Project, subject to the Conditions of Approval established by Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. EFFECTIVE DA TE & FINAL APPROVAL: This resolution takes effect on approval. These project approvals are valid for a period of 24 months from the effective date of approval of this resolution, and they expire on July 22, 2022 (see SJCMC §§ 9-4.229(a) [24 months for tentative map], 9-2.321 (f) [same period for floodplain if approved concurrently]), unless a time extension request or building permit application related to this approval is submitted to the City and approved prior to that date. 4 7/21/2020 n ATTACHMENT 2, Page 4 of 26 PROTEST OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020, the applicant may protest the imposition of fees, dedications, reservations or other exactions imposed on this development project by taking the necessary steps and following the procedures established by Sections 66020 through 66022 of the California Government Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21 st day of July 2020. ' K STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO ) TR� I, Maria Morris, appointed City Clerk of the City of San Juan Capistrano, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 20-07-21-02 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of San Juan Capistrano at a Regular meeting thereof, held the 21 st day of July 2020, by the following vote: A"(&l; UNCIL MEMBERS: Reeve, Maryott, Farias, Taylor and Mayor Bourne No�l UNCIL ME�BERS: None BS�N : UNCIL MEMBERS: None K s 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 2, Page 5 of 26 ...... LJ ' i I I L,_; EXHIBIT "A" RESOLUTION 20-07-21-02 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PROJECT LOG #: AC 17-033, SP 20-012, GPM 17-013, FP 18-001, and TIM 20-002 PROJECT NAME: Tirador Residential Project APPROVAL DATE: July 21, 2020 Architectural Control (AC) 17-033, Sign Permit (SP) 20-012, Grading Plan Modification (GPM) 17-013, Floodplain Land Use Permit (FP) 20-001, and Te ntative Tract Map (TIM) 17-002, are approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Development Services Department, with all applicable sections of the San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by the above referenced approved applications. These conditions of approval apply to the above-referenced project application described in more detail below. For the purpose of these conditions, the term "applicant" shall also mean the developer, the owner or any successor(s) in interest to the terms of this approval. General Conditions: 1.The applicant proposes to develop 132 residential units, comprised of single­ family and townhome units of which fourteen will be made affordable to moderate income households, on a 16.1-acre site at 27000 Calle Arroyo. This project approval is based on and subject to the application materials prepared by Withee Malcolm Architects, LLP, Summers/Murphy & Partners dated April 27, 2018, and X Engineering dated June 3, 2020, including building elevation(s), floor plan(s), grading, sign plans, landscaping, site plan and materials board plan. These plans and the proposed use of the project site are hereby incorporated by reference into this approval as submitted and conditioned herein and shall not be further altered unless reviewed and approved by the affected city departments. Minor modifications to this project approval may be approved by the Development Services Director pursuant to Section 9-2.303, Administrative approvals of Title 9, Land Use Code. 2.The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of San Juan Capistrano and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of San Juan Capistrano, its officers, employees, or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of San Juan Capistrano concerning this project, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City ATTACHMENT 2, Page 6 of 26 Resolution 20-07-21-02 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Paqe2of21 Council, Planning Commission, or Development Services Director. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 3.In the event that exhibits and written conditions are inconsistent, the written conditions shall prevail. If there are any disparities between these conditions and the plans or final revised plans that are approved for any subsequent phase, the conditions and/or plans as stipulated in the later approval shall prevail. 4.Pursuant to Section 8-2.04 of the Building Code, the applicant shall ensure that all construction activities, which includes the delivery and/or recovery of materials, supplies or construction equipment, shall be conducted in accordance with the prescribed hours of operation as follows: Monday through Friday Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 5.Construction activity is prohibited on Sundays and on any federal holiday unless waived by the Building Official for extenuating reasons. n I ' 6.The applicant shall comply with all requirements from the Building & Safety n Division and all other City departments. 7.The applicant shall schedule a final inspection with the Development Services Department Public Works Department, and Utilities Department to inspect the final construction of improvements related to their department's discipline to ensure consistency with the approved plans and conditions of approval. 8.Compliance with Outside Requirements. Approval of this application does not relieve the applicant from complying with other applicable Federal, State, County, Santa Margarita Water District or City regulations or requirements. To the extent not precluded by Government Code Section 65961, the applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Municipal Code, all requirements of City ordinances, resolutions, and all applicable standards and policies that are in effect at the time that building permits are issued for the development. 9.Signed Plans. All plans, specifications, studies, reports, calculations, maps, notes, legal documents, and designs shall be prepared, stamped and signed, if required, only by those individuals legally authorized to do so. 1 o. Applicant Responsibilities. The applicant shall be responsible for informing all subcontractors, consultants, engineers, or other business entities providing services related to the project of their responsibilities to comply with these conditions of approval and all pertinent requirements in the San Juan n ATTACHMENT 2, Page 7 of 26 lJ I t L Resolution 20-07-21-02 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 3 of 21 Capistrano Municipal Code, including the requirement that a business license be obtained by all entities doing business in the City. 11.Discrepancy Clause. In the event that exhibits, and written conditions are inconsistent, the written conditions shall prevail. If there are any disparities between these conditions and the plans or final revised plans that are approved for any subsequent phase, the conditions and/or plans as stipulated in the later approval shall prevail. 12.Fees. The applicant shall pay all fees at the time fees are determined payable and comply with all requirements of the applicable federal, state, and local agencies. The duty of inquiry as to such requirements shall be upon the applicant. 13.Final Tract Map. Final Tract Map shall be in substantial compliance with the Tentative Tract Map (TTM), Subdivision Map Act and submitted for review and approval to the City Engineer's satisfaction prior to issuance of any permits including but not limited to; grading, building, utility, and/or encroachments unless otherwise allowed by the City Engineer. At a minimum, Final Tract Map shall include information related to all existing and proposed easements, dedications, property lines, flood zones, utilities, ownership, lot sizes, legal descriptions, and site data as required by Public Works, Planning, and Utilities Departments. 14.Calle Arroyo Driveways. The developer shall construct new driveways at the access points on Calle Arroyo and install streetlights with Mission Bell luminaire along the Calle Arroyo project frontage. The developer is responsible for the replacement of any damaged curb and gutter, and sidewalks on Calle Arroyo. (PW) 15.Multiuse Trail Configuration. The developer shall construct the multiuse trail in the configuration identified in the landscape plan, and implement gentler turns where structures, easements and natural topography permit. Unless waived by the Director of Public Works, the trail shall meet the City's trail design specifications. (PLN) THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF ANY FINAL MAP AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT: 16.Street and Development Names. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall submit to the City's Development Services Director for review, and shall obtain approval of, the name of the development or developments and the names of all proposed streets within the tentative tract's boundaries. The Director shall confirm that said development names and street names do not duplicate existing development and street names in the City and are consistent ATTACHMENT 2, Page 8 of 26 Resolution 20-07-21-02 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 4 of21 with City Council policy 417. All approved street names shall be indicated on the Final Map. n 17.Compliance with Map Act and Municipal Code. Prior to approval of the final map, the tract map shall be prepared and submitted in full compliance with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and the City of San Juan Capistran o Municipal Code, except as authorized by the City Council and/or Planning Commission. (PW) 18.Payment of Fees. Prior to approval of the final map the applicant/sub-divider shall fulfill all applicable fee requirements in accordance with the City Municipal Code, as last revised and the City Schedules of Rates and Charges, as last revised. 19.Wastewater Study. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/sub-divider shall submit to the Assistant Utilities Director for review and shall obtain approval of, a Wastewater Feasibility Study, prepared by City Sewer Master Plan Consultant, Tetra Tech Engineering, which evaluates the proposed development project and mitigates its anticipated impact on the existing Wastewater facilities system. Said study shall be consistent with the City's Master Plan of Wastewater Facilities and the Special Provisions for the Construction of Sanitary Sewers. Any deviation from these requirements shall be subject to Assistant Utilities Director review and approval. (UD) 20.Sewer Improvement Plans. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/sub­ divider shall submit Sewer Improvement Plans prepared by a California State Registered Civil Engineer to the Assistant Utilities Director and City Engineer for review and approval. These plans shall be specific to the project and shall reflect consistency with the City's Sewer Master Plans, City standards, specifications, and City Municipal codes. (UD) The applicant/sub-divider shall design the off-site sewer main connections and pipelines in accordance with City sewer standards and American Public Works Association Standards, unless otherwise determined by the Assistant Utilities Director. n The Sewer Improvement Plans shall include at minimum, a 20-foot wide easement, where it is applicable. The applicant/subdivider shall design the development gravity sewer system to connect to an existing City sewer manhole at Calle Arroyo. The Sewer Improvement Plans shall indicate that all proposed sewer manholes shall be lined with polyurethane, or equal approved material, at the applicant/subdivider's cost to the satisfaction of the Assistant Utilities Engineer Director and the City Engineer. Any deviation from these requirements shall be subject to prior Assistant Utilities Engineer Director and City Engineer review and approval. (PWO & UD) n ATTACHMENT 2, Page 9 of 26 I : L,; I : I i i..- lJ Resolution 20-07-21-02 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 5of21 21.Water Improvement Plans. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/sub­ divider shall submit Water Improvement Plans, including a Water Improvement Phasing Plan, prepared by a California State Registered Civil Engineer to the Assistant Utilities Director for review and approval. These plans shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following water requirements: (UD) 22.Domestic Water Improvements: The applicant/sub-divider shall design the off­ site domestic water main connections and pipelines in accordance with City water standards and American Water Works Association Standards, unless otherwise determined by the Assistant Utilities Director. The applicant/sub­ divider shall connect to an existing water main in Calle Arroyo easement for the public segment of the proposed off-site water main including the fire line, domestic water meter, and backflow prevention devices on the project property. On site water facilities including fire hydrants shall be privately operated and maintained by the applicant/sub-divider. (UD) 23.Tirador Well Water Line: the existing well water line shall be replaced and relocated on the Street "A" in order to be connected in to the existing well water line on Calle Arroyo or on to the segment of the existing line located along the westerly property line parallel to the 1-5 Freeway. (UD) 24.Recycled Water Line: The development will construct its recycled water meter to serve common HOA irrigation areas, at the intersection of Calle Arroyo and Paseo Tirador for future connection to planned recycled water facilities. 25.Well Water Meter: The existing domestic water meter for the Well site is off of the City main line which this segment after the proposed master meter for the development will become private water main. City will not pay more than actual water usage of the well site to the development once the City water meter is off of the development private water line. (UD) 26.Street Improvement Plans. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer for review, and shall obtain approval of, street improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. These plans shall show all existing and proposed improvements including, but not limited to, traffic calming devices, striping, signage, signalization, storm drain, sewer, water, and all related appurtenances. The street improvement plans shall conform to the following requirements: (PW) a.Local Streets. All local streets within the project shall have a minimum curb-to­curb width as specified by Municipal Code Section 9-4.527. b.Catch Basins and Gutters. For street sections with grades less than or equalto five percent, the maximum distance between catch basins shall notexceed one 1000 feet. For streets sections with grades greater than fivepercent, the maximum distance between catch basins shall not exceed 750feet. Catch basins shall be designed so that there is no driveway within 20 ATTACHMENT 2, Page 10 of 26 Resolution 20-07-21-02 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 6of21 feet upstream of the catch basin and such that the basin will function as anticipated. Cross gutters shall not be allowed at street intersections if a n storm drain is within 300 feet. Any deviation shall require the City Engineer's review and approval. c.Design Speeds for Streets. Street improvement plans shall be designed perCity standards. Arterial streets shall be designed for a minimum design speed of 35 miles per hour (mph) and sight distances of 45 mph at all intersections. All other streets shall have design speeds and sight distances of 25 and 35 mph, respectively, and shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d.No Obstructions in Sidewalks. There shall be no obstruction in any sidewalkor parkway which reduces the width to less than four feet, in compliancewith the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. 27.Street Lights. Street lights shall be provided, with Mission Bell fixtures on marbelite poles. Any exception or deviation from the above requirements shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 28.Traffic Improvement Plans. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/subdivider shall submit a Traffic Improvement Plan (including at those locations outlined in the MMRP) for all streets within the subdivision prepared by a California State Registered Traffic Engineer or Civil Engineer to the City Engineer for review and approval. These plans shall show the striping, signage, signalization and all related appurtenances. Accompanying Traffic Control Plans shall be required prior to commencement of any street improvement work. Any exception or deviation to the above requirements shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. (PW&UD) 29.Construction Cost Estimates. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/subdivider shall submit an estimate of quantities and construction costs of all proposed Works of Improvements (e.g. Street/Sewer/Water/Drainage/Landscaping Irrigation etc.) associated with this development prepared by a California State Registered Civil Engineer pursuant to the City requirements to the City Engineer and Assistant Utilities Director for review and approval. Said estimates shall include, but not be limited to, the costs for construction of all on-site and off-site improvements for street, signing and striping, traffic signals, street lights, storm drains, water, sewer, landscape, irrigation systems, recreational trails, and the setting of survey monuments and centerline ties. Labor cost of all cost estimates of facilities that will be dedicated to the City for operation and maintenance shall comply with the California Labor Code Section 1720-17 43 with respect to the prevailing wages. Any exception to or deviation from this condition shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and Assistant Utilities Director. (PW & UD) n n ATTACHMENT 2, Page 11 of 26 LJ , I I . : j i....J I • w Resolution 20-07-21-02 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 7 of 21 30.Bonding and Securities. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/subdivider shall execute a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the City and shall provide performance bonds/securities for 100 percent of each estimated Works of Improvement costs, inclusive of soft costs (e.g. Materials Testing, Inspection, Construction Management, Surveying, etc.), as prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer, Assistant Utilities Director and City Attorney for all onsite and offsite improvements including, but not limited to, street improvements, signing, signalization, striping and street lights, storm drains, sewer, water, recreational trails, landscaping and irrigation in rights-of-way, private slopes, and open space. In addition, the applicant/subdivider shall provide labor and materials bonds/securities for 100 percent of the above estimated improvement costs, inclusive of the associated soft costs, as determined by the City Engineer. Labor cost of all improvements to be dedicated to City as public facilities to operate and maintain shall be per prevailing wages rate per California Labor Code Section 1720-17 43. An additional bond, as determined by the City Engineer, shall be required for street maintenance purposes to ensure the conditions of all local driveways/streets within the subdivision, including the offsite emergency access road, are acceptable to the City Engineer. (PW) 31.OCFA Flow Demands. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/sub­ divider shall obtain from the Orange County OCFA Authority (OCFA) the required fire flow demands and fire protection requirements to serve the development within that final map and shall provide evidence of satisfactory OCFA flow. (UD) 32.Dedication of Water Facilities and Water Rights. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/sub-divider shall dedicate on the final map, at no cost to the City, all public water facilities, water rights and 20 feet wide unencumbered lot (lettered lot), to the City for project improvements. (UD) 33.Public Facility Easements and Permits Obtained by Developer on Behalf of the City of San Juan Capistrano. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/sub-divider shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the public utilities purveyor that public facilities, such as drainage, sewer, and water, can be designed and constructed to serve the needs of the property. Public Facilities, to the extent practicable, shall be located within the right-of-way, or common roadways. Public Facilities on private property will be by Easement and use standard restrictions on the surface and subsurface use of the land articulated utilizing Utilities Division 2016 Easement Deed Template. Public Facilities not in roadway shall be in lettered lots dedicated to the City. In addition, easements shall be 20-foot wide, with a 12-foot wide all weather road (decomposed granite or better), without unpassable grade changes, and be connected to a road on public Right of Way; or linked to another similarly constructed easement. Any exception shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and Assistant Utilities Director. (PW & UD) ATTACHMENT 2, Page 12 of 26 Resolution 20-07-21-02 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 8 of 21 34.Tentative Map Compliance and Closure Calculations. Prior to approval of the nfi Ama� t ma t p'ut t _h 1_t� ap D�lica t nt/�ubdivi?er sha d ll s h ub 11 mi b t t t? the City 11 Enginde�r an f d ss1s an 111es irec or ,or review, an s a o am approva recor: at1on o, a final map in substantial compliance with the approved tentative map. Said map shall be accompanied with traverse closure calculations and an updated Title Search Report. Any exception or deviation to the above requirements shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. (PW & UD) 35.Homeowners Association-Maintained Improvements. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/subdivider shall indicate on the final map that all improvements, including but not limited to, streets, drainage, street lights, street signage, striping improvements, the water quality best management practices identified in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), parks, graded slopes, landscaping, and irrigation facilities within the interior of the subdivision owned by the Homeowners Association, shall be maintained by the master association and/or sub-association or shall make other provisions for maintenance to be approved by the City. (PW) 36.Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/subdivider shall submit a precise grading plan(s) prepared by a California State Registered Civil Engineer to the Development Services Director for City review and approval by the City Engineer, Assistant Utilities Director, and Building Official. The precise grading n plan(s) shall be consistent with the approved rough grading plan and the approved Tentative Tract Map. 37.Dedications and Maintenance Responsibility. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/subdivider shall indicate on the final map, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, all appropriate dedication and access rights, stating their purposes and their maintenance responsibilities. (PW & UD) 38.CC&Rs. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/subdivider shall submit for review, and shall obtain the approval of, the Development Services Director, City Engineer, Public Works & Utilities Director, and City Attorney, a set of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Said CC&Rs shall be recorded with the final map and shall include, but not be limited to, the following: a.Creation of a Homeowners Association and/or a Sub-Association for the purpose of providing for control over the uniformity of boundary fencing, and the perpetual maintenance responsibility of areas including, but not limited to, all common areas, open space, project entries, slopes, fuel modification zones, private medians and greenbelts, private parks, irrigation systems, landscaped areas, walls, driveways, parking areas, structures, private streets, street lights, drainage facilities, and all other areas to be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association and/or Sub-association. All improvements, including but not limited to, streets, restoration of enhanced ATTACHMENT 2, Page 13 of 26 I : I : I w J Resolution 20-07-21-02 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 9 of 21 pavement over the public water and sewer facilities after repairing of said facilities by the City, drainage, street lights, street signage, striping improvements, parks, graded slopes, landscaping, and irrigation facilities within the interior of the subdivision designated as private shall remain private and shall be maintained by the Homeowners Association and/or Sub-association, or shall make other provision for maintenance, as approved by the City Council.(PW) b.The establishment of setback and height requirements for additions and accessory structures that conform to the development standards of the San Juan Capistrano Land Use Code. (DSD) c.A statement indicating that proposed amendments to any of the CC&Rs which impact, change or modify any Conditions of Approval, or other City regulations or requirements, shall be submitted for review to the Development Services Director and that, if the Director determines that the amendment adversely affects any project conditions of approval or other City regulations or requirements, the amendment will then require City Council approval prior to the amendment becoming valid. (DSD) d.OCFA prevention and defense provisions including: 1) an OCFA lane map, if required by the OCFA Chief; 2) provisions which prohibit parking in OCFA lanes and a method of enforcement; 3) a method for keeping OCFA protection access easements unobstructed; and 4) a requirement for approval of the OCFA Chief for modifications such as installation of speed humps or bumps, control gate changes, or parking changes. (OCFA) e.Provisions for maintenance by the homeowners association of the water quality best management practices identified in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), of all private drainage facilities, including retention/detention basins, that are made a part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the City, and for inspection of basins annually. The HOA shall have a line item in the annual budget for the implementation of the required operations and maintenance identified in the approved Water Quality Management Plan. (PW) f.A provision that gives the City the right to assume inspection and maintenance of any NPDES facilities, if the City determines that the homeowners association has not maintaine d said facilities in accordance with the permit requirements, and that, in such event, the homeowners association shall be financially responsible to pay City for the costs the City incurs in such maintenance role. (PW) g.A provision that requires City approval of any amendment to the CC&Rs that will, in any manner, affect the maintenance, function, or integrity of NPDES facilities. (PW) ATTACHMENT 2, Page 14 of 26 Resolution 20-07-21-02 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 10of21 h.A statement indicating that by July first of every year, annual fiscal year reports will be furnished to the City in compliance with the reporting requirements of codes and ordinances adopted by the City with respect to the NPDES program. (PW) i.A provision requiring that all landscape contractors properly train their field crews so as to prevent improper pruning/trimming or ornamental maintenance of the California native plants, and providing an enforceable penalty which the HOA may impose on the landscape contractor for violation of this provision including but not limited to replacement of plant material with comparably sized new plant material. (PW) j.A provision that the homeowners association (HOA) would be responsible for the cost of replacement and restoration of any enhanced paving or stamped­ concrete removed by the City for the purpose of maintaining, replacing, repairing, or otherwise conducting work on underground utilities including but not limited to waterlines, sanitary sewer lines, and storm drainage lines within the proposed private streets. (UD) k.A provision that the homeowners association (HOA) would be responsible for the cost of maintenance, replacement, and/or restoration of the multi-use trail along the southern boundary of the development. I.A provision that the homeowners association (HOA) will require that prior to completing any landscape improvements on the property, the applicant/owner shall submit a preliminary landscape plan to the homeowners association's Architectural Review Board for review and approval and shall meet the following standards: •Front yard and side yards visible from the street shall be landscaped with a drought tolerant and California-friendly plant palette as approved by the City. •Failure of any lot owner to comply with these landscape provisions shall be deemed a violation of the Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions (CC&Rs) and shall be punishable accordingly under the violations & penalties section of the CC&Rs 39.Submission of Digital Map. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant/subdivider shall submit for review, and shall obtain approval from the Orange County surveyor, of a digitized map pursuant to Orange County Ordinance 3809 of January 28, 1991. The applicant/subdivider shall pay for all cost of said digital submittal, including supplying digital copies to the City, of the n final County Surveyor approved digital map in DXF format. In addition, the applicant/subdivider shall provide the City with digitized copies of all n improvement (as-built) plans. (PW&UD) ATTACHMENT 2, Page 15 of 26 I I lJ LJ Resolution 20-07-21-02 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 11 of 21 40.Dry Utilities (Electric, Telephone, Cable lV, Gas) Plans. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/subdivider shall submit concurrently with the Street/Sewer/Water/Drainage Improvement Plans, all Electrical, Gas, Telephone and Cable Television installation plans to the City Engineer for review and approval, to ensure compatibility with existing and proposed improvements. All utility lines with junction structures shall be underground. Any deviation from these requirements shall be subject to prior City Engineer review and approval. (PW&UD) 41.Public Facility Easements to be in Lettered Lots Maintained by HOA. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/subdivider shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that public facilities, such as drainage, sewer, and water, are designed to be located within the right-of-way. Any deviation shall require prior authorization from the City Engineer and Utilities Engineer. If facilities are proposed in easements, said facilities shall be placed in lettered lots easements with minimum 20-foot wide paved maintenance road and their surfaces shall be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Any exception shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and Utilities Engineer. (PW&UD) 42.After transfer of a portion of APN 666-131-08, City property, per separate agreement, the developer's property and the acquired property shall be merged together to create one larger, developer's property. 43.The Tract Map shall identify "LOT 'B'" and "LOT 'A"' with clear indications of which area is designated the lot. 44.The tract map shall include the following labels: a.0.14-acre northern portion of APN 666-131-08 shall be identified as "PROPERTY OWNED BY CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO TO BE TRANSFERRED TO DEVELOPER PER SEPARATE AGREEMENT" b.Proposed property line to separate 0.14-acre northern portion from APN 666-131-08 shall be identified as "LIMITS OF FUTURE FINAL TRACT (FUTURE TRACT BOUNDARY AFTER TRANSFER, PER SEPARATE AGREEMENT)" THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY GRADING AND/OR RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENT PERMIT(S): 45.Payment of Fees. Prior to issuance of grading or right-of-way improvement permits, the applicant/subdivider shall pay all applicable fee requirements in accordance with the City Municipal Code, as last revised and the City Schedules of Rates and Charges, as last revised. (PW&UD) 46.Permits Required. Prior to the commencement of any grading or construction activity not provided for in previously approved permits, a permit shall be ATTACHMENT 2, Page 16 of 26 Resolution 20-07-21-02 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 12 of 21 47. 48. 49. required. All improvement work, whether performed on-site or off-site, shall require a permit to ensure the integrity and safety of all existing and proposed improvements affected by construction activities. (PW & UD) Public Trail Access. Prior to commencement of any grading or construction activity, the developer shall construct a temporary trail that maintains public trail accessibility through the project site during project grading and construction and is contingent upon the following requirements: a.The temporary trail must be constructed and be operational prior to closing the existing trail to the public; b.The temporary trail location shall be along the southern boundary of the development site adjacent to San Juan Creek; c.The temporary trail must have an asphalt surface; d.The temporary trail shall not be less than 10 feet in width to provide adequate space for two-way public use, however, if necessary, some sections of the trail can be reduced to 8-feet in width with City staff approval; e.Prior to construction of the temporary trail, the developer shall submit a temporary trail signage plan for City review and approval; f.The temporary trail may be closed for a maximum of three months to allow for construction of the new permanent public trail. During this 3-month time period, an alternative 8-foot wide asphalt public trail through the project site shall be provided by the developer unless the following circumstances prevent the construction of said alternative trail: i.The developer demonstrates to City staff's satisfaction that adjoining property owners are not willing to grant temporary access easements to allow a temporary trail to traverse their property; or ii.The developer demonstrates to City staff's satisfaction that alternative trail alignments through the development site during construction are unsafe for trail users. g.If an alternative trail through the project site cannot be provided during the 3-month construction of the permanent public trail, the developer shall submit a trail detour plan, prepared by a registered engineer, for the City's review and approval that routes trail users around the project site by using the public streets of La Novia Avenue, San Juan Creek Road, and CaminoCapistrano. Encroachment Permit Haul Route. A Public Encroachment Permit is required for a Haul Route for any import/export of earth material in excess of fifty (50) cubic yards to or from the site. Prior to the commencement of hauling earth to or from the site, applicant shall, if applicable, submit the Haul Route for review and approval by the City Engineer. (PW) Grading Plans. Prior to issuance of grading or right-of-way improvement permits, the applicant/subdivider shall submit the required number of copies of grading plans prepared by a California State Registered Civil Engineer to the n n n ATTACHMENT 2, Page 17 of 26 I i I . Resolution 20-07-21-02 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 13 of 21 Development Services Director for City review and approval by the City Engineer for the entire project site. Such plan shall be in substantial conformance with the grading concept shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map. Following City approval of the rough grading plan, and prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/subdivider shall submit a precise grading plan(s) prepared by a California State Registered Civil Engineer to the Development Services Director for City review and approval by the City Engineer and Building Official. The precise grading plan(s) shall be consistent with the approved rough grading plan and the approved Tentative Tract Map. These plans shall conform to the City and Orange County grading plan standards and depict, at minimum, all existing features, the limits of grading, the drainage, retention/detention basins, sewer facilities, water facilities, existing easements and right-of-way boundaries, trails, parkways, streets and all appurtenant improvements. The extent of the topography shall be extended sufficiently beyond the tract's boundaries to determine the geological and drainage impacts to adjacent properties. The elevations shall correspond with the Orange County benchmark datum. All drainage design must depict proper conveyance to the on-site street or a City approved drainage facility with appropriate pre-treatment facilities or Best Management Practices (BMP) in place pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. All grading plans shall be subject to review by a third-party geotechnical consultant retained by the City to ensure geotechnical stability to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (DSD, PW & UD) 50.Grading Access and Haul Route Plan. Prior to issuance of grading or right-of­ way improvement permits, the applicant/subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer for review, and shall obtain approval of: (PW) a.An on-site plan showing location of the access point, for the earth moving and grading equipment and for workers vehicles entering and exiting the site. b.An off-site haul route plan for soil importation/exportation circulation and for heavy construction related deliveries. The haul route plan shall specify the dates and times and headways for hauling activities in compliance with all applicable City standards. The City Engineer may require a security deposit in conjunction with approval of the haul route plan. c.Prior to commencement of haul activities, the applicant shall obtain a Haul Route Permit and pay required fees. ATTACHMENT 2, Page 18 of 26 Resolution 20-07-21-02 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 14 of 21 51.All existing and proposed easements as listed on the TTM shall be shown on grading plans and disposition of the existing easements in respect to the n proposed development shall be determined. If an easement is to be quitclaimed, a copy of the quitclaimed document shall be provided to the City Engineer. 52.Erosion & Sediment Control Plans. Prior to issuance of grading or right-of-way improvement permits, the applicant/subdivider shall submit an Erosion/Sediment Control Plan for the regulation and control of pollutant run-off by using Best Management Practices (BMPs), prepared by a California State Registered Civil Engineer to the City Engineer for review and approval. The plan shall show all temporary and permanent erosion control devices, effective planting of graded slopes, practical accessibility for maintenance purposes and proper precautions and fences to prevent public trespass onto certain areas where impounded water may create a hazardous condition. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared by a certified QSD and the project shall be issued a WDID number through the Regional Water Resources Control Board and the project downloaded into the SMARTS program. In order to control pollutant run-off, the applicant/sub-divider shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that all water quality best management practices shall be designed in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards, and the requirements of California nRegional Water Quality Control Board (San Diego Region) Order No. R9-2009- 0009 (as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ) and City guidelines and regulations, and shall show evidence satisfactory to the City Engineer that a permit has been obtained. (PW) 53.General Construction Permit. Prior to issuance of grading or right-of-way improvement permits, the applicant/subdivider shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOi) to the California State Water Resource Control Board for coverage under the State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program (NPDES) General Permit for storm water discharges associated with development/ construction activity in excess of one acre of land. Evidence that this requirement has been met shall be submitted to the City Engineer. (PW&UD) 54.Water Quality Management Program. a.Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant/subdivider shall submit concurrently with the grading plans, erosion control plans, and drainage plans a Final Water Quality Management Program (WQMP), as prepared by a California State Registered Civil Engineer, to the City Engineer for review and approval. All erosion and sediment control measures as specified in said approved WQMP shall be implemented during the grading operation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (PW)n ATTACHMENT 2, Page 19 of 26 I II : I ' I ...... i I ! ....... Resolution 20-07-21-02 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 15 of 21 55.Drainage Improvement Plans. Prior to issuance of grading or right-of-way improvement permits, the applicant/subdivider shall submit Drainage Improvement Plans as prepared by a California State Registered Civil Engineer to the City Engineer for review and approval. The Drainage Improvement Plans shall be specific to the project, and be consistent with the City's Drainage Master Plan. These plans shall show locations of all existing and proposed facilities. Detention/retention basins shall be designed to accommodate the 100-year storm flow with engineered secondary overflow devices. An engineered secondary overflow shall also be provided for storm drain systems designed with sump conditions to preclude flooding of private properties. All drainage must be conveyed to the on-site street or a City approved drainage facility. If an existing downstream drainage facility, whether it is a storm drain pipe, an open drainage channel, or an inlet basin, is inadequate or does not meet current City standards or, in the opinion of the City Engineer, is unsafe to properly carry the existing discharge and the proposed discharge generated by this project, the applicant/subdivider shall then, at applicant/subdivider's cost, design and implement alternative methods of improvement for properly conveying such discharge, free of debris, in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. Any deviation from these requirements shall be subject to City Engineer review and approval. Every proposed drainage system shall be placed within its proper easement and appropriately dedicated. The base of all slopes over ten feet in height located within 20 feet of a street section or which are adjacent to another lot shall be provided with toe drains or other drainage devices approved by the City Engineer, in order to prevent water, mud or debris from damaging or flowing onto such streets or lots. (PW) 56.Trash Enclosure and Waste Management. Prior to issuance of a grading permit applicant shall submit plans and details showing enclosed and covered (Solid Roof) trash and waste management areas/bins. Trash enclosure space shall accommodate refuse, recycling, and organic waste collection containers and meet requirements per CalRecycle AB 1826 and SB 1383, and CalGreen Building Code Chapter 5, Section 5.410. Trash enclosures shall have a drain connected directly to the sanitary sewer system. Trash and waste and asbestos management plans shall be approved by the Utilities Department, Solid Waste and Recycling Division. Applicant shall also provide a written approval letter from CR&R for trash and waste and asbestos management areas and haul off plans. Sufficient access shall be provided to allow solid waste handling truck access and turning radii. 57.Connection to Public Drains must be Documented and Filed. Prior to issuance of grading or right-of-way improvement permits, the applicant/subdivider shall ATTACHMENT 2, Page 20 of 26 Resolution 20-07-21-02 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 16 of 21 demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that any proposed connections to an existing public drainage system, from on-site drains, must be napproved by the City Engineer and Orange County Flood Control District (as applicable). All documentation and revisions to existing plans, where points of connections are permitted, shall be provided and submitted by the applicant's engineer at applicant's expense, prior to acceptance of improvements and release of performance securities. (PW&UD) 58.Recycling/Reduce Debris Act of 1989 {CIWMA). Prior to issuance of grading or right-of-way improvement permits, the applicant/subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer for review, and shall obtain approval of, a program complying with the requirements of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 to reduce construction and demolition debris through recycling. (PW) 59.Soils/Geology. Prior to issuance of grading or right-of-way improvement permits, the applicant/subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer, Assistant Utilities Director, and Building Official for their review, and shall obtain approval of, a Soils Report/Geotechnical Feasibility Study prepared by a Registered Geologist and Soils Engineer to determine the seismic safety and soils stability of all proposed development improvements for the project and any affected adjacent properties and to provide preliminary pavement sections and substructure bedding/backfill recommendations. (PW&UD) 60.Mitigation of Drainage and Grading Problems. Prior to issuance of grading or nl right-of-way improvement permits, the applicant/subdivider shall adhere to the I I following conditions during the entire grading and construction operation: (PW) a.If any drainage problem is anticipated or occurs during construction, the applicant/subdivider shall provide and implement a solution acceptable to the City Engineer, at no cost to the City, and shall submit a recorded instrument to ensure the durability of the solution. b.Any grading work beyond the limits of grading shown on the approved grading plans shall require a written approval from the City Engineer and shall be subject to a supplemental Geotechnical Soils Report and additional fees. 61.Stormwater Management/Drainage Plan, Hydraulic/Hydrologic Calculations. Prior to issuance of grading or right-of-way improvement permits, the applicant/subdivider shall submit a Drainage Plan which includes the Hydraulic /Hydrology calculations as prepared by a California State Registered Civil Engineer to the City Engineer for review and approval. The Drainage Plan shall show existing and proposed facilities, provide for acceptance of historic drainage from adjacent upstream properties, show hydraulic and hydrology studies and calculations and the methods of draining on-site and tributary areas without exceeding the capacity of any impacted street or facility and without affecting existing downstream drainage system. Said study shall be consistent n ATTACHMENT 2, Page 21 of 26 < I I j LJ L...; ...._,_ Resolution 20-07-21-02 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 17of21 with the City's Master Drainage Plan and in accordance with all applicable City regulations, Orange County Hydrology and Orange County Public Works design criteria and requirements. (PW) 62.Construction Phasing and Mitigation Program. Prior to issuance of grading or right-of-way improvement permits, the applicant/subdivider shall prepare and adhere to a Construction Phasing and Mitigation program, approved by the Development Services Director and Building Official containing, but not limited to, the following controls: (PW & DSD) a.Grading: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Comply with California Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 1529, Asbestos, for removal and disposal of existing water line on the site. (UD) Haul route for the movement of on and off-site of heavy earth-moving equipment. Location of assembly and storage/service areas for heavy earth-moving equipment and limits of hours of operation. Control of worker access to site, including hours of work, limits on noise sources, and dust and soil import/export. Compliance with environmental mitigation measures, including stockpiles and dust impacts. A schedule and the method of performing the grading, stockpiling and construction of all improvements in each phase. b.Enforcement: 1.The Development Services Director and City Engineer may modify the Construction Phasing and Mitigation Program as they deem necessary if on-site observations indicate that construction activities are creating a nuisance to adjacent property. 2.The applicant/subdivider shall hire a project enforcement person approved by the City Engineer to ensure compliance with the Construction Phasing and Mitigation Program. 3.Violation of the City-approved "Construction Phasing and Mitigation Program" shall be subject to enforcement action pursuant to Section 9- 1.201, Violations and Penalties of the Title 9, Land Use Code. 63.Design of Water Facilities. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant/subdivider shall design all domestic and non-domestic water facilities in compliance with City water standard specifications. If a water improvement phasing plan is to be implemented, the phasing plan shall be submitted with the improvement plans to the Assistant Utilities Director for review and approval. (UD) ATTACHMENT 2, Page 22 of 26 Resolution 20-07-21-02 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 18 of 21 64.Property Transfer. Developer shall execute all documents to obtain ownershipof the northern portion of APN 666-131-08 as depicted in the approved n Purchase and Sales Agreement and the acquired property shall be !jincorporated into the project's grading plan. (PW) THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT(S): 65.Federal Emergency Management Agency {FEMA) Compliance. Prior to theissuance of any Building Permits applicant shall receive approval from FEMA for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision based on Fill (CLOMR-F) or aConditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) whichever is applicable andrequired per FEMA. Architectural and structural plans shall be prepared inaccordance with the most recent version of the City of San Juan CapistranoFloodplain Management regulations, all NFIP and FEMA floodplainrequirements, and FEMA Title 44 Chapter I Part 60 requirements including but not limited to Subparagraphs 60.3(c)(3)(ii) and 60.3(c)(4) of the NFIPregulations. (PW) 66.Development Plans. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for eachdevelopment phase, the applicant/subdivider shall submit development plans tothe Development Services Director for City review and approval. Plans to be reviewed shall be as applicable to the particular development phase underreview and, in general, shall include grading plans (unless previously approved !7: by the City), final site and landscape plans, park plans (if applicable to the I ldevelopment phase), architectural elevations, wall/fence plans, project entryand gate plans, sample material boards, and other plans as specified by theDevelopment Services Director. Landscaping plans shall provide at least onestreet tree per residential lot. Final plans shall be in substantial compliance withpreliminary plans approved as part of the development review process. (DSD) 67.Capistrano Circulation Fee Program {CCFP). Except as otherwise set out inaccordance with a schedule in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement to beexecuted in conjunction with City approval of the first final map, the applicant/subdivider shall pay fees, in the amount prescribed by the City Councilat the time of issuance, as required by the CCFP, at issuance of each buildingpermit. (PW) 68.Public Water and Sewer Plans. The applicant/subdivider shall submit PublicWater and Sewer improvement Plans to the Utilities Department for City reviewand approval. (UD) 69.Water Availability. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits bythe Development Services Department, the applicant/developer shall consultwith the Utilities Department to determine the availability of water for their project n and will secure a final "will serve" water capacity allocation. (UD) j I ATTACHMENT 2, Page 23 of 26 I : I I u i....J Resolution 20-07-21-02 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 19 of 21 70.Completion of Water Facilities. Prior to issuance of building permits for each building phase, the applicant/subdivider shall complete the construction of all domestic and non-domestic water (irrigation) facilities as indicated and required to serve the subject project in compliance with the City Municipal Code and the City water standards, and American Water Works Association Standards. Any exception to, or deviation from this condition shall be subject to review and approval by the Assistant Utilities Director. (UD) THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE SPECIFIED CERTIFICATE($) OF OCCUPANCY: 71.Affordable Housing Requirement. The applicant/subdivider shall meet the General Plan Housing Element's affordable housing requirement by either (1) prior to the issuance of a "Certificate of Occupancy" for each market rate dwelling unit, paying an in-lieu housing fee to the City pursuant to Section 9- 5.103, "Housing in-lieu feen of Title 9, Land Use Code in effect at that time; or, (2)prior to the issuance of the 1st building permit for a market rate dwelling unit, providing for the development of a minimum of 10% of the total number of units, totaling fourteen (14) units as affordable housing units subject to a City­ approved and recorded Affordability Agreement restricting the rental and/or sale of such units to qualifying "low income n and/or "very-low income" households for a period of not less than ten (10) years. The applicant/subdivider shall be responsible for securing the required planning application approvals for the development of such affordable housing, and shall secure the required building permits ·prior to the issuance of the 1st building permit for any market rate housing units, and shall complete construction and secure all "Certificates of Occupancy" for the affordable housing units prior to the issuance of any "Certificates of Occupancy" for the market rate units. (DSD) 72.Monumentation. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the 1st home within the project (other than model homes), the applicant/subdivider's surveyor shall set monuments related to the subject property(ies) and re-establish any damaged or destroyed monumentation during construction. Monumentation, street centerline ties and appropriate corner records shall be submitted to the City Engineer and filed with the County Surveyor in compliance with AB 1414 and Sec. 8771 of the Business and Professions Code. (PW&UD) 73.Completion of All Improvements to the City's Satisfaction. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the 1st home within the project (other than model homes), or prior to acceptance of the Works of Improvements and release of the performance and labor and materials securities by the City, whichever occurs first, the applicant/subdivider shall complete, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, all Works of Improvements as defined within the Subdivision Improvement Agreement and related plans required of this development and necessary to serve the development, including any required off-site ATTACHMENT 2, Page 24 of 26 Resolution 20-07-21-02 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 20of21 improvements, in accordance with the City approved Construction Phasing and Mitigation Program, the approved Improvement Plans, and approved n,, exceptions at the sole cost of applicant. (PW&UD) 74.Installation of Landscaping and Irrigation System. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first home within each development phase (other than model homes), the applicant/subdivider shall submit a letter to the Development Services Director, signed by a Registered Landscape Architect, stating that all materials for all landscaped areas have been installed in accordance with the approved plans for each development phase, and shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director that all landscaped areas have been landscaped per the approved landscape and irrigation plans. The applicant shall provide as-built landscape and irrigation plans that identify all deltas (changes) to the Utilities Engineering and Development Services. (DSD & UD) 75.Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Operations and Maintenance Recordation. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first home, the applicant/subdivider shall provide proof of recordation of the WQMP Operations and Maintenance section of the Water Quality Management Plan. (UD) THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS AND RELEASE OF SURETY/PERFORMANCE SECURITIES: n 76.Provide "Record Drawing"f'As-Built" Mylars. Prior to acceptance of the Works of Improvements and release of performance · securities, the applicant/subdivider shall submit Record Drawings of all on-site and off-site Works of Improvements (e.g. Water/Sewer/Drainage/Street/Irrigation/ Landscape, etc.) to the City Engineer and Utilities Engineer for review and obtain approval for the reproducible "Record Drawing"/'As-Built" mylar plans that call out any deviations from the approved signed plans of all the improvement works constructed and completed. Said 11 Record Drawings"/'As­ Built" mylar plans shall be prepared by a California State Registered Civil Engineer. Also, the applicant/subdivider shall submit digital copies of all Record Drawings, at no cost to the City, in accordance with the latest edition of the "City of San Juan Capistrano Digital Submission Standards". (PW&UD) 77.Videotape of Sewers and Storm Drain Pipes. Prior to acceptance of Works of Improvements and release of performance and materials and labor securities, the applicant/subdivider shall submit a videotape, or video file, filmed in the presence of a City Staff representative/inspector, of all sewer and drainage improvements to the City Engineer & Assistant Utilities Director for review and approval. The videotape/video file shall become the property of the City. (PW&UD)n ATTACHMENT 2, Page 25 of 26 ! I ' I I I I I w I '� Resolution 20-07-21-02 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 21 of 21 _ 78. Private fire hydrants within the development shall be painted in RED color. (UD) THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET CONTINUOUSLY DURING CONSTRUCTION AND PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: 79.Compliance With Mitigation and Monitoring Program. At all times relevant, Applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program ("MMRP") adopted in connection with FEIR SCH No. SCH# 2019050015 in connection with the Project. _ 68. Compliance with OCFA protection conditions. The applicant or responsible party shall submit the plan(s) listed below to the Orange County Fire Authority for review. Approval shall be obtained on each plan prior to the event specified. a. b. Prior to issuance of a precise grading permit: •fuel modification plan (service code PR124) •fire master plan (service code PR145) o Note: Determine the required fire flow and provide a current water availability form signed by a water district representative showing that the available fire flow is greater than or equal to the required fire flow. o Note: The fire access roads may not exceed a 10% (5.7 degree) grade. Prior to issuance of a building permit: •fire sprinkler system (service codes PR405) Responsible Departments/Agencies: DSD: Development Services Department DSD-B&S: DSD-Building & Safety Division PW: Public Works Department UD: Utilities Department OCFA: Orange County Fire Authority Applicant Acceptance of Conditions of Approval: Signature-Authorized Representative Watt Communities Date: ______ _ Print Name & Title: _____________________ _ ATTACHMENT 2, Page 26 of 26 SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT SUBJECT: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 18148 THIS SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made this __ day of July 2022 between the CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, a California municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and LS-SAN JUAN LLC, a California limited liability company, whose mailing address is 7525 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92618 (hereinafter referred to as "Subdivider"). City and Subdivider may be collectively referred to herein as the "Parties" and each individually as a "Party." WHEREAS, on July 21, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20-07-21-02, which, among other things, conditionally approved Tentative Tract Map No. 18148 (''TTM 18148"); and, WHEREAS, Subdivider is the owner of that certain parcel of land situated in the City , generally described in TTM 18148 (the "Property"), and Subdivider proposes to construct certain works of improvement thereon as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, City desires to assure that the proposed improvements will be completed in a good and workmanlike manner and in accordance with the City's laws now in force and effect, the terms and conditions of which are incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, Subdivider declares that it is familiar with the pertinent regulations contained in the City's Municipal Code and in the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Sections 66410 to 66500) (the "Subdivision Map Act") and agrees to comply therewith; and WHEREAS, a Final Map of said subdivision prepared in accordance with the City's Subdivision Ordinance, has been filed by Subdivider with City for approval by the City Council. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the approval and acceptance by the City Council of said Final Map and the acceptance of easements therein offered for dedication for street and other public purposes and the covenants herein contained, the parties hereto mutually covenant and agree as follows: 1.General Requirements: Subdivider shall comply with all the conditions of approval set forth in City Council Resolution No. 20-07-21-02 for TTM 18148 and shall, at its own cost and expense, provide all required tests, design work, equipment, materials and labor in order to complete all of the works of improvement set forth in Exhibit "A" (collectively, the "Works of Improvement"), to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Such Works of Improvement shall include but not be limited to the placement of curb markers at all 61 1-n .OOJ IO -rn2%4Xll. I ATTACHMENT 3, Page 1 of 22 2. proposed street catch basin inlet structures in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Security: A.Subdivider shall, at all times beginning with the execution of this Agreement, guarantee its performance under this Agreement by providing City with the following security instruments (together, the "Security Instruments"), as required by the Subdivision Map Act, on forms approved by City for the purposes and in the amounts as follows: (i)A Faithful Performance Bond to ensure faithful performance of this Agreement in regard to said improvements in the amount of 100% of the estimated cost of construction of the Works of Improvement, as set forth in Exhibit A; and (ii)A Labor and Materials Bond to secure payment to any contractor, subcontractor, persons renting equipment or furnishing labor or materials for the Works of Improvement required to be constructed or installed pursuant to this Agreement in the additional amount of 100% of the estimated cost of construction of the Works of Improvement, as set forth in Exhibit A; and B.In order to guarantee and warranty the Works of Improvement and in addition to the Security Instruments referenced in Paragraph 2(A) above, Subdivider shall provide to City the following: (i)Prior to the City's final acceptance of the Works of Improvement and recordation of a Notice of Completion, Subdivider shall provide to City a Warranty Bond covering all Works of Improvement warranting the accepted Works of Improvement for a period of one (1) year following said acceptance against any defective work or labor done or defective material furnished (the "Warranty Bond"). The amount of the Warranty Bond for Works of Improvement shall be equal to twenty-five percent (25%) of the estimated construction cost set forth in Exhibit "A," or a suitable amount determined by the City Engineer. (ii)Prior to the City's final acceptance of the landscape and irrigation Works of Improvement, Subdivider shall provide a Landscape and Irrigation Warranty Bond warranting the landscape and irrigation Works of Improvement for a period of (1) year following said acceptance against any defective work or labor done or defective material furnished for any reason other than improper maintenance ("Landscape and Irrigation Warranty Bond" and together with the Warranty Bond, the "Warranty Bonds"). The amount of such2 (i I 1-l 7 003 IO -l1)2%-lR() I ATTACHMENT 3, Page 2 of 22 Landscape and Irrigation Warranty Bond shall be equal to twenty percent (20%) of the landscape architect's estimated construction cost, or a suitable amount determined by the City Engineer. The Landscape and Irrigation Warranty Bond shall be held by the development's Homeowners' Association ("HOA"). All Security Instruments and the Warranty Bond required by this Agreement shall be kept on file with the City Clerk; the Landscape and Irrigation Warranty Bond shall be kept on file with the HOA. The terms of the Security Instruments and Warranty Bonds required by this Agreement are hereby incorporated in this Agreement by reference. City Engineer shall release the Security Instruments upon Subdivider's written request following acceptance by City of the Works of Improvement and Subdivider's delivery to City of the Warranty Bonds for the Works of Improvement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City shall release the Security Instruments and Warranty Bonds to the extent required by the Subdivision Map Act. City Engineer shall release the Warranty Bond for the Works of Improvement upon Subdivider's written request following the expiration of the warranty period, provided no claims are outstanding at that time regarding defective work. The release of the Landscape and Irrigation Warranty Bond held by the HOA will be determined by a separate agreement between the developer and the HOA. 2.1 Form of Security Instruments. All Security Instruments and Warranty Bonds shall meet the following minimum requirements and otherwise shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney: 611-+7 llll311l .+02%.+!W.I (i)Any insurance company acting as surety shall have a minimum rating of A-IX, as rated by the current edition of Best's Key Rating Guide published by A.M. Best's Company, Oldwick, New Jersey, 08858; any bank acting as surety shall have a minimum rating of AA, as rated by Moody's or Standard & Poor's; (ii)Payments under the Security Instruments and Warranty Bonds shall be required to be made (and, with respect to bonds, litigation shall be required to be instituted and maintained) in the County of Orange, State of California; (iii)Each of the Security Instruments and Warranty Bonds shall have a minimum term of one (1) year after the deadline for 3 ATTACHMENT 3, Page 3 of 22 3. Subdivider's completing the Works of Improvement, in accordance with paragraph 3 herein; (iv)The Security Instruments and Warranty Bonds shall reference Subdivider's obligations under this Agreement, shall be irrevocable, and shall include as an additional obligation the responsibility to compensate City for all of the City's attorneys' fees and litigation expenses reasonably incurred enforcing its rights under the Security Instruments and Warranty Bonds. 2.2 Security Devices In-Lieu of Bonds. Subject to City's approval, which may be withheld in the City's sole discretion, Subdivider may elect to substitute an irrevocable letter of credit or certificate of deposit to secure all obligations under this Agreement and as otherwise specified to be secured by the Security Instruments or Warranty Bonds. Such irrevocable letter of credit or certificate of deposit shall be provided on City-approved forms. Time of Completion: All of the Works of Improvement shall be completed within twenty-four (24) months from the effective date of this Agreement. The time for completion may be extended by the City Engineer, in writing, for good cause shown by the Subdivider. Subdivider shall compensate the City for all costs reasonably incurred in having its authorized representatives perform the usual and customary engineering services during said extension as specif ied in Section 19 of this Agreement. In the event that Subdivider fails to complete the Works of Improvement within said period or any approved extension, the City may complete said work and shall be entitled to recover the full cost and expenses thereof from Subdivider, or its surety as herein provided. The City may require Subdivider, or its surety, to pay the City in advance, sufficient monies to cover the City's cost in completing construction of said Works of Improvement. 3.1 Force Majeure: Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 3 herein, Subdivider's time for completion of the Works of Improvement shall be extended for the period of any enforced delay caused due to circumstances beyond the control and without the fault of Subdivider, including to the extent applicable adverse weather conditions, flood, earthquakes, strikes, lockouts, required changes to the Scope of Work required by City, and similar causes; provided, however, that the period of any enforced delay hereunder shall not include any period longer than thirty (30) days prior to City's receipt of a written notice from Subdivider or its contractor detailing the grounds for Subdivider's claim to a right to extend its time for performance hereunder. 4 6 I 1-l 7.0113 IO -l02%-lXll I ATTACHMENT 3, Page 4 of 22 4. 5. 6. 7. 3.2 Continuous Work: After commencement of construction of the Works of Improvement (or separable portion thereof), Subdivider shall cause such work to be diligently pursued to completion, and shall not abandon the work for a consecutive period of more than thirty (30) days, events of force majeure excepted. 3.3 Reversion to Acreage: In addition to whatever other rights City may have due to Subdivider's failure to timely perform its obligations hereunder, Subdivider recognizes that City reserves the right to revert the Property to acreage subject to the limitations and requirements set forth in California Government Code Sections 66499.11-66499.20.3. In this regard, Subdivider agrees that if none of the Works of Improvement referenced herein have been made within the specified "Time of Completion" referenced in Section 3 of this Agreement or within the time allowed herein, whichever is the later, and if City thereafter initiates proceedings to revert the Property to acreage, any improvements made by or on behalf of Subdivider after the date City initiates such action shall not be considered in determining City's authority to revert the Property to acreage. Effective Date of Agreement: This Agreement shall not become effective unless and until the Final Map has been approved by the City Council and also accepted for recordation by the County Recorder of the County of Orange. Utility Deposits -Statement: Prior to the commencement of any Work of Improvement to be performed within the area delineated on the Final Map, the Subdivider must file a written statement with the City Clerk and City Engineer, signed by the Subdivider, to the effect that Subdivider has made all deposits legally required by such public utility corporation for the connection of any and all public utilities to be supplied by such public utility corporation within the subdivision. Permits -Compliance with Law: Subdivider shall, at Subdivider's expense, obtain all necessary permits and licenses for the construction of required Works of Improvement, give all necessary notices and pay all fees and taxes required by law. Definitions and Ownership of Improvements: The term "improvements" means: grading, paving, curbs and gutters, pathways, storm drains, sanitary sewers, domestic and non-domestic water, 5 611-H,003 l ll +02%+Xil, I ATTACHMENT 3, Page 5 of 22 8. 9. utilities, such as electric, telephone and cable TV, conduits, gas lines, drainage facilities, traffic controls, landscaping and irrigation, street lights, and all other required facilities as shown in detail upon plans, profiles and specifications which have been prepared or are now in final preparation by engineers acting for Subdivider subject to approval by the City Engineer. No work on said improvements shall be commenced until plans and profiles therefore have been submitted to, approved and permitted by the City Engineer. All required public improvements constructed or installed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole exclusive property of the City, without payment therefore, upon acceptance of said improvements by the City Council. Obligations of Subdivider: Notwithstanding the fact that Subdivider's plans and specifications, completion of the work, and other acts are subject to approval of the City, it is understood and agreed that any approval by the City thereof shall in no way relieve Subdivider of satisfactorily performing said work or the related obligations hereunder. The construction shall be done strictly in accordance with the plans and specifications including supplementals and revisions prepared by Subdivider or its registered engineer, and as approved by the City as being consistent with the City Code and Standards. Subdivider warrants that its plans and specifications conform as a minimum to said codes and standards and that they are adequate to accomplish the Works of Improvement in a good and workmanlike manner and in accordance with responsible construction practices. In addition to the foregoing, Subdivider shall satisfy all the conditions of approval set forth on the City-approved tentative map for the Property. Subdivider shall also perform all work and furnish all materials necessary, in the opinion of the City Engineer and on his or her order, to complete the Works of Improvement in accordance with the plans and specifications on file as hereinbefore specified, or with any changes required or ordered by said Engineer which, in his or her opinion, are necessary or required to complete the Works of Improvement. Intent of Plans and Specifications The intent of the plans and specifications referenced above is to prescribe a complete Work of Improvement, which Subdivider shall perform, or cause to be performed in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer (or designee) and in full compliance with all codes and the terms of this Agreement. Subdivider shall complete a functional or operable improvement or facility, even though the plans and specifications may not specifically call out all items of work required for the contractor to complete its tasks, incidental appurtenances, 6 61 I-+ 7 ll1J3 Ill -+02%-+Rll I ATTACHMENT 3, Page 6 of 22 10. 11. 12. materials, and the like. If any omissions are made of information necessary to carry out the full intent and meaning of the plans and specifications, Subdivider or its contractor shall immediately notify its design engineer who will seek approval of the City Engineer for furnishing of detailed instructions. In the event of any doubt or question arising regarding the true meaning of any of the plans, specifications, or related documents, reference shall be made to the City Engineer whose decision thereon shall be final. Superintendence by Subdivider: Subdivider shall give personal superintendence to the Works of Improvement, or have a competent foreman or superintendent, satisfactory to the City Engineer, on the work site at all times during progress, with authority to act for Subdivider. In the event the Subdivider is not exercising satisfactory superintendence, the City Engineer may order suspension of all work within the subdivision until the deficiency is adequately corrected. Repair and Replacements: Subdivider shall replace, or have replaced, or repair, or have repaired, as the case may be, or pay to the owner the entire cost of replacement or repairs, for all survey monuments or for any and all property damaged or destroyed by reason of any work done hereunder, whether such property be owned by the United States or any agency thereof, or the State of California, or any agency or political subdivision thereof, or by the City or by any public or private corporation, or by any person whomsoever or by combination of such owners. Any such repair or replacement shall be completed in a reasonable manner and subject to the approval of the City Engineer and affected property owner. Inspection by City: Subdivider shall at all times maintain proper facilities and provide safe access for inspection by City to all parts of the work and to the shops where the work is in preparation. The Subdivider shall pay the cost of inspections. City's inspector shall have the authority to stop any and all work not being performed in accordance with the requirements contained or referenced in this Agreement. The inspection of the work by City shall not relieve Subdivider or the contractor of any obligations to fulfill this Agreement as herein provided, and unsuitable materials or work may be rejected notwithstanding that such materials or work may have been previously overlooked or accepted. No inspection or acceptance pertaining to specific parts of the Works of Improvement shall be construed as final acceptance of any part until the 7 611-+ 7.00311) -+02%-+Xil I ATTACHMENT 3, Page 7 of 22 overall final acceptance by City is made. Final acceptance shall not constitute a waiver by City of defective work subsequently discovered. The date on which the Works of Improvement will be considered as complete shall be that date on which the City Council accepts the improvements and authorizes the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with respect thereto. 13.Authority of the City Engineer: 14. All required Works of Improvement shall be constructed under the inspection of and subject to approval of the City Engineer. Therefore, it is mutually agreed by the parties hereto that the City Engineer shall have the right to reject any or all of the work to be performed under this Agreement if such work does not conform to City Codes and Standards and the plans and specifications mentioned herein, including subsequent revisions that may have been previously overlooked during the plan review process. Any damage to the Works of Improvement (existing or new) that occurs during or after installation of work performed under this Agreement shall be repaired or replaced, by the Subdivider, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer before the final acceptance of completed work and release of security. In addition to the authority granted to the City Engineer elsewhere in this Agreement, the City Engineer shall have the authority to make a final decision in regard to all questions which may arise as to the quality and acceptability of materials furnished and work performed, and all questions as to the satisfactory and acceptable fulfillment of the terms of this Agreement by Subdivider and Subdivider's contractor(s). Changes in the Work: The City Engineer, without invalidating this Agreement and without notification to any of the sureties referenced in Section 2 of this Agreement, may order extra work or may make changes by altering or deleting any portion of the Works of Improvement as specified herein or as deemed necessary or desirable by the City Engineer to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. It is mutually understood that it is inherent in the nature of the work contemplated by this Agreement that some changes in the plans and specifications and related documents may be necessary during the course of construction to adjust them to field conditions and to assure the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. The City Engineer shall notify Subdivider or Subdivider's contractor(s) in writing (by Correction Notice) at the time a determination has been made to require changes in the Works of Improvement. No field changes performed or proposed by Subdivider or its contractor(s) shall be binding on City unless approved in writing by the City Engineer. 8 r, I 14 7 (1113 IO "fll2lJ(,4RO I ATTACHMENT 3, Page 8 of 22 15. 16. 17. No Warranty by City: The plans and specifications and related documents for the Works of Improvement have been prepared by or on behalf of Subdivider or its consultants or contractors, and City makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, to Subdivider or to any other person regarding the adequacy of the plans or specifications or related documents. Liability for Performance, Injury or Damage: Neither the City nor any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, or agents shall be liable to Subdivider or its contractors for any error or omission arising out of or in connection with any work to be performed under this Agreement. Additionally, the City shall not be liable to the Subdivider or to any other person, firm, or corporation whatsoever, for any injury or damage that may result to any person or property by or from any cause whatsoever in, on, or about the subdivision of said land covered by this Agreement, or any part thereof. Insurance, Indemnifications and Release: Prior to the commencement of any work pursuant to this contract, Subdivider (if performing work itself) or Subdivider's contractors shall furnish to City satisfactory evidence of an insurance policy written upon a form and by a company (which meets with the approval of City) insuring City, its officers, agents, and employees against loss or liability which may arise during the work or which may result from any of the work herein required to be done, including all costs of defending any claim arising as result thereof. a.Commercial General Liability i.The Subdivider shall take out and maintain, during the performance of all work under this Agreement, in amounts not less than specified herein, Commercial General Liability Insurance, in a form and with insurance companies rated A-VII or better by AM Best. 11 Coverage for Commercial General Liability insurance shall be at least as broad as the following: 1)Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (Occurrence Form CG 00 01) or exact equivalent. iii Commercial General Liability Insurance must include coverage for the 61 14 7.IHB I II 402%4811.1 following: a.Bodily Injury and Property Damage b.Personal Injury/Advertising Injury c.Premises/Operations Liability d.Products/Completed Operations Liability e.Aggregate Limits that Apply per Project 9 ATTACHMENT 3, Page 9 of 22 f.Explosion, Collapse and Underground (UCX) exclusion deleted g.Contractual Liability with respect to this Contract h.Broad Form Property Damage i.Independent Subdivider/Consultants Coverage iv The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; (3) products/completed operations liability; or (4)contain any other exclusion contrary to the Agreement. v The policy shall give City, its officials, officers, employees, agents and City designated volunteers additional insured status using ISO endorsement forms CG 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. v1. The general liability program may utilize either deductibles or provide coverage excess of a self-insured retention, subject to reasonable approval by the City, and provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the City as an additional insured. b.Automobile Liability At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the Subdivider shall maintain Automobile Liability Insurance for bodily injury and property damage including coverage for owned, non-owned and hired vehicles, in a form and with insurance companies rated A-VII or better by AM Best. ii Coverage for automobile liability insurance shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 00 01 covering automobile liability (Coverage Symbol 1, any auto). iii The policy shall give City, its officials, officers, employees, agents and City designated volunteers additional insured status. iv Subject to reasonable approval by the City, the automobile liability insurance policy may require deductibles (but not a self-insured retention), provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the City as an additional insured. c.Workers' Compensation/Employer's Liability i.Subdivider certifies that he/she is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this Agreement. ii To the extent Subdivider has employees at any time during the term of this Agreement, at all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the Subdivider shall maintain full compensation insurance for all persons employed directly by him/her to carry out the work contemplated under this Agreement, all in accordance with the "Workers' Compensation and Insurance Act," Division IV of the Labor Code of the State of California 10 61 I"+ 7 003 IO .i02lJMXO I ATTACHMENT 3, Page 10 of 22 and any acts amendatory thereof, and Employer's Liability Coverage in amounts indicated herein. Subdivider shall require all subconsultants/subcontractors to obtain and maintain, for the period required by this Agreement, workers' compensation coverage of the same type and limits as specified in this section. d.Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions} At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement the Subdivider shall maintain professional liability or Errors and Omissions insurance appropriate to its profession, in a form and with insurance companies reasonably acceptable to the City and in an amount indicated herein and shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against the negligent acts, errors or omissions of the Subdivider. e.Pollution Liability At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement the Subdivider shall maintain Pollution Liability insurance appropriate to its profession, in a form and with insurance companies reasonably acceptable to the City and in an amount indicated herein and shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against any pollution generated by the Subdivider and it's Contractors. f.Minimum Policy Limits Required The following insurance limits are required for the Agreement: Commercial General Liability $9,000,000 per occurrence and in the aggregate. $10,000,000 aggregate limit for products/completed operations. Automobile Liability Employer's Liability Worker's Compensation Pollution Liability Professional Liability (errors and omissions) $5,000,000 combined single limit $1,000,000 per accident or disease Statutory Limit $5,000,000 per occurrence $1,000,000 per claim and aggregate ii Within the exception of the Professional Liability policy, defense costs shall be payable in addition to the limits. iii Requirements of specific coverage or limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Any available coverage shall be provided to the parties required to be named as Additional Insured pursuant to this Agreement. g. Evidence Required Prior to execution of the Agreement, the Subdivider shall file with the City evidence of insurance from an insurer or insurers certifying to the coverage of all insurance required herein. Such evidence shall include original copies 11 GI 1-l 7 .OOJ IO -102'-J(,-JXO I ATTACHMENT 3, Page 11 of 22 of the ISO CG 00 01 (or insurer's equivalent) signed by the insurer's representative and Certificate of Insurance (Acord Form 25-S or equivalent), together with required endorsements. All evidence of insurance shall be signed by a properly authorized officer, agent, or qualified representative of the insurer and shall certify the names of the insured, any additional insureds, where appropriate, the type and amount of the insurance, the location and operations to which the insurance applies, and the expiration date of such insurance. h.Policy Provisions Required Subdivider shall provide the City at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this Agreement, except that the Subdivider shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice of cancellation of any such policy due to non-payment of premium. If any of the required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term of this Agreement, the Subdivider shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General Liability Additional Insured Endorsement to the City at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of cancellation or expiration. ii The Commercial General Liability Policy and Automobile Policy shall each contain a provision stating that Subdivider's policy is primary insurance and that any insurance, self-insurance or other coverage maintained by the City or any named insureds shall not be called upon to contribute to any loss. iii The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to be no later than the eff ective date of this Agreement. Subdivider shall maintain such coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the work under this Agreement. Subdivider shall purchase a one (1) year extended reporting period A) if the retroactive date is advanced past the effective date of this Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by another claims-made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement. iv.Worker's compensation insurance coverages shall contain or be endorsed to waiver of subrogation in favor of the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, or shall specifically allow Subdivider or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Subdivider hereby waives its own right of recovery against City and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants/subcontractor. v The limits set forth herein shall apply separately to each insured against whom claims are made or suits are brought, except with respect to the limits of liability. Further the limits set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve the Subdivider from liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it limit the Subdivider's indemnification obligations to the City and shall not preclude the City from taking such 12 6 I I-I 7Jl03 10 -1112%-IXO I ATTACHMENT 3, Page 12 of 22 (, I 1-l 7 [JIU IO -lll2%-lXil I other actions available to the City under other provisions of the Agreement or law. i.Qualifying Insurers i.All policies required shall be issued by acceptable insurance companies, as reasonably determined by the City, which satisfy the following minimum requirements: 1)Each such policy shall be from a company or companies with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII and admitted to transact in the business of insurance in the State of California, or otherwise allowed to place insurance through surplus line brokers under applicable provisions of the California Insurance Code or any federal law. j.Additional Insurance Provisions The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Subdivider, and any approval of said insurance by the City, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Subdivider pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification. ii If at any time during the life of the Agreement, any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Subdivider or City will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Subdivider payments. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement. iii The City requires evidence that the Subdivider and their Subcontractors have insurance policies in effect throughout the duration of the Project, and the City is named as an additional insured. iv Neither the City nor any of its officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement. k.Subcontractor Insurance Requirements. Subdivider shall not allow any subcontractors or subconsultants to commence work on any subcontract until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the City that they have secured all insurance required under this section. Policies of commercial general liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or subconsultants shall be endorsed to name the City as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 ATTACHMENT 3, Page 13 of 22 18. 19. 13 or an endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Subdivider, City may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subcontractors or subconsultants. Said policy shall be in favor of Subdivider or its contractors and of the City, its officers, agents, and employees and shall be maintained in full force and effect during the life of this Agreement, including extensions. Said policy shall state by its terms and by an endorsement that it shall not be canceled until City shall have had at least ninety (90) days' notice in writing of such cancellation. The Subdivider hereby agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, and agents harmless from and against any and all injuries to and deaths of persons and injuries to property, and all claims, demands, costs, loss, damage and liability, including liability arising out of sudden, accidental, and gradual pollution events, howsoever the same may be caused and whensoever the same may appear, resulting directly or indirectly from the performance or nonperformance of any or all work to be done in and upon the subject property and the premises adjacent thereto pursuant to this Agreement, and also from any and all injuries to and deaths of persons and injuries to property or other interests and all claims, demands, costs, loss, damage, and liability, to the extent the same may be caused directly or indirectly by the Subdivider, the Subdivider's agents, employees, contractors, and subcontractors, while engaged in the performance of said work. Liability of Subdivider: The Subdivider agrees that the use for any purpose and by any person of any and all of the streets, easements and improvements herein specified shall be at the sole and exclusive risk of the Subdivider at all times prior to final acceptance by the City of the completed Works of Improvement thereon and therein; provided that acceptance by the City shall in no way eliminate or lessen any of the Subdivider's obligations or undertakings contained in this Agreement. The issuance of any occupancy permits (if granted) by the City for buildings located within said subdivision shall not be construed in any manner to constitute an acceptance and approval of any or all of the required improvements in said subdivision. Subdivider's Expenses: The Subdivider shall pay these additional expenses: 14 fil 1-+71111310 .+112%.+80.I ATTACHMENT 3, Page 14 of 22 20. 21. 22. a.The Subdivider shall cause to be made and/or pay for soil tests made by a reputable Geotechnical consultant/firm to determine stability, gradation, bearing, and resistance value of soils within the subdivision from which to determine the nature and design of appropriate improvements. The Subdivider shall also pay for all compaction and related tests necessary to determine that all fill work and the utility trench backfill has been satisfactorily placed. b.All service (including plan check and inspection), impact and connection fees as established by City shall be paid for each lot in the subdivision in accordance with the City Code. c.All actual costs for, design, plan check, development process and inspection incurred by the City in evaluating any proposed or agreed upon change in work. In no event shall Subdivider be entitled to additional inspections or final inspection and acceptance of any of the Works of Improvement until all City fees and charges have been fully paid, including, without limitation, charges for applicable penalties and additional required inspections. d.Subdivider shall compensate the City for all actual costs reasonably incurred in having its authorized representatives make the usual and customary engineering services beyond the specified "Time of Completion" referenced in Section 3 of this Agreement. Said actual costs include: inspection of Works of Improvement, engineer design review, plan check and project development process. Subdivider agrees to pay the cost of said City services within forty-five (45) days of invoice date, or as determined by the City Engineer. Relationship of Contractors: It is hereby mutually covenanted and agreed by the parties hereto that Subdivider's contractors are not employees or agents of the City. Certification of Satisfactory Completion: Upon the satisfactory completion of the Works of Improvement by the Subdivider, the City Engineer shall certify that the Works of Improvement have been satisfactorily completed. Repairs or Reconstruction of Defective Work: If, within a period of one year after City Council acceptance of the Works of Improvement performed under this Agreement, any of the improvements or work done under this Agreement fails to fulfill any of the requirements of this 15 r, I I 4 7 OOJ IO 41l2%4Ril. I ATTACHMENT 3, Page 15 of 22 Agreement, or the specifications referred to herein, Subdivider shall without delay and without any cost to the City (upon receipt of written notice from the City), repair or replace or reconstruct any defective or otherwise unsatisfactory part or parts of the work or structure. Should Subdivider fail to act promptly or in accordance with this requirement, or should the exigencies of the case require repairs or replacements to be made before Subdivider can be notified, City may, at its option, make the necessary repairs or replacements or perform the necessary work and Subdivider shall pay to City the actual cost of such repairs plus an amount equivalent to the current general City overhead costs. 23.Warranty: Without limiting the foregoing, Subdivider warrants and guarantees by posting of the Warranty Bond: materials used and workmanship performed on said work for a period of one (1) year after completion and acceptance thereof by the City, the setting of all required Final Map monuments, and the maintenance of all required landscaping in a vigorous and thriving condition for a period of one (1) year after completion and written acceptance thereof by the City Engineer and by the HOA respectively. Only the Landscape and Irrigation Warranty Bond shall be posted with the HOA. All other Security Instruments and the Warranty Bond shall be submitted to the City in accordance with Section 2 of the Agreement. The warranty provided herein shall not be in lieu of, but shall be in addition to, any warranties or other obligations otherwise imposed by law. 24.Default: 24.1 Remedies Not Exclusive: In any case where this Agreement provides a specific remedy to City for a default by Subdivider hereunder, such remedy shall be in addition to, and not exclusive of, City's right to pursue any other administrative, legal, or equitable remedy to which it may be entitled. 24.2 City Right to Perform Work: In addition to whatever other rights or remedies it may have for Subdivider's default hereunder, in the event Subdivider shall fail to timely perform any work required to be performed under this Agreement and such failure shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice of default from City, or thereafter Subdivider shall fail to diligently pursue the cure of any such default to completion, City shall have the right to enter into the Property and perform any of the uncompleted work by force account or contract or both and thereupon recover from Subdivider and the surety company, or both, the full cost and expense thereby incurred by City. 16 (, 114 7 IIIU IO 402%4XO I ATTACHMENT 3, Page 16 of 22 25. 26. 24.3 Attorney's Fees and Costs: In the event of any litigation arising out of Subdivider's performance of its obligations under this Agreement or under any of the Security Instruments referenced herein, the prevailing party in such action, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Such attorney's fees and costs shall include fees and costs on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney's fees and costs shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs incurred in investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery, retaining expert witnesses, and all other necessary and related costs with respect to the litigation. All such fees and costs shall be deemed to have accrued on commencement of the action and shall be enforceable whether or not the action is prosecuted to judgment. Notice of Completion: Upon approval of the Works of Improvement by the City Engineer and acceptance by the City Council, the Subdivider shall file with the Orange County Recorder a Notice of Completion of the improvements herein specified. Filing of Improvement Plans: Upon completion of the job and prior to final acceptance of the Works of Improvement by the City, the Subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer for review and approval, one Mylar (4 mils) set of "record" drawings as well as digital copies of all improvement plans in accordance with the latest edition of the City of San Juan Capistrano Digital Submission Standards. These drawings shall be certified and shall reflect the job as actually constructed, with all changes incorporated therein. 27.Assignment: �This Agreement shall not be assignable by Subdivider without written consent of City, provided that this Agreement may be assigned by Subdivider to any successor in interest to the Property upon written notice to the City within ten (10) days of such assignment, provided that Subdivider shall not by virtue of such assignment be relieved of its obligations hereunder. � Good Faith Improver: Waiver: Developer hereby agrees that if the Agreement is terminated for any reason other than Developer's termination pursuant to a default of City, Developer waives, to the maximum legal extent, any rights it may have under Code of 17 (, I 14 7.1103 IO 402%480.1 ATTACHMENT 3, Page 17 of 22 Civil Procedure Sections 871.1 through 871.5, inclusive, and Code of Civil Procedure Section 7 41 and all other state or federal statutes or judicial decisions of similar effect. With regard only to the matters being released herein, Developer waives the provisions of Section 1542 of the California Civil Code, and any other similar statute, rule or case law. Developer has read and understands Section 1542, and has consulted with counsel regarding its terms. Section 1542 provides as follows: A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release and that, if known by him or her, would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party . .@_(Initials) 29.Phase I and II Residential Building Permits. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the City hereby authorizes the City Building Department to issue to Subdivider building permits for fifteen (15) residential units in Phase I and II of the subdivision to be developed within the Property, prior to recordation of the Final Map, provided that (a) all other conditions to the issuance of such building permits has been met, including but not limited to the approval of the Production Precise Grading Plans and grading pad certification for all pads within Phase I and II of the subdivision; (b) Subdivider shall not enter into any binding purchase agreements for the sale of such Phase I and II residential units with the homebuying public until such Final Map is recorded; and (c) no certificates of occupancy shall be issued for such residential units until the Final Map is recorded. Subdivider hereby agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City against any claims to the extent arising from the issuance of such building permits prior to recordation of the Final Map. [Signatures on following page] 18 61 1-17.003 IO 4112%-rn0.1 ATTACHMENT 3, Page 18 of 22 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two (2) identical counterparts of this Agreement, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed an original thereof, have been duly executed by the Subdivider herein named on the __ day of ____ , 2022, the name and corporate seal of each corporate party being hereto affixed and these presents duly signed by its undersigned representative(s) pursuant to authority of its governing body. DEVELOPER By *Mlrfil wf#f � Name: SYk?\Y\YlfK\ W YJ it±P �y- Its: f}-V? (Attach Notary Acknowledgement) ATTEST: Attachment: Exhibit "A" 19 (11147 OOJ IO 402964XO I CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO By:-------------John Taylor, Mayor ATTEST: Maria Morris, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jeffrey C. Ballinger, City Attorney BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP ATTACHMENT 3, Page 19 of 22 ACKNOWLEDGMENT A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California County of Orange On July 12, 2022 before me, Terri L. Piligian, Notary Public (insert name and title of the officer) personally appeared Shannon Whittaker who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person� whose name��re subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that h�they executed the same in his.@t.heir authorized capacity(j,S), and that by his@?,their signature('> on the instrument the personi;,r, or the entity upon behalf of which the person� acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signatur� O � 8 -�� OCC,. (Seal) ATTACHMENT 3, Page 20 of 22 SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT -TRACT 18148 EXHIBIT "A" WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT lmQrovement Ty:Qe of lmQrovements Estimated Construction Cost Schedule 1.0. or Bond Amount 1 Grading (Includes Erosion and Silt Processed through BLDG. Control) Division 2 Offsite Public Improvements $207,276.00 (SIP21-001) 3 Onsite Street, Storm Drain and Related $2,038,092.00 appurtenances (SIP21-000) 4 Landscaping and Irrigation $1 580 581 .10 § �45,750.00 Monumentation 6 Processed through SMWD Sanitary Sewer 7 Processed through SMWD Water and related appurtenances Prepared by: Engineer of Record 20 61 14 7.003 I 0\40296480.1 ATTACHMENT 3, Page 21 of 22 SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT-TRACT 18148 EXHIBIT "A" cont. SUMMARY Performance Offsite Public Improvements (SIP21-001) Onsite Street, Storm Drain and Related appurtenances (SIP21-000) Monumentation Landscape and Irrigation Total Performance Labor & Material Offsite Public Improvements (SIP21-001) Onsite Street, Storm Drain and Related appurtenances (SIP21-000) Monumentation (100%) Landscape and Irrigation Total Labor & Material 6 I 1-17 1103 1 ll -102%-IXII I 21 (100%) $207,276.00 (100%) $2,038,092.00 (100%) $45,750.00 (100%) $1,580,581.10 $3,871,699.10 (100%) $207,276.00 (100%) $2,038,092.00 (100%) $45,750.00 (100%) $1,580,581.10 $3,871,699.10 ATTACHMENT 3, Page 22 of 22 RESOLUTION NO. 20-07-21-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, CERTIFYING THE TIRADOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2019110154), ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING THE PROJECT WHEREAS, the Tirador Residential Development Project ("Project") proposes the construction of a 132-unit residential development consisting of 43 two-story detached single-family units and 89 three-story attached townhome units; and WHEREAS, the Project is located on an approximately 16.1-acre site in the City of San Juan Capistrano ("City"), bordered on the north by Calle Arroyo, with El Homo Creek and San Juan Creek adjacent to the south of the Project site, a portion of the San Juan Creek Trail located along the southern portion of the Project site, Paseo Tirado located to the east of the Project site, and the 1-5 freeway to the west of the Project site; and WHEREAS, the Project requires approvals of affordable housing incentives, concessions, and waivers to CDP 78-01 development standards, architectural control, grading plan modification, floodplain land use permit, and tentative tract map; and WHEREAS, the Project also requires a Conditional Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (CLOMR-F) related to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Maps, and the City and the Project Applicant will enter into a Purchase and Sale Agreement, whereby the City will sell a 0.14-acre portion of land contiguous to the Project site to the developer for roadway, parking, and landscape purposes; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the City is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15063, the City evaluated the Project by preparing an Initial Study, to evaluate whether an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was required; and WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study, the City determined that an EIR should be prepared because the Project may have a significant effect on the environment in the following areas: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology/soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology/water quality, land use/planning, noise, transportation, and tribal cultural resources; and WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study, the City further determined that impacts to agriculture and forest resources, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, utilities and service 1 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 1 of 184 systems, and wildfire would be less than significant and thus need not be analyzed further in the EIR; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, on November 7, 2019, the City sent to the Office of Planning and Research and each responsible and trustee agency a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") stating that an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number #2019110154) would be prepared; and WHEREAS, 11 comment letters were received in response to the NOP; and WHEREAS, the City held two public scoping meetings on November 20 and 21, 2019; WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") was prepared, incorporating comments received in response to the NOP; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR determined that mitigation measures were required to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level for the following resource areas: biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and noise; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR further concluded that the proposed Project would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15085, a Notice of Completion was prepared and filed with the Office of Planning and Research on March 4, 2020; and WHEREAS, as required by State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(a), the City provided Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR to the public at the same time that the City sent Notice of Completion to the Office of Planning and Research, on March 4, 2020;and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the Draft EIR and technical appendices were available for review and inspection at City Development Services Department, on the City's website, and at the San Juan Capistrano Public Library; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(e), the Draft EIR was circulated for at least a 45-day public review and comment period from March 4, 2020 to April 17,2020;and WHEREAS, during the public review and comment period, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086; and WHEREAS, the City received six (6) written comment letters on the Draft EIR; and 2 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 2 of 184 WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided copies of its responses to commenting public agencies at least ten (10) days prior to the City's consideration of the Final EIR on June 30, 2020; and WHEREAS, on June 9, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted the public hearing to consider the Draft EIR, Architectural Control (AC) 17-033, Sign Permit (SP) 20-012, Grading Plan Modification (GPM) 17-013, Floodplain Land Use Permit (FP) 20- 001, and Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 17-002 for the Project and solicited comments on the document. After hearing all relevant testimony from staff, the public and the City's consultant team, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council certify the EIR for the Project; and WHEREAS, on June 3, 2020, the City released the Final EIR ("Final EIR"), which consists of the Draft EIR, all technical appendices prepared in support of the Draft EIR, all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, written responses to all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, and errata to the Draft EIR and technical appendices; and WHEREAS, the "EIR" consists of the Final EIR and its attachments and appendices, as well as the Draft EIR and its attachments and appendices (as modified by the Final EIR); and WHEREAS, all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the EIR; and WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in connection with the preparation of the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes the Project's potentially significant environmental impacts and, although no significant and unavoidable impacts were identified, the EIR analyzes a range of feasible alternatives capable of reducing these effects to an even lesser level of significance; and WHEREAS, the City has made certain findings of fact, as set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein, based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and the entirety of the administrative record for the Project, which are incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the City finds that environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR as less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section II of Exhibit A; and 3 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 3 of 184 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 Ill of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City finds that with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the Project will not have any environmental impacts that are significant and unavoidable as discussed in Section IV of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section V of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the potential significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from the proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section VI of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the existence of any growth-inducing impacts resulting from the proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section VII of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, alternatives to the proposed Project that might further reduce the already less than significant environmental impacts are described in Section VIII of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, all the mitigation measures identified in the EIR and necessary to reduce the potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project to a level of less than significant are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in Exhibit B to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including but not limited to the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City and no additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation of the EIR or additional environmental review of the Project under Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and WHEREAS, on July 21, 2020, the City conducted a duly noticed public hearing on this Resolution, at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the Project was fully considered; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. 4 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 4 of 184 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO: SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of "substantial importance" as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation. Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby adopts the "CEQA Findings of Fact" which were prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and which are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 4. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. Implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of approval of the Project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures set forth in the EIR or the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control. SECTION 5. Based upon the entire record before it, including the EIR, Findings of Fact, and all written and oral evidence presented, the City Council hereby approves the proposed Project. SECTION 6. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at City Hall, 32400 Paseo Adelanto, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk. This information is provided pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6. SECTION 7. City staff shall cause a Notice of Determination to be filed and posted with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five working days of the adoption of this Resolution. 5 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 5 of 184 APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of July 2020. TR� STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO ) I, Maria Morris, appointed City Clerk of the City of San Juan Capistrano, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 20-07-21-01 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of San Juan Capistrano at a Regular meeting thereof, held the st d � y of July 2020, by the following vote: l . A IE1S I COUNCIL MEMBERS: Reeve, Maryott, Farias, Taylor and Mayor BourneNd\98: I COUNCIL MEMBERS: NoneABS : OUN6IL MEMBERS: None 6 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 6 of 184 EXHIBIT A CEOA FINDINGS OF FACT The California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") requires that public agencies shall not approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report ("EIR") has been certified that identifies one or more significant adverse environmental effects of a project unless the public agency makes one or more written Findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each Finding (State CEQA Guidelines [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.], § 15091). This document presents the CEQA Findings of Fact made by the City of San Juan Capistrano, in its capacity as the CEQA lead agency, regarding the Tirador Residential Development Project ("Project"), evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") and Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") for the Project. SECTION I INTRODUCTION Public Resources Code section 21002 states that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" Section 21002 further states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." Pursuant to section 21081 of the Public Resources Code, a public agency may only approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environm ental effects if the agency makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: 1.Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. 2.Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. 3.Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. As indicated above, section 21002 requires an agency to "avoid or substantially lessen" significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that "substantially lessen" significant environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy section 21002' s mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 1 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 7 of 184 ["CEQA does not mandate the choice of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable level"]; Las Virgenes Homeowners Fed., Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 300, 309 ["[t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of insignificance ... if such would render the project unfeasible"].) While CEQA requires that lead agencies adopt feasible m1t1gation 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. UC 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.App.4th 704, 715.) "Broader considerations of policy thus come into play when the decision making body is considering actual feasibility[.]" (Cal. Native Plant Soc 'y v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1000 ("Native Plant"); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 2108l (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. (Leonoffv. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347.) The California Supreme Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of approving ... any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576.) In addition, perfection in a project or a project's environmental alternatives is not required; rather, the requirement is that sufficient information be produced "to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned." Outside agencies (including courts) are not to "impose unreasonable extremes or to interject [themselves] within the area of discretion as to the choice of the action to be taken." (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v. Board ofTrustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 287.) 2 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 8 of 184 SECTION II FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION The City Council hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of Mitigation Measures. A.AESTHETICS 1.Scenic Vistas Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-4.) Explanation: California State Government Code Section 65560(b)(3) stipulates that city and county General Plans address " ... Open space for outdoor recreation, including but not limited to, areas of outstanding scenic, historical and cultural value; areas particularly suited for park and recreation purposes, including access to lakes shores, beaches, and rivers, and streams; and areas which serve as links between major recreation and open space reservations, including utility easements, banks of rivers and streams, trails, and scenic highway corridors." A scenic vista is the view of an area that is visually or aesthetically pleasing from a certain vantage point. It is usually viewed from some distance away. Aesthetic components of a scenic vista include (1) scenic quality, (2) sensitivity level, and (3) view access. A scenic vista can be impacted in two ways: a development project can have visual impacts by either directly diminishing the scenic quality of the vista or by blocking the view corridors or "vista" of the scenic resource. Important factors in determining whether a proposed project would block scenic vistas include the project's proposed height, mass, and location relative to surrounding land uses and travel corridors. The project site is located in the City of San Juan Capistrano, east of 1-5, west of El Homo Creek, and northwest of San Juan Creek. The project site is currently characterized by an undeveloped dirt lot and ruderal vegetation. While there are no locally designated scenic vistas in the City, distant views of the Santa Ana Mountains, Saddleback Mountain, and the Colinas Hills are visible from various vantage points throughout the City. Regional visual resources that are visible from the project site include the Santa Ana Mountains and the Colinas Hills. Construction of the proposed project would require site preparation, grading, and construction activities. Construction activities would be visible to travelers along 1-5, Calle Arroyo, and other adjacent roadways. 3 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 9 of 184 Any partial obstruction of scenic views of the Colinas Hills, Saddleback Mountain, and Santa Ana Mountains as a result of construction activities would be short-term in nature and would cease upon project completion. In addition, construction equipment is not of sufficient height or mass to substantially block views of distant scenic vistas. Therefore, construction impacts related to adverse effects on a scenic visa would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. The Community Design Element (1999) of the City's General Plan addresses the effect of future development projects on scenic corridors within the City. As described in the Community Design Element, major roadways and railways provide visual images of the quality of life in the City. As such, San Juan Creek Road and La Novia Avenue (both of which are located south of the site) are designated scenic corridors. The City's Urban Design Element (1999) identifies design criteria to ensure that new development located within the scenic corridor is developed in a manner that preserves the City's aesthetic values. The project site is considered to be within a portion of a public scenic corridor due to the proximity of San Juan Creek Road and La Novia A venue to the site. While no designated trails or vantage points currently exist on the project site, members of the public may access views of the surrounding hills from public roads and adjacent sidewalks surrounding the site. Implementation of the proposed project would allow for the development of up to 132 single family residential units on the project site. On-site residential uses would be a maximum of three stories in height ( or approximately 40 ft), which could result in the partial obstruction of scenic views of surrounding hills. While the partial obstruction of views of surrounding hills would occur, the overall views of surrounding hillsides would not be substantially affected by development of the site due to the prominence of the hillsides. Further, the project would include landscaping elements throughout the project site and along the site's perimeter, which would serve to enhance and frame views of these scenic corridors and would block views of the proposed residential uses from adjacent roadways. While implementation of the proposed project would modify views of and from the project site by allowing for development of a residential community on the site, the project would not result in significant impacts on views of the surrounding hills from adjacent roadways and sidewalks. Motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians would continue to enjoy these views following project implementation. Additionally, the project would include a 20 ft wide multi-use trail along the southern boundary of the site, which would connect recreational amenities on the site (i.e., gathering areas, a climbing boulder, play areas, an equestrian hitching post, and exercise stations) to off-site amenities (e.g., the Ortega Equestrian Center and Cook 4 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 10 of 184 La Novia Park). This trail would provide additional public access to distant views of the surrounding hills. Therefore, potential impacts of the proposed project on scenic vistas would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-3 through 4-4.) 2.Scenic Resources Threshold: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Finding: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-5.) Explanation: The California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) Landscape Architecture Program administers the Scenic Highway Program, contained in Streets and Highways Code Sections 260-263. State highways are classified as either Officially Listed or Eligible. The portion of SR-74 located approximately 0.5 mile north of the project site is identified as an Eligible State Scenic Highway, but is not officially designated as a scenic highway by Caltrans. The project site is located within a developed area of the City primarily characterized by commercial and residential uses. Existing vegetation on the project site is ruderal and non-native. The proposed project would replace existing ruderal vegetation on the site with ornamental landscaping. Therefore, the proposed project does not have the potential to damage resources within a State-designated scenic highway, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-5.) 3.Visual Character Threshold: In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public view of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-14.) Explanation: Construction of the proposed project would require excavation, grading, and construction activities. Construction activities would be visible to travelers along I-5 and Calle Arroyo, as well as visitors traveling along the San Juan Creek Trail. Construction activities would be short-term in nature, and all construction vehicles and equipment would be staged on the project site throughout the duration of the construction period. Visual impacts associated with construction would be temporary and would cease 5 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 11 of 184 upon project completion. Therefore, construction impacts related to the degradation of the existing visual character of the project site would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. The proposed project would allow for the development of the currently vacant project site with a residential community. All structures developed on the project site would be of either California Spanish or Farmhouse architectural styles. The architectural style and design of the proposed residences would be consistent with the visual character of the surrounding area, including the nearby 24 Hour Fitness facility, office uses, and senior apartments, which all have Spanish design elements such as red tile roofs. The proposed project would incorporate ornamental landscaping along Calle Arroyo and Paseo Tirador, along the site's boundary with the shared 24 Hour Fitness, and along the southern boundary of the site. The project would also include decorative landscaping and a monument sign near the three proposed access points to the property. A variety of 24-and 36-inch box trees, shrubbery, and groundcover would be scattered throughout the site. The project would also include the installation of privacy walls to visually screen the project site from surrounding roadways and uses, including the adjacent 24 Hour Fitness facility. Privacy walls would also be installed within the interior of the site to visually screen private rear yards associated with on-site residences from Calle Arroyo and Paso Tirador as well as other on-site residences and open areas. The proposed project would be visible to pedestrians travelling along Calle Arroyo, the San Juan Creek Trail, the adjacent 24 Hour Fitness facility, and other nearby accessible areas. However, the installation of landscaping and privacy walls would help to partially screen the residential development from pedestrians in the project vicinity. The project site is also visible from the 1-5 freeway. However, the finished grade of the project site will be approximately 7 ft lower than the freeway grade. Therefore, although the proposed project and any associated perimeter or sound walls will be visible, the proposed project would not substantially block views of the project site or more distant views from the 1-5 freeway. Views of the Santa Ana Mountains beyond would be preserved. Overall, the architectural design features and landscaping proposed as part of the project would ensure that the site's visual character would not be degraded and impacts would be less than significant. Project implementation would not conflict with applicable zoning and General Plan regulations governing scenic quality. Additionally, as discussed above, implementation of the proposed project would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the project site and its surroundings. Zoning. The project site is currently zoned as a Planned Community District associated with the adopted Ortega Planned 6 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 12 of 184 Community Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP 78-01). This zoning classification allows for the use of modem land planning and design techniques to create developments integrating a mixture of different types of land uses. The CDP 78-01 zone allows for Very High Density residential development (18.1-30.0 du/ac). The residential density of the proposed project would total 8.2 du/ac, which is substantially lower than the maximum of 30.0 du/ac allowed on the site under CDP 78-01. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not necessitate a zone change. Because the project will include residential units restricted to households of moderate income, the Project Applicant will request incentives, concessions, and waivers from certain development standards. In total, 14 of the townhomes, or approximately 10.6 percent of the total units, would be designated as restricted affordable units. The project is therefore entitled to one incentive or concession under the State density bonus law and the City's affordable housing ordinance. The project is also entitled to waiver of development standards as necessary to prevent physical preclusion of the project to the extent those waivers do not have a specific adverse impact upon health, safety, the physical environment, or a designated historical resource. The concession requested by the Project Applicant would negate the requirement that the second-story floor area not exceed 80 percent of the first­ story floor area. Imposition of all of the design standards applicable to the project site would result in a significant reduction of the floor area and the number of units the project proposes to yield, making it infeasible to include restricted affordable units. Construction of the project, including the designated affordable units, would therefore be physically precluded if certain City development standards are applied. The Project Applicant will therefore request waiver of those standards as permitted by the State density bonus law and the City's affordable housing ordinance. The n:4uesteu waivers will allow a building separation of 8 ft in lieu of the otherwise required 20 ft; a 0 ft setback from the property line between the site and Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 666-131-08, where the City of San Juan Capistrano water well is located; a 10 ft setback from the property line between the site and the property to the north, which has been developed with a 24 Hour Fitness, rather than 20 ft as required under the zoning code; and the elimination of recreational vehicle parking spaces. Section 9-3.301 of the Municipal Code outlines permitted uses and minimum development standards allowed in residential zones. One purpose of these regulations is to ensure compliance with appropriate standards related to aesthetics and scenic quality. 7 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 13 of 184 According to CDP 78-01, design standards for the project site are governed by Planning Sectors B-3 and C. Table 4.1.A (found at Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-9 through 4.1-10) shows the proposed project's consistency with development standards outlined in CDP 78-01. As shown in Table 4.1.A (found at Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-9 through 4.1-10), the proposed project would be consistent with development standards required by CDP 78-01 following approval of the waiver discussed above. General Plan. According to the General Plan Land Use Element (1999, revised 2014), the project site currently has a General Plan land use designation of Planned Community. The Planned Community designation allows for flexibility in the design of a development and for the mixing of uses such as residential, commercial, industrial, public/institutional, recreation, and open space. There are also small portions of the project site designated as General Open Space and Community Park. The proposed land uses are consistent with these designations, and no General Plan Amendment would be required for the proposed residential development. The City's General Plan includes goals and policies related to urban design. As shown in Table 4.1.B (found at Draft EIR, pp. 4.- 11 through 4.1-14), the project would be consistent with applicable General Plan goals and policies related to aesthetics and scenic quality. As shown in Table 4.1.B (found at Draft EIR, pp. 4.-11 through 4.1-14), the project would be consistent with the General Plan goals and policies related to aesthetics and scenic quality. Summary. The proposed project would not degrade the character or quality of the project site, nor would the proposed project contribute to an overall degradation of the visual character or quality of the surrounding area. Further, the proposed residential development is consistent with all applicable General Plan goals and policies governing aesthetics and scenic quality. Upon approval of the waivers requested as part of the project, the proposed residential development would be consistent with all applicable zoning regulations governing aesthetics and scenic quality on the property. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the visual character of the project site nor conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, and no mitigation would be required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-7 through 4.1-14.) 8 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 14 of 184 4. Light and Glare Threshold: Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-12.) Explanation: Spill light occurs when lighting standards, such as streetlights, parking lot lighting, exterior building lighting, and landscape lighting, are not properly aimed or shielded to direct light to the desired location and light escapes and partially illuminates a surrounding location. The spillover of light onto adjacent properties has the potential to interfere with certain activities, including vision, sleep, privacy, and general enjoyment of the natural nighttime condition. Light-sensitive uses include residential, some commercial and institutional uses, and, in some situations, natural areas. Changes in nighttime lighting may become significant if a proposed project substantially increases ambient lighting conditions beyond its property line and project lighting routinely spills over into adjacent light­ sensitive land uses areas. The City's Municipal Code Section 9-3.529 requires that spill light generated from a residential development not exceed one footcandle on the adjacent property. Reflective light (glare) is the result of sunlight or artificial light reflecting off of finished surfaces (e.g., window glass) or other reflective materials. Glass and other materials can have many different reflectance characteristics. Buildings constructed of highly reflective materials from which the sun reflects at a low angle commonly cause adverse glare. Reflective light is common in urban areas. Glare generally does not result in the illumination of off-site locations but results in a visible source of light viewable from a distance. Currently, there are no existing sources of light or glare emanating from the undeveloped project site. Existing sources of light in the project vicinity include headlights on nearby roadways including the 1-5 freeway, building fa9ades and interior lighting from adjacent development, and pole-mounted lighting in parking areas of adjacent developments. Adjacent commercial uses currently emit light and glare in the area. Lighting from existing distant development within the City also contributes light to the area. Short-term construction activities would occur primarily during daylight hours; however, construction activities may require periodic nighttime lighting. Any construction-related illumination during evening or nighttime hours would be shielded to the extent feasible and would consist of the minimal lighting required for safety and security purposes and would only occur on a temporary and as-needed basis. Due to its limited 9 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 15 of 184 scope and duration, light generated during project construction would not substantially alter the character of off-site areas surrounding the construction area, or interfere with the performance of an off-site activity. Therefore, construction lighting impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. The proposed project would introduce new sources of light to the project site that are typical of residential uses. Outdoor lighting proposed as part of the project would include wall-mounted lighting, pole-mounted streetlights, and security lighting along pathways. Accent lights would also be incorporated to highlight landscape focal points and directional monument signs. All outdoor lighting would be directed downward and shielded to minimize off-site spill. Additionally, the location of all exterior lighting would comply with lighting standards established in Section 9-3- 529 of the City's Municipal Code. As illustrated by Figure 2.13, Photometric Plan, of the Initial Study, the proposed project would not incorporate design features that would result in excessive lighting or the generation of glare on the site. All lighting could be contained within the boundaries of the site and would not exceed the City's threshold of light spillage in excess of one footcandle on adjacent properties. In addition, lighting included as part of the project would be limited to that necessary for security, and would be shielded to reduce glare and spill lighting effects on adjacent sensitive uses. Further, the Applicant would be required to submit a final lighting plan and photometric study to the City to review and approve as part of the site plan review process. Therefore, implementation of these standard conditions would ensure that impacts associated with new lighting would remain less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-11 through 4-12.) B.AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES 1.Farmland Conversion Threshold: Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide significance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Finding: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-14.) Explanation: Maps of designated farmlands are compiled by the California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), pursuant to the provisions of Section 65570 of the California Government Code. These maps represent an inventory of agricultural resources within the State. Agricultural land is evaluated based on soil quality and irrigation IO 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 16 of 184 status, and the best quality land is designated as Prime Farmland. Every two years, the maps are updated with the use of a computer mapping system, aerial imagery, public review, and field reconnaissance. The project site is currently mapped as Other Land by the FMMP. As defined by the FMMP, common examples of Other Land include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry, or aquaculture facilities; strip mines; borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Due to the project site's proximity to El Homo Creek and San Juan Creek, the site is likely classified as Other Land because it contains wetland and riparian area not suitable for livestock grazing. In addition, the land surrounding the project site is classified as Urban and Built Up Land. There are no designated Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmlands, or Farmlands of Statewide Importance on the project site or in the project's immediate vicinity. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-13 through 4-14.) 2.Agricultural Zoning Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Finding: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-14.) Explanation: The proposed project is located on an approximately 16.1-acre vacant site. According to the City's Zoning Map, the project site is zoned as Planned Community District associated with the adopted Ortega Planned Community Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP 78-01). The purpose of the Planned Community zone is to encourage the use of modern land planning and design techniques to create developments integrating a mixture of different types of land uses. As such, the project site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not currently used for agricultural production. The project site is not located within an area covered under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no impacts related to an agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract would occur with implementation of the proposed project, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-14.) 3.Forestland Zoning 11 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 17 of 184 Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production ( as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)? Finding: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-15.) Explanation: As previously stated, the project site is zoned Planned Community District associated with the adopted Ortega Planned Community Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP 78-01). Neither the project site nor the surrounding area is zoned as forest land, timberland, or timberland production. As a result, no significant impacts would occur, and no mitigation is req uirnd. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-14 through 4- 15.) 4.Loss of Forest Land Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Findjng: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-15.) Explanation: As stated previously, the project site is characterized by an undeveloped lot and ruderal vegetation. There are no forest or timberland resources on or in the vicinity of the project site. The proposed project would not convert forest land to a non-forest use. Likewise, the project site would not contribute to environmental changes that could result in conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts related to the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. No mitigation is required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-15.) 5.Conversion of Farmland or Forestland Threshold: Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non­ forest use? Finding: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-15.) Explanation: No land on or in the vicinity of the project site is zoned for agricultural or forest uses. The proposed project is located on an approximately 16.1-acre vacant site and would involve the construction of a 132-unit residential development. Currently, the project site is not zoned for agricultural or forest use and is not used for agricultural production or designated forest 12 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 18 of 184 land. The proposed project would not include other changes in the existing environment that would result in conversion of farmland to non­ agricultural uses or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-15.) C.AIR QUALITY 1.Air Quality Plans and Air Quality Standards Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-14.) Explanation: Projects are considered consistent with, and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP, if the growth in socioeconomic factors (e.g., population, employment) is consistent with the underlying regional plans used to develop the AQMP. The future emissions forecasts are primarily based on demographic and economic growth projections provided by SCAG. Thus, demographic growth forecasts for various socioeconomic categories (e.g., population, housing, and employment by industry) developed by SCAG for its 2016 Regional Transportation Plan (SCAG 2016) were used to estimate future emissions in the Final 2016 AQMP (SCAQMD 2016). Chapter 12, Sections 12.2 and 12.3 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) outlines two criteria for determining consistency with the 2016 AQMP. A project would be consistent with the AQMP if the project (1) would not increase the frequency or severity of an existing air quality violation or cause or contribute to new a new violation or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP, and (2) would not exceed the growth assumptions in the AQMP hased on the year of project build out, would be consistent with land use planning strategies set forth by SCAQMD, and would implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures. Criterion 1. The proposed project would result in short-term construction and long-term operational pollutant emissions that are all less than the CEQA significance emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD, as demonstrated in the EIR; therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of any air quality standards violation and will not cause a new air quality standard violation. Pollutant emissions generated during project construction and operation would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment 13 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 19 of 184 under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP under the first criterion. Criterion 2. The SCAQMD's second criterion for determining project consistency focuses on whether or not the proposed project exceeds the assumptions utilized in preparing the forecasts presented its air quality planning documents. Project consistency with population, housing, and employment assumptions that were used in the development of SCAQMD air quality plans ensures a project is consistent with regional air quality planning efforts. The CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) indicates that consistency with AQMP growth assumptions must be analyzed for new or amended General Plan elements, Specific Plans, and significant projects. Significant projects include airports, electrical generating facilities, petroleum and gas refineries, designation of oil drilling districts, water ports, solid waste disposal sites, and offshore drilling facilities; therefore, the proposed project is not defined as a significant project. The project site currently has a General Plan Land Use designation of Planned Community, along with smaller portions designated General Open Space and Community Park. Development of the project site would not require any General Plan Amendment as proposed uses within each designated area are consistent with the applicable General Plan designations. As such, the proposed project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the project site and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the Basin. In order to further reduce emissions, the project would comply with SCAQMD emission reduction measures including SCAQMD Rules 402, 403, and 1113. SCAQMD Rule 402 prohibits the discharge, from any source, air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to the public, or that endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of the public, or that cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires fugitive dust sources to implement Best Available Control Measures for all sources, and all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from crossing any property line. Rule 403 is intended to reduce PMl O emissions from transportation, handling, construction, or storage activities that have the potential to generate fugitive dust. SCAQMD 1113 requires manufacturers, distributors, and end­ users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions from the use of architectural coatings. The project is required to comply with these emission reduction measures during construction as outlined in Regulatory Compliance Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3. For the reasons 14 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 20 of 184 RC MAQ-1 RC MAQ-2 stated above, the proposed project is considered to be consistent with the second criterion. In summary, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2016 AQMP because (1) the project's construction and operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds; and (2) the proposed project is consistent with the current General Plan land use designations on the project site and would not exceed the growth assumptions in the AQMP, is consistent with land use planning strategies set forth by SCAQMD, and includes implementation of all feasible air quality rules to reduce emissions. Therefore, impacts related to the conflict with or obstruction of implementation of the applicable air quality plan would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2- 12 through 4.2-14.) South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402, Nuisance. Prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This rule does not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. The Project Applicant shall ensure the construction contractor implements fugitive dust control measures in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403. The Project Applicant shall include the following fugitive dust control measures for SCAQMD Rule 403 compliance in the project plans and specifications: •All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 miles per hour (mph) per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions. •The construction contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the project site are watered, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, at least three (3) times daily during dry weather and preferably mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. 15 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 21 of 184 RCM AQ-3 •The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and project site areas are reduced to 15 mph or less. SCAQMD Rule 1113. The Project Applicant shall ensure the construction contractor implements measures to control volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from architectural coatings in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1113. The Project Applicant shall include the following control measures for SCAQMD Rule 1113 compliance in the project plans and specifications: •Only "Low-Volatile Organic Compounds" paints (no more than 50 grams/liter of VOC) shall be used. 2.Cumulatively Considerable Pollutant Emissions Threshold: Would the Project result in cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-16.) Explanation: Construction. Construction related emissions are temporary and short­ term. Project-related construction emissions include those from operation of construction vehicles (i.e., excavators, trenchers, and dump trucks), the creation of fugitive dust during clearing and grading, and the use of asphalt or other oil-based substances during paving activities, which can release VOCs. Construction emissions would vary daily depending on the weather, soil conditions, the amount of activity taking place, and the nature of dust control efforts. During construction, approximately 10.45 acres of the 16.1-acre project site will be developed for residential use. Therefore, the construction activity would disturb approximately 10.45 acres of soil. Based on SCAQMD guidance for localized significant threshold analysis, the maximum daily site grading of 1.95 acres would occur per day. As specified in Regulatory Compliance Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3, construction of the proposed project would comply with SCAQMD standard conditions, including Rule 402 (Nuisance) to control nuisance emissions, Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) to control fugitive dust, and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) to control VOC emissions from paint. Compliance with SCAQMD standard conditions are regulatory requirements and were considered in the analysis of construction emissions. Table 4.2.D (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.2-16) presents the worst­ case construction emissions based on the construction schedule (Table E of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment) and construction equipment (Table F of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment) anticipated for project construction. 16 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 22 of 184 The portion of the Basin in which the project site is located is in nonattainment of the NAAQS for 03 and PM2.5. The Basin is in nonattainment of the CAAQS for 03, PM2.5, and PMl 0. Table 4.2.D (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.2-16) shows that construction equipment/vehicle emissions during construction periods would not exceed any of the SCAQMD established daily emissions thresholds for which the project region is nonattainment under the CAAQS or NAAQS. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD construction emissions thresholds and short-term ( construction) air quality impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Operation. Long-term air pollutant emission impacts are those associated with stationary sources and mobile sources involving any project-related changes. Project-related operations would result in the long-term emission of ROG, NOX, SOX, CO, PMI0, and PM2.5 primarily associated with motor vehicle use. Vehicle trips to and from the project site would generate mobile source emissions. Vehicles traveling on paved roads would be a source of fugitive emissions due to the generation of road dust and tire wear particulates. Mobile source emissions are dependent on both overall daily vehicle trip generation and the effect of the project on peak­ hour traffic volumes and traffic operations in the vicinity of the project site. Project-related stationary-source emissions would come from area and energy sources. Operational emissions associated with the proposed project (including energy use for appliances, landscaping equipment, use of consumer products, and motor vehicles) were calculated using CalEEMod. Based on the CalEEMod default values for vehicle trip generation, the model estimated that 132 residential units would generate approximately 890 trips per weekday, which is consistent with the trip generation estimates developed in the project's TIA (LSA 2019). The portion of the Basin in which the project site is located is in nonattainment of the NAAQS for 03 and PM2.5. The Basin is in nonattainmcnt of the CAAQS for 03, PM2.5, and PMI0. Table 4.2.E (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.2-17) summarizes the project's maximum daily emissions during operation. As shown in Table 4.2.E, while the project would result in the increased emissions of criteria pollutants, emissions during operation of the proposed project would not exceed the thresholds of significance for any criteria pollutants for which the project region is nonattainment under the CAAQS or NAAQS. No mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-14 through 4.2-17.) 3.Sensitive Receptors Threshold: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 17 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 23 of 184 Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, 4.2-20.) Explanation: Construction. In order to identify impacts to sens1t1ve receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing LSTs for construction. As described in the Draft EIR, the SCAQMD has issued guidance on applying CalEEMod modeling to LSTs for projects greater than five acres. Further, CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment. Based on SCAQMD guidance for localized significant threshold analysis, the maximum daily site grading of 1.95 acres would occur per day. Table 4.2.F (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.2-17) shows the maximum on-site construction emissions of CO, NOx, PMl0, and PM2.5 during construction when measured against LST thresholds. As shown in Table 4.2.F (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.2-17), the proposed project would not exceed the LSTs for construction emissions. Therefore, impacts from localized construction-related emissions would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Table 4.2.G (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.2-18) shows the calculated emissions for the proposed operational activities compared with the appropriate LSTs. For a worst-case scenario assessment, the emissions shown in Table 4.2.G (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.2-18) include all on-site project-related stationary sources and 5 percent of the project-related new mobile sources, which is an estimate of the amount of project-related new vehicle traffic that would occur on site. Table 4.2.G (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.2-18) shows that the operational emission rates would not exceed the LSTs for the residential homes located 220 ft (67 meters) to the northeast of the project site. Therefore, impacts from localized operation-related emissions would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. CO Hot Spot. CO hot spots are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at congested intersections. Based on the analysis presented below, a CO "hot-spot" analysis is not needed to determine whether a change in the level of service (LOS) of an intersection in the vicinity of the project site would have the potential to result in exceedance of either the CAAQS or NAAQS. Vehicular trips associated with the proposed project would contribute to congestion at intersections and along roadway segments in the vicinity of the proposed project site. Localized air quality impacts would occur when emissions from vehicular traffic increase as a result of the proposed project. The primary mobile­ source pollutant of local concern is CO, a direct function of vehicle idling time and, thus, of traffic flow conditions. CO transport is extremely limited; under normal meteorological conditions, it disperses rapidly with distance from the source. However, under 18 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 24 of 184 certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels, affecting local sensitive receptors (residents, schoolchildren, the elderly, and hospital patients, etc.). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service or with extremely high traffic volumes. In areas with high ambient background CO concentrations, modeling is recommended, to determine a project's effect on local CO levels. When the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) was published, the Basin was designated nonattainment under the CAAQS and NAAQS for CO. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the Basin have steadily declined. In 2007, the Basin was re-designated as attainment for CO under both the CAAQS and NAAQS. As identified within SCAQMD's 2003 AQMP (SCAQMD 2005a), peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the Basin were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of congestion at a particular intersection. All areas of the Basin have continued to remain below the federal standards (3 5 ppm 1-hour and 9 ppm 8-hour standards) since 2003 (SCAQMD 2016). An assessment of project-related impacts on localized ambient air quality requires that future ambient air quality levels be projected. Existing CO concentrations in the immediate project vicinity are not available. Ambient CO levels monitored at the Anaheim Monitoring Station showed a highest recorded I-hour concentration of 1.4 ppm (the State standard is 20 ppm) and a highest 8-hour concentration of 0.8 ppm (the State standard is 9 ppm) during the past 3 years. The highest CO concentrations would normally occur during peak traffic hours; hence, CO impacts calculated under peak traffic conditions represent a worst­ case analysis. Reduced speeds and vehicular congestion at intersections result in increased CO emissions. Given the extremely low level of CO concentrations in the project area and the lack of traffic impacts at any intersections, project-related vehicles are not expected to contribute significantly to CO concentrations exceeding the State or federal CO standards. Because no CO hot spot would occur, as identified in the proposed project, there would be no project-related impacts on CO concentrations. Mobile Health Risk Assessment. The IS/NOP comment letter submitted by the SCAQMD recommends the preparation of a 19 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 25 of 184 mobile health risk assessment (HRA) if the proposed project would generate or attract vehicular trips, especially heavy-duty diesel­ fueled vehicles. While this project would result in the generation of vehicular trips (890 average daily trips), a mobile HRA was not performed because the proposed residential project would not generate or attract heavy-duty diesel-fueled vehicles. Further, under CEQA, lead agencies are generally not required to consider the effect that the existing environment ( such as existing freeways) will have on sensitive receptors (refer to California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District [No. S213478, Decided December 17, 2015]). The proposed project would not affect the number of heavy-duty diesel-fueled vehicles traveling along the 1-5 and would not exacerbate air quality associated with such vehicles. The effect of the heavy-duty diesel-fueled vehicles traveling along 1-5 on the proposed project is therefore outside of the scope of environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and no mobile health risk assessment is required. Prior to mitigation, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts. However, the regulatory compliance measures identified above are existing SCAQMD regulations that are applicable to the proposed project and are considered in the analysis of potential impacts related to air quality. The City of San Juan Capistrano considers these requirements to be mandatory; therefore, they are not mitigation measures. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-17 through 4.2-20.) 4.Other Adverse Emissions Threshold: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-17.) Explanation: SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) identifies various secondary significance criteria related to odorous air contaminants. Substantial odor-generating sources include land uses such as agricultural activities, feedlots, wastewater treatment facilities, landfills, or heavy manufacturing uses. The project does not propose any such uses or activities that would result in potentially significant odor impacts. Some objectionable odors may emanate from the operation of diesel-powered construction equipment during construction of the proposed project. However, these odors would be limited to the construction period and would disperse quickly; therefore, these odors would be considered less than significant and would not require mitigation. The proposed project would allow for the implementation of a residential development, which is not anticipated to produce emissions that could 20 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 26 of 184 lead to objectionable odors. Potential sources of operational odors generated by the project would include disposal of miscellaneous refuse typical of residential uses. SCAQMD Rule 402 acts to prevent occurrences of odor nuisances. Consistent with City requirements, all project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with solid waste regulations. Furthermore, as required by Section 9-4.505, Bicycle and Equestrian Trails, of the City's Municipal Code, the Homeowner's Association (HOA) ( or equivalent body) for future development on the site would be required to provide regular maintenance of the proposed trail, including the removal of horse manure, pet waste, and debris. Therefore, no significant impacts related to objectionable odors would result from the proposed project, and no mitigation is required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-17.) D.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1.Local Policies and Ordinances Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-19.) Explanation: The majority of the project site is characterized by an undeveloped dirt lot, ruderal vegetation, and limited ornamental landscaping. In addition, there are several trees along the boundary of the project site with the adjacent San Juan Creek. In order to determine whether or not project implementation would require the removal of trees along the site's boundary adjacent to the San Juan Creek, a Tree Survey was prepared for the proposed project. Results of this tree survey indicate that the proposed project would not require or result in the removal of any on-site trees, including those located adjacent to the San Juan Creek Channel. However, in the unlikely event that project implementation would require the removal of trees, the Applicant would be required to apply for a tree removal permit as part of the discretionary actions to be considered by the City. As part of this process, the City would specify conditions of approval for the replacement of trees and landscaping, in compliance with the City's tree preservation policy, specified in the City's Municipal Code (Section 9- 2.349(c)(l), Tree Removal Permit for New Development Projects). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts related to local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources during construction, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-19.) 2.Habitat Conservation Plans 21 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 27 of 184 E. 1. Threshold: Would the Project conflict with the prov1s1ons of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-20.) Explanation: According to the Biological Resources Assessment, the project site is located within lands covered under the MSAA/HCP. A 1.12-acre portion of the site is mapped as Supplemental Open Space (SOS) under the HCP. However, the SOS area within the project site was mapped based on local General Plan and zoning designations. It should be noted that the proposed project is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designations currently designated on the project site, and no General Plan Amendment would be n::4uire<l for project implementation. According to the MSAA/HCP, SOS lands in this category are subject to future decisions by local jurisdictions that could change their designation and result in impacts to the open space. Accordingly, the General Plan SOS areas are not considered permanently protected and do not receive regulatory coverage under the MSAA/HCP. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the adopted MSAA or HCP. Additionally, the project includes the dedication of 5.5 acres within portions of San Juan Creek and El Homo Creek for conservation; these 5.5 acres are not currently protected under the MSAA/HCP. This would contribute to the conservation of resources covered under the MSAA/HCP and permanently conserve important portions of the MSAA/HCP Planning Area that are currently subject to impacts based on decisions by local jurisdictions. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with local ordinances or the adopted MSAA, HCP, or other approved local, regional or State HCP. Therefore, project impacts related to conflicts with local ordinances or the adopted MSAA, HCP, or other approved local, regional or State HCP would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-19 through 4.3-20.) CULTURAL RESOURCES Historical Resources Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15064.5? Finding: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-21.) Explanation: In its existing setting, the project site is vacant and undeveloped. According to the Office of Historic Preservation and the City's Inventory of Historic and Cultural Landmarks, there are no historic resources on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any 22 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 28 of 184 F.ENERGY impacts related to historical resources, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-21.) 1.Wasteful Use of Energy Threshold: Would the Project result in potentially significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-9.) Explanation: Construction. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to last approximately 20 months, and would require energy for activities such as the manufacture and transportation of building materials, demolition and grading activities, and building construction. Construction of the proposed project would require electricity to power construction-related equipment. Construction of the proposed project would not involve the consumption of natural gas. The construction-related equipment would not be powered by natural gas, and no natural gas demand is anticipated during construction. Transportation energy represents the largest energy use during construction and would occur from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction worker vehicles that would use petroleum fuels (e.g., diesel fuel and/or gasoline). Therefore, the analysis of energy use during construction focuses on fuel consumption. Construction trucks and vendor trucks hauling materials to and from the project site would be anticipated to use diesel fuel, whereas construction workers traveling to and from the project site would be anticipated to use gasoline-powered vehicles. Fuel consumption from transportation uses depends on the type and number of trips, VMT, the fuel efficiency of the vehicles, and travel mode. As indicated in Table 4.5.A (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.5-8), the project would consume approximately 70,705 gallons of diesel fuel and approximately 50,760 gallons of gasoline during construction, which would increase the annual construction generated diesel fuel use in Orange County by approximately 0.04 percent and would increase the annual construction generated gasoline use in Orange County by less than 0.01 percent. As such, project construction would have a negligible effect on local and regional energy supplies. Furthermore, impacts related to energy use during construction would be temporary and relatively small in comparison to Orange County's overall use of the State's available energy sources. No unusual project characteristics would necessitate the use of 23 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 29 of 184 construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or the State. For these reasons, fuel consumption during construction would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar development projects of this nature, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Operation. Energy use consumed by the proposed project would be associated with natural gas use, electricity consumption, and fuel used for vehicle trips associated with the project. As shown in Table 4.5.A (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.5-8), the estimated potential increase in electricity demand associated with the operation of the proposed project is 810,045 kWh per year. Total electricity demaml fur the residential sector in Orange County in 2018 was approximately 6,814,131,321 kWh. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would increase the annual residential electricity consumption in Orange County by approximately 0.01 percent. As shown in Table 4.5.A (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.5-8), the estimated potential increase in natural gas demand associated with the proposed project is 106,328 therms per year. Total natural gas consumption for the residential sector in Orange County in 2018 was 339,030,950 therms. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would negligibly increase the annual residential natural gas consumption in Orange County by approximately 0.03 percent. Electrical and natural gas demand associated with project operations would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region. Furthermore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The project would be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the Title 24 standards. Title 24 building energy efficiency standards establish minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting. Compliance with Title 24 standards is required as identified in Regulatory Compliance Measure ENG-1, which would significantly reduce energy usage. Impacts are considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. The proposed project would also result in energy usage associated with gasoline and diesel fuel consumed by project-related vehicle trips. As shown in Table 4.5.A (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.5-8), fuel use associated with the vehicle trips generated by the proposed project is estimated at 98,833 gallons of gasoline and 8,478 gallons of diesel fuel per year. The amount of operational fuel use was estimated using CARB' s EMF AC2017 model, which provided projections for typical daily fuel usage in Orange 24 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 30 of 184 RCMENG-1 County. This analysis conservatively assumes that all vehicle trips generated as a result of project operation would be new to Orange County. Based on fuel consumption obtained from EMF AC2017, 160.5 million gallons of diesel and 1.3 billion gallons of gasoline were consumed from vehicle trips in Orange County in 2018. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would increase the annual gasoline and diesel fuel consumption in Orange County by approximately 0.01 percent. Fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by project operations would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region. Furthermore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. The proposed project would also result in energy usage associated with gasoline and diesel fuel consumed by project-related vehicle trips. As shown in Table 4.5.A (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.5-8), fuel use associated with the vehicle trips generated by the proposed project is estimated at 98,833 gallons of gasoline and 8,478 gallons of diesel fuel per year. The amount of operational fuel use was estimated using CARB' s EMF AC2017 model, which provided projections for typical daily fuel usage in Orange County. This analysis conservatively assumes that all vehicle trips generated as a result of project operation would be new to Orange County. Based on fuel consumption obtained from EMF AC2017, 160.5 million gallons of diesel and 1.3 billion gallons of gasoline were consumed from vehicle trips in Orange County in 2018. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would increase the annual gasoline and diesel fuel consumption in Orange County by approximately 0.01 percent. Fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by project operations would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region. Furthermore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-7 through 4.5-9.) California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24. Prior to issuance of building permits, the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) Director of Development Services, or designee, shall confirm that the project design complies with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR Title 24) energy conservation and green building standards, as well as those listed in Part 11 (California Green Building Standards Code [CALGreen Code]). The City Director of Development Services, or designee, shall confirm that the project complies with the mandatory measures listed in the CALGreen Code for residential building construction. 2.Energy Efficiency Plans 25 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 31 of 184 Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-10.) Explanation: In 2002, the Legislature passed SB 1389, which required the CEC to develop an integrated energy plan every 2 years for electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels for the California Energy Policy Report. The plan calls for the State to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for ZEV s and their infrastructure needs, and encouragement of urban designs that reduce VMT and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access. The CEC recently adopted the 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report and the 2018 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update . The CEC circulated the 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report for public review in February 2019 and is anticipated to approve the report in February 2020. The Integrated Energy Policy Report provides the results of the CEC's assessments of a variety of energy issues facing California. Many of these issues will require action if the State is to meet its climate, energy, air quality, and other environmental goals while maintaining energy reliability and controlling costs. The Integrated Energy Policy Report covers a broad range of topics, including implementation of SB 350, integrated resource planning, distributed energy resources, transportation electrification, solutions to increase resiliency in the electricity sector, energy efficiency, transportation electrification, barriers faced by disadvantaged communities, demand response, transmission and landscape-scale planning, the California Energy Demand Preliminary Forecast, the preliminary transportation energy demand forecast, renewable gas, updates on Southern California electricity reliability, natural gas outlook, and climate adaptation and resiliency. The City of San Juan Capistrano relies on the State integrated energy plan and does not have its own local plan to address renewable energy or energy efficiency. As indicated above, energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature and would be relatively small in comparison to the overall use in the County. In addition, energy usage associated with operation of the proposed project would be relatively small in comparison to the overall use in Orange County, and the State's available energy sources and energy impacts would be negligible at the regional level. Because California's energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level, and because the proposed project's total impact on regional energy supplies would be minor, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct California's energy conservation plans as 26 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 32 of 184 described in the CEC's 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Additionally, the proposed project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Potential impacts related to conflict with or obstruction of a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-9 through 4.5-10.) G.GEOLOGY AND SOILS 1.(a) Fault Rupture Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction; or landslides? Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study [Appendix A], p. 4-24.) Explanation: As with all of Southern California, the project site is located in an area that is subject to strong ground motion resulting from earthquakes on nearby faults. However, according to the Draft Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (2017) prepared for the proposed project, the project site is not located within an established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault ruptures. In addition, there are no known active faults or fault traces with the potential for surface fault rupture crossing the project site. The nearest active fault to the project site is the Newport-Inglewood Fault; the southern terminus of this fault zone is 22 miles to the north. The Wildomar Fault, south of Lake Elsinore, is 22 miles to the east, and the Mount Soledad Fault is 50 miles to the south in La Jolla. Therefore, direct and indirect project impacts related to the rupture of a known earthquake fault as depicted on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map would he less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (Initial Study [Appendix A], pp. 4-23 through 4-24.) 1.( d) Landslides Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction; or landslides? 27 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 33 of 184 Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-25.) Explanation: Seismically induced landslides and other slope failures are common occurrences during or soon after earthquakes in areas with significant ground slopes. The topography at the existing project site and within the surrounding area is relatively flat. According to the Draft Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (2017), the project is not within an earthquake­ induced landslide zone and is not located within an area subject to potential seismic slope instability. Therefore, seismically induced landslides are unlikely to occur at the site, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-25.) 2.Soil Erosfon Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-15.) Explanation: The project site is currently vacant and is characterized by scattered vegetation and exposed soil. During grading and construction, soil would be exposed and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion compared to existing conditions due to soil disturbance and the exposure of substantial amounts of soil to weather conditions (e.g., wind, rain). During a storm event, soil erosion could occur at an accelerated rate. The increased erosion potential would result in short-term water quality impacts as identified in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Initial Study (Appendix A). Because the project would disturb greater than one acre of soil, the project is subject to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009-0009- DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002, as amended by Orders No. 2010-0014- DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ) (Construction General Permit). The Construction General Permit requires preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs). Adherence to Regulatory Compliance Measures GE0-1 and GE0-2 during construction would ensure that erosion-related impacts during construction would be less than significant by requmng the implementation of construction site BMPs. During construction, the Project Applicant is required to adhere to the requirements of the General Construction Permit and utilize typical BMPs specifically identified in the SWPPP for the project in order to prevent construction pollutants from contacting stormwater and to keep all products of erosion from moving off site into receiving waters. Additionally, the Project Applicant is required 28 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 34 of 184 RCMGE0-1 to install and maintain erosion control devices year round in compliance with a City-approved pollution control plan, construction BMP plan, and/or erosion and sediment control plan. The proposed project would result in a 6.86-acre increase in impervious area and a net increase in stormwater runoff; however, the proposed project would also install a stormwater runoff system, including catch basins, a subsurface water quality detention facility, storm drain pipes, and a biofiltration system. This stormwater runoff system would manage increased peak runoff from the site. Additionally, as required by Regulatory Compliance Measure GE0-3, a Final Hydrology and Hydraulics Analysis would be required to be prepared and submitted to the City of approval, to ensure the peak flow of stormwater runoff in the proposed condition would not exceed the outfall capacity. As a result, any increase in peak discharge would be negligible. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial on-site or downstream erosion, siltation, or flooding, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-14 through 4.6-15.) Construction General Permit. Prior to commencement of construction activities, the Project Applicant shall obtain coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), NPDES No. CAS000002, Order No. 2009-0009- DWQ, as amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ and Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ, or any other subsequent permit. This shall include submission of Permit Registration Documents (PRDs ), including permit application fees, a Notice of Intent (NOI), a risk assessment, a site plan, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), a signed certification statement, and any other compliance-related documents required by the permit, to the State Water Resources Control Board via the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS). As required by the Seclion 8-14.107 of the City of San Juan Capistrano's (City) Municipal Code, construction activities shall not commence until a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) is obtained for the project from the SMARTS and provided to the City of San Juan Capistrano Building Official, or designee, to demonstrate that coverage under the Construction General Permit has been obtained. Project construction shall comply with all applicable requirements specified in the Construction General Permit, including but not limited to, preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of construction site Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address all construction-related activities, equipment, and materials that have the potential to impact water quality for the appropriate risk level identified for the project. The SWPPP shall 29 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 35 of 184 RCMGE0-2 RCMGE0-3 3.Expansive Soils identify the sources of pollutants that may affect the quality of stormwater and shall include BMPs (e.g., Sediment Control, Erosion Control, and Good Housekeeping BMPs) to control the pollutants in stormwater runoff. Construction Site BMPs shall also conform to the requirements specified in the latest edition of the Orange County Stormwater Program Construction Runoff Guidance Manual for Contractors, Project Owners, and Developers to control and minimize the impacts of construction and construction-related activities, materials, and pollutants on the watershed. Upon completion of construction activities and stabilization of the project site, a Notice of Termination shall be submitted via SMARTS. Erosion and Sediment Control Plans. ln compliance with the requirements of Sections 8-2.15, 8-2.16, and 8-14.107 of the San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code, the Project Applicant shall submit a pollution control plan, construction BMP plan, and/or erosion and sediment control plan to the City of San Juan Capistrano Building Official, or designee, for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. The Project Applicant shall also install and maintain erosion control devices year round in compliance with the City-approved pollution control plan, construction BMP plan, and/or erosion and sediment control plan. The Project Applicant shall ensure that the construction BMPs are inspected and maintained prior to, during, and after rain events. Final Hydrology and Hydraulics Analysis. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall submit a Final Hydrology and Hydraulics Analysis to the City of San Juan Capistrano Building Official, or designee, for review and approval. The Final Hydrology and Hydraulics Analysis shall be prepared consistent with the requirements of the Orange County Hydrology Manual (Orange County Public Works 1986) and Orange County Hydrology Manual Addendum No. 1 (Orange County Public Works 1996), or subsequent guidance manuals. The Final Hydrology and Hydraulics Analysis shall confirm that the on-site storm drains, on-site detention systems, and any other drainage structures are appropriately sized to accommodate stormwater runoff from the design storm so that the capacity of downstream storm drain facilities is not exceeded. The City of San Juan Capistrano Building Official, or designee, shall ensure that the drainage facilities specified in the Final Hydrology and Hydraulics Analysis are incorporated into the final project design. 30 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 36 of 184 Threshold: Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-27.) ExpJanation: Expansive soils contain types of clay minerals that occupy considerably more volume when they are wet or hydrated than when they are dry or dehydrated. Volume changes associated with changes in the moisture content of near-surface expansive soils can cause uplift or heave of the ground when they become wet or, less commonly, cause settlement when they dry out. Soils with an expansion index of greater than 20 are classified as expansive for building purposes and, therefore, have a potentially significant impact. Based on laboratory testing in the Draft Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (201 7), soils on the project site were classified to have a low expansion potential. Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils and a potential for direct or indirect risks to life or property would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-26 through 4-27.) 31 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 37 of 184 4.Septic Tanks Threshold:Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Fi_nding: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-27.) Explanation: The project would connect to the existing City sewer system and does not include construction of, or connections to, septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to the soils capability to adequately support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-27.) H.GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 1.Emissions Generation Threshold: Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-13.) Explanation: Construction. During construction of the project, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and vendor vehicles, which typically use fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs (e.g., CO2, CH4, and N2O). Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. GHG emissions associated with project construction would occur over the short term from construction activities and would consist primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change. Table 4.7.B (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.7-12) lists the annual GHG emissions from construction of the proposed project. Per the SCAQMD guidance, due to the long-term nature of the GHGs in the atmosphere, instead of determining significance of construction emissions alone, the total construction emissions are amortized over 30 years (an estimate of the life of the proposed project), added to the operational emissions, and compared to the applicable GHG significance threshold. As shown in Table 4.7.B (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.7-12), construction of the proposed project would generate approximately 1,797.24 MT of CO2e over the course of construction. The amortized construction emissions 32 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 38 of 184 have been assessed as part of the annual average operation emissions, below. Because construction would be temporary (approximately 20 months), these emissions would cease upon project completion, and would not result in a permanent increase in emissions, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Operation. Operation of the proposed project would generate GHG em1ss1ons from area and mobile sources and indirect emissions from stationary sources associated with energy consumption. Mobile-source emissions of GHGs would include project-generated vehicle trips associated with resident trips to and from the project site. Area-source emissions would be associated with activities including landscaping and maintenance of proposed land uses, natural gas for cooking and heating, and other sources. Increases in stationary-source emissions would also occur at off-site utility providers as a result of demand for electricity, natural gas, and water by the proposed use. The GHG emission estimates presented in Table 4.7.C (found at Draft EIR, p. 4. 7-13) show the emissions associated with the level of development envisioned by the proposed project. Area sources include architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscaping. Energy sources include natural gas consumption for heating and cooking. As shown in Table 4.7.C, the proposed project, including amortized construction emissions, would generate 1,661.47 MT of CO2e/yr. This level of project-related GHG emissions would fall below the SCAQMD bright-line screening threshold of 3,500 MT of CO2e/yr for residential development. Therefore, GHG emissions generated by the project are not considered to be cumulatively contributable to statewide GHG emissions, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-11 through 4.7-13.) 2.Emission Reduction Plans Threshold: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-14.) Explanation: The City of San Juan Capistrano does not currently have an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include CARB's Scoping Plan and SCAG's 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. A consistency analysis with these plans for the proposed project is presented below. The CARB Scoping Plan is applicable to state agencies, but is not directly applicable to cities/counties and individual projects (i.e., the Scoping Plan 33 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 39 of 184 does not require the City to adopt policies, programs, or regulations to reduce GHG emissions). However, new regulations adopted by the state agencies outlined in the Scoping Plan result in GHG emissions reductions at the local level. These regulations provide reductions in transportation emissions rates, increases in water efficiency in the building and landscape codes, and other statewide actions that would affect a local jurisdiction's emissions inventory from the top down. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the low carbon fuel standards and changes in the corporate average fuel economy standards (e.g., Pavley I and Pavley II, and California Advanced Clean Cars program). Although measures in the Scoping Plan apply to State agencies and not the proposed project, the project's GHG emissions would be reduced by compliance with statewide measures that have been adopted since AB 32 and SB 32 were adopted. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the CARB Scoping Plan, and impacts are considered less than significant. San Juan Capistrano is a member city of the SCAG. SCAG's 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, adopted on April 7, 2016, is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The RTP/SCS establishes GHG emissions goals for automobiles and light-duty trucks for 2020 and 2035 and establishes an overall GHG target for the region consistent with both the statewide GHG-reduction targets for 2020 and the post-2020 statewide GHG reduction goals. Table 4.7.D (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.7-15) shows the proposed project's consistency with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS goals. As shown in Table 4.7.D (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.7-15), the proposed project would not conflict with the stated goals of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. As such, the proposed project would not interfere with SCAG's ability to achieve the region's 2020 and post-2020 mobile source GHG reduction targets outlined in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, and it can be assumed that regional mobile emissions will decrease consistent with the goals of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. Further, the proposed project is not considered regionally significant per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15206. Thus, the project would not conflict with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS targets since those targets were established and are applicable on a regional level. Therefore, impacts related to conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-13 through 4.7-17.) 34 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 40 of 184 I. 1. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Hazardous Materials Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-31.) Explanation: Hazardous materials are chemicals that could potentially cause harm during an accidental release or mishap, and are defined as being toxic, corrosive, flammable, reactive, and an irritant or strong sensitizer.' Hazardous substances include all chemicals regulated under the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) "hazardous materials" regulations and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) "hazardous waste" regulations. Hazardous wastes require special handling and disposal because of their potential to damage public health and the environment. The probable frequency and severity of consequences from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is affected by the type of substance, the quantity used or managed, and the nature of the activities and operations. Potentially hazardous materials that could be used during construction activities would include a limited amount of hazardous and flammable substances/oils (e.g., fuels, lubricants, and solvents) typical during heavy equipment operation for site grading and construction. The amount of hazardous chemicals present during construction is limited and would be in compliance with existing government regulations, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the California Code of Regulations (Title 22). The potential for the release of hazardous materials during project construction is low and, even if a release would occur, it would not result in a significant hazard to the public, surrounding land uses, or environment due to the small quantities of these materials associated with construction vehicles. Furthermore, the results of the Phase I ESA and the Phase II indicate that it is unlikely that hazardous materials would be encountered during construction. Therefore, impacts with respect to hazardous materials use and storage during construction would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Project operation associated with residential uses would involve the use and storage of small quantities of potentially hazardous materials typical of residential uses ( e.g., cleaning solvents, fertilizers, and pesticides). For example, landscaping and maintenance activities could include the use of fertilizers and light equipment (e.g., edgers) that may require fuel. These 35 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 41 of 184 types of activities do not involve the use of a large or substantial amount of hazardous materials. In addition, such materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers' instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. Any associated risk would be adequately reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with these standards and regulations. Further, operation of the proposed project as a residential development would not require the storage, transportation, generation, or disposal of large quantities of hazardous substances. As such, when utilized properly, hazardous materials used and stored on the project site would not result in a significant hazard to the residents or visitors. Furthermore, the City has adopted a Household Hazardous Waste Program, which helps residents identify potentially hazardous materials in the home, and also includes information on Household Hazardous Waste Collection Centers. Therefore, the proposed residential uses would result in a less than significant hazard to the public or the environment associated with the routine transport, use, disposal, or reasonably foreseeable accident conditions related to hazardous waste during operation. The Orange County Fire Authority (OCF A) is the administering agency for the chemical inventory and business emergency plan regulations for the City. OCFA's disclosure activities are coordinated with the Orange County Health Care Agency. The Health Care Agency is a Certified Unified Program Agency for local implementation of the disclosure program and several other hazardous materials and hazardous waste programs. The OCF A's Hazardous Materials Services Department is staffed with technical and administrative personnel who are assigned with the implementation and management of the disclosure program. All facilities are encouraged to work closely with OCF A in order to eliminate any unnecessary efforts or costs in complying with the disclosure program. The Orange County Waste and Recycling Department manages four hazardous material and hazardous waste collection centers designed to prevent damage to the environment and reduce risk of accidental poisoning by removing household hazardous materials and medicines from the home. The closest collection center to the project site is located approximately 2 miles east of the site, at 32250 La Pata A venue (Prima Deshecha Landfill). Because these resources are available to anyone in the County, it is reasonable to conclude that the residences would use such programs to properly dispose of household hazardous waste. Therefore, impacts associated with the disposal of hazardous materials and/or the potential release of hazardous materials that could occur with the implementation of the proposed project are considered less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-30 through 4-31.) 2.Accident or Upset 36 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 42 of 184 Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-33.) Explanation: The purpose of the Phase I and Phase II analyses was to evaluate the project site for potential Recognized Environmental Concerns (RECs) that may be present and/or off-site conditions that may impact the project site. The Phase I analysis prepared included (1) site reconnaissance of the project site and the surrounding area; (2) a review of regulatory agency reports, aerial photographs, and other historic record sources, (3) interviews with the property owner; (4) and preparation of a soil sampling analysis. An REC can be defined as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, or at a property due to a release to the environment, under conditions indicative of a release to the environment, or under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. According to the Phase I ESA, no RECs were identified on the site during the site visit (with the exception of undocumented fill). However, a review of the applicable agency reports, photographs, and historic records conducted identified evidence of RECs and several Historical RECs (HRECs) adjacent to the site. According to the Phase I ESA, historic use of the project site for cultivation of agricultural crops may result in unknown pesticides and/or metals-based herbicide residues in shallow soils. In addition, the Phase I ESA determined that contaminates and/or volatile organic compounds (V OCs) may be present in undocumented fill on the property due to the presence of the San Juan Landfill at or near the project site and the prior dumping of 50,000 cy of "clean" soil on the site. The Phase I ESA also determined that asbeslus may be present in the pavement utilized for the paved portion of Paseo Tirador that extends onto the project site. As such, the Phase I ESA recommended soil sampling to ascertain that no asbestos is present on the paved portion of the site. In accordance with the recommendations of the Phase I ESA, the Phase II ESA conducted a soil sampling analysis to determine if on-site soils had been impacted by use of agricultural chemicals. A total of four samples were obtained from below fill material on the site to determine the presence of heavy metals, arsenic, lead, and pesticides. Results of the soil sampling analysis found that measurable amounts of heavy metals, arsenic, lead, and pesticides were all below established regulatory thresholds for residential development. 37 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 43 of 184 Soil samples were also collected to determine the presence of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), VOCs, and metals in undocumented soils on the project site. In total, 16 samples were collected. All samples reported VOCs and pesticides at levels below established regulatory standards for VOCs and pesticides. With the exception of two samples, all samples reported concentrations of TPH at levels below established regulatory standards. The Phase II ESA determined that these two samples were not indicative of a site-wide issue. Soil samples also reported arsenic concentrations at levels greater than risk-based regulatory thresholds; however, the Phase II ESA determined that the reported arsenic concentrations were within and consistent with typical background concentrations for the area, which have been determined to occur naturally. Further, although soil sampling was originally recommended to ascertain that asbestos was not present on the paved portion of the site, the Phase II ESA determined that no stress absorbing fabrics were observed in the asphalt on Paseo Tirador. As such, no samples were collected for analysis of asbestos. Based on the results of soil sampling on the site, the Phase II ESA determined that no further investigation or action was required. In addition to soil sampling, a soil vapor analysis was conducted on the project site. In total, seven soil vapor samples were collected and analyzed for VOCs associated with undocumented fills on the site. Results of the analysis determined that all VOCs were below the most conservative applicable regulatory residential thresholds. The soil vapor analysis also screened concentrations for methane; however, none of the samples showed evidence of any methane. Therefore, no further investigation or action was determined to be required. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would include site preparation activities, building construction, paving, and the implementation of ornamental landscaping. In the unlikely event that unknown hazardous materials are discovered on site during project construction, the project contractor would be required to notify the OCF A, who would then determine the next steps regarding possible site evacuation, sampling, and disposal of the substance consistent with local, State, and federal regulations. In addition, Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol, and local police and fire departments are trained in emergency response procedures for safely responding to accidental spills of hazardous substances on public roads, further reducing potential impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, adherence to applicable rules and regulations as required during construction regarding hazardous materials would reduce potential risks associated with the release of hazardous materials to the public or to the environment to a less than significant level. As stated previously, hazardous substances associated with the proposed residential uses would be limited in both amount and use such that they can be contained (stored or confined within a specific area) without 38 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 44 of 184 impacting the environment. Project operation would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials typical of residential uses ( e.g., solvents, cleaning agents, paints, fertilizers, and pesticides) that, when used correctly and in compliance with existing laws and regulations, would not result in a significant hazard to visitors, residents, or workers in the vicinity of the proposed project. Operation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. No mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-31 through 4-33.) 3.Hazards Near Schools Threshold: Finding: Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-34.) Explanation: The nearest school to the project site is St. Margaret's Episcopal School, which is located 0.19 mile northeast of the project site. As stated previously, construction activities would involve the routine use of hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, paints, curing compounds, solvents, and sanitizers. Compliance as required with various federal, State, and local regulations related to hazardous materials use, storage, transportation, and disposal is expected to reduce the risk of a spill or accidental release of hazardous materials to a less than significant level. Construction of the proposed project would also include the use of construction equipment that would generate dust and particulate matter during site preparation activities within 0.25 mile of an existing school. These fugitive dust emissions would occur during construction of the proposed project as a result of demolition, grading, and the exposure of soils to air and wind. However, in order to reduce fugitive dust emissions, the project would be required to comply with SCAQMD standard conditions and Rule 403. These required dust suppression techniques would reduce fugitive dust generation and would reduce construction impacts resulting from hazardous emissions within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school to a less than significant level during construction activities. Although the project site is located within 0.25 mile of St. Margaret's Episcopal School, operation of the proposed residential uses would not result in the production of hazardous emissions or handling of significant amounts of hazardous materials. Therefore, operation of the proposed residential uses would not emit hazardous emissions or involve handling 39 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 45 of 184 of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school during operation, and impacts are considered less than significant. No mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-33 through 4-34.) 4.Waste Sites Threshold:Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Finding: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-34.) Explanation: According to the Phase I ESA and a review of hazardous materials databases, the project site is not included on any hazardous materials site list pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-34.) 5.Public Airports Thresh.old:For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Finding: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-34.) Explanation: The nearest airport to the project site is John Wayne Airport, located approximately 16 miles northwest of the project site. Additionally, the Helicopter Outlying Landing Field associated with the United States Marine Corps Base at Camp Pendleton is located approximately 9 miles southeast of the project site. Therefore, due to the distance of these airports from the project site, the proposed project would not cause a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. No mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-34.) 6.Emergency Plans Thresh.old: Finding: Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-35.) 40 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 46 of 184 Explanation: The City's General Plan Safety Element (2002) identifies and evaluates natural hazards associated with seismic activity, landslides, flooding, and fire within the City. The General Plan Safety Element establishes goals for each of the City departments to provide responsible planning aimed at reducing impacts with respect to loss of life, injuries, damage to property and other losses associated with disasters, such as those resulting from seismic activity, flooding, and fires. According to the City's map of evacuation routes, San Juan Creek Road and La Novia A venue are identified as potential evacuation routes in the event of an emergency. The proposed project does not include any characteristics ( e.g., permanent road closure or long term blocking of road access) that would physically impair or otherwise conflict with the City's Emergency Preparedness Program. Further, all infrastructure improvements included as part of the project would occur within the boundaries of the existing site and would not require or result in any temporary lane closures on roadways adjacent to the site. Therefore, construction impacts related to emergency response and evacuation plans associated with construction of the proposed project would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. The emergency management plans for the City, in conjunction with the emergency plan for the County, may be activated and directed by a number of individuals within the City or County, including, but not limited to, the City Manager, the Fire Chief, and the Police Chief. Roads that are used as response corridors/evacuation routes usually follow the most direct path to or from various parts of a community, although emergency response vehicles may choose to use a variety of routes to access surrounding areas. San Juan Creek Road and La Novia A venue are identified as evacuation routes in the City. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable codes and ordinances for emergency vehicle access, which would ensure adequate access to, from, and on site for emergency vehicles. Adherence to these codes and ordinances would ensure that operation of the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-34 through 4-35.) 41 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 47 of 184 7.Wildland Fires Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-35.) Explanation: According to the City's General Plan Safety Element, the project site is not located in an area identified as a Wildland Fire Area that may contain substantial fire risk or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). In addition, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire ), the project site is not located in a fire hazard area. However, because the project site is adjacent to vegetation associated with San Juan Creek, the eastern portion of the site is located within a fuel modification zone. As such, the project would be required to prepare and submit a final Fuel Modification Plan for the proposed project. According to the conceptual Fuel Modification Plan, the project includes the use of drought-tolerant landscaping, rock, and hardscape within the fuel modification zone, as well as non-combustible building materials for structures on the site. As a result, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-35.) J.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1.Water Quality Standards Threshold: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-39.) Explanation: The proposed project involves construction of a residential development on the project site. Pollutants of concern during construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Each of these pollutants on its own or in combination with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and sedimentation compared to existing conditions. In addition, chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (e.g., paints, solvents, and fuels), and 42 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 48 of 184 concrete-related waste may be spilled or leaked and have the potential to be transported via stormwater runoff into receiving waters (San Juan Creek and the Pacific Ocean). During construction, approximately 10.45 acres of the 16.1-acre project site will be developed for residential use. Approximately 5.55 acres of the 16.1-acre project site consist of San Juan Creek and jurisdictional areas, which will be dedicated for conservation. Project construction would disturb approximately 10.45 acres of soil. Because construction of the proposed project would disturb greater than 1 acre of soil, the project is subject to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002, as amended by Orders No. 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012- 0006-DWQ) (Construction General Permit). Therefore, coverage under the Construction General Permit would be obtained for the proposed project. The Construction General Permit requires preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) detailed in the SWPPP during construction activities. Construction BMPs would include, but not be limited to, Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site; and Good Housekeeping BMPs to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construction debris and waste into receiving waters. Compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit, including incorporation of construction BMPs to target pollutants of concern would reduce construction impacts related to Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), water quality standards, and degradation of water quality to less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. According to the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared for the project, groundwater could be encountered at depths of 17 ft below the existing grade. Depth of excavation could extend to 20 ft below the existing grade. Therefore, based on the depth of groundwater and depth of excavation, groundwater dewatering could be required during construction. Groundwater may contain high levels of total dissolved solids, selenium, or other constituents that could be introduced to surface waters when dewatered groundwater is discharged to surface waters. Groundwater dewatering activities during excavation would be conducted in accordance with the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from Groundwater Extraction and Similar Discharges to Surface Waters within the San Diego Region Except for San Diego Bay (WDR) (Order No. R9-2008-0002, Permit No. CAG919002) (Groundwater Discharge Permit), which would require testing and treatment (as necessary) of groundwater encountered during groundwater dewatering prior to release to surface waters. As a result, groundwater 43 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 49 of 184 dewatering would not introduce pollutants to receiving that would violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Although groundwater dewatering would occur, dewatered groundwater would be discharged to surface waters rather than back into groundwater resources and would therefore not introduce pollutants to groundwater. Infiltration of stormwater has the potential to affect groundwater quality in areas of shallow groundwater. As discussed above, groundwater could occur at depths in the range of 17 ft below ground surface (bgs). Pollutants in stormwater are generally removed by soil through absorption as water infiltrates. In areas of deep groundwater, there is more absorption potential and, as a result, less potential for pollutants to reach groundwater. As such, due to the depth to groundwater, it is not expected that any stormwater that may infiltrate during construction would affect groundwater quality. Therefore, project construction would not substantially degrade groundwater quality. Potential pollutants of concern from long-term operations of residential developments include suspended solids/sediments, nutrients, pathogens (bacteria/virus), pesticides, oil and grease, trash and debris, and dry weather runoff. The project would comply with the requirements of Title 8, Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) Draining the Watersheds Within the San Diego Region (Order No. R9- 2013-0001, NPDES No. CAS010266, as amended by Order No, R9-2015- 0001) (South Orange County MS4 Permit). The City Municipal Code and the South Orange County MS4 Permits require that a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) be prepared for new development projects. WQMPs specify the site design, source control, low impact development (LID) BMPs that would be implemented to capture, treat, and reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff. A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP; IBI Group, prepared November 2017, updated March 2018 and July 2018) has been prepared for the project. The PWQMP will be refined during final design based on the final site plan. According to the PWQMP, proposed site design BMPs include: •Minimize impervious area •Maximize natural infiltration capacity •Preserve existing drainage patterns and time of concentration •Disconnect impervious area •Protect existing vegetation and sensitive areas •Revegetate disturbed areas 44 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 50 of 184 •Soil stockpiling and site-generated organics •Water-efficient landscaping •Slopes and channel buffers Proposed non-structural source control BMPs include: •Education for property owners, tenants, and occupants •Activity restrictions •Common area landscape management •BMP maintenance •California Title 22 Compliance •Spill contingency plan •Hazardous materials disclosure compliance •Uniform Fire Code implementation •Common area litter control •Employee training •Common area catch basin inspection •Street sweeping private streets and parking lots Proposed structural source control BMPs include: •Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage •Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction •Use efficient irrigation systems and landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control •Protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation •Incorporate requirements allocable to individual priority categories (from San Diego RWQCB NPDES Permit) Proposed LID BMPs include a subsurface water quality detention facility, located adjacent to 1-5 within an open space area, and a subsur face Modular Wetland System, located at various locations on the project site. Stormwater runoff from the western portion of the project site will be conveyed to the subsurface water quality detention facility where it will be detained and infiltrated. Stormwater runoff from the eastern portion of the project site will be conveyed to the Modular Wetland System and then discharged into Homo Creek. Biofiltration areas may also be incorporated into the project during final design, if feasible. When combined, the site design, source control, and LID BMPs would target and reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff from the project site. Required compliance with the City Municipal Code and South Orange County MS4 Permit requirements, including incorporation of post-construction BMPs to target pollutants of concern, would reduce operation impacts related to WDRs, water quality standards, degradation of water quality, and 45 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 51 of 184 beneficial uses to a less than significant level, and no mitigation would be required. As discussed previously, infiltration of storm water could have the potential to affect groundwater quality in areas of shallow groundwater. However, in areas of deep groundwater, there is more absorption potential and, as a result, less potential for pollutants to reach groundwater. Due to the depth to groundwater (17 ft bgs), it is not expected that any stormwater would affect groundwater quality because there is not a direct path for pollutants to reach groundwater. In addition, the project would be required to implement LID features to treat stormwater before it could reach groundwater. Therefore, project operation would not substantially degrade groundwater quality. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-36 through 4-39.) 2.Groundwater Supplies Threshold: Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-40.) Explanation: According to the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared for the project, groundwater could be encountered at depths of 17 ft below the existing grade. Depth of excavation could extend to 20 ft below the existing grade. Therefore, based on the depth of groundwater and depth of excavation, groundwater dewatering could be required during construction. In the event groundwater dewatering activities are required, the Applicant would be required to obtain all applicable permits with respect to dewatering. However, groundwater dewatering would be temporary, and the volume of groundwater removed would not be substantial. In addition, any volume of water removed during groundwater dewatering would be minimal when compared to the size of the San Juan Groundwater Basin, which has a capacity of 41,375 acre-feet (at) of water per year, and would not interfere with the sustainable management of the groundwater basin. Therefore, impacts related to a decrease in groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge in a manner that may impede sustainable groundwater management would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Currently, the project site is undeveloped and consists of primarily pervious surfaces. According to the PWQMP, development of the project would increase impervious surface area by approximately 6.86 acres, which would decrease on-site infiltration. However, any decrease in infiltration would be minimal in comparison to the size of the San Juan Groundwater Basin, which has a capacity of 41,375 af of water per year. In addition, the project would include BMPs to increase infiltration of 46 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 52 of 184 stormwater runoff on the project site to reduce impacts related to depletion or interference with groundwater recharge. Furthermore, neither groundwater extraction nor injection would occur during operation. For these reasons, impacts related to depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge in a manner that may impede sustainable groundwater management would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-39 through 4-40.) 3.Erosion or Siltation Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on­ or off-site? Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-41.) Explanation: During construction activities, soil would be exposed and disturbed, drainage patterns would be temporarily altered during grading and other construction activities, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and siltation compared to existing conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion and siltation could occur at an accelerated rate. The Construction General Permit requires preparation of a SWPPP to identify construction BMPs to be implemented as part of the proposed project to reduce impacts to water quality during construction, including those impacts associated with soil erosion and siltation. With compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and implementation of the construction BMPs, construction impacts related to on-or off-site erosion or siltation would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. The project would not substantially alter drainage patterns on the project site. According to the Preliminary Hydrology Report prepared for the project (161 Group, November 2017, updated March 2018), in the proposed condition, the overall site drainage patterns would generally remain the same as existing drainage patterns. Storm flows would continue to reach San Juan Creek via an existing 27-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) in the southwest comer of the project site and via Homo Creek. Currently, the project site is undeveloped and consists of primarily pervious surfaces (the project site currently contains 0.9 acre of impervious surface area). Development of the project would increase impervious surface area by approximately 6.86 acres, which would increase stormwater runoff. However, impervious surface areas associat ed 47 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 53 of 184 4.Flooding with development of the project site are not prone to erosion or siltation, and landscaping, where erosion and siltation are minimal. The increased impervious surface area could increase stormwater discharge from the site, which could increase downstream erosion or siltation. The existing 27-inch RCP and Homo Creek are both concrete and not subject to erosion or siltation. Downstream of the project site, San Juan Creek is a concrete-lined earthen channel with a soft bottom. In addition, a portion of San Juan Creek adjacent to the project site is an unimproved natural watercourse. Therefore, San Juan Creek is subject to erosion and siltation impacts. The project would comply with the requirements of Title 8, Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code and the South Orange County MS4 Permit, both of which require preparation of a WQMP and implementation of BMPs. As specified in the PWQMP prepared for the project, proposed BMPs would include site design, source control, and LID BMPs. LID BMPs include a subsurface water quality detention facility and a subsurface Modular Wetland System. As detailed in Response 4.9 (a), these BMPs would reduce stormwater runoff from the project site to San Juan Creek to below existing conditions so the proposed project would not contribute to downstream erosion or siltation. Finally, the proposed project would not alter the course of a stream or river. As such, operational impacts related to on-site or off-site erosion or siltation would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-40 through 4-41.) Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off­ site? Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-42.) •xplanation: The project would not substantially alter drainage patterns on the project site during either construction or operation. Currently, the project site is undeveloped and consists of primarily pervious surfaces (the project site currently contains 0.9 acre of impervious surface area). As detailed in the Preliminary Hydrology Report prepared for the project (IBI Group, March 2018), storm water runoff from the project site is 23 .5 cubic feet per second (cfs) during a 25-year storm and 30.6 cfs during a 100-year storm. Development of the project would increase impervious surface area by approximately 6.86 acres, which would increase stormwater runoff and could potentially result in flooding. The increase in impervious surface waters would increase stormwater runoff from the project site by 8.4 cfs 48 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 54 of 184 5.Runoff (to 31.9 cfs) during a 25-year storm and by 10.6 cfs (to 41.2 cfs) during a 100-year storm. However, the proposed LID BMPs (a subsurface water quality detention facility and subsurface Modular Wetland System) would capture and reduce stormwater runoff. According to the Preliminary Hydrology Report, the total peak discharge flow rate to the existing 27-inch RCP would be below existing conditions after implementation of LID BMPs (peak flow would decrease by 1.4 cfs during a 25-year storm and by 2.3 cfs during a 100-year storm). Discharge to El Homo Creek would increase by 5.6 cfs during a 25-year storm event and by 7.1 cfs during a 100-year storm event. However, according to the Preliminary Hydrology Report, El Homo Creek should have sufficient capacity to accommodate the small increase in runoff due to the small time of concentration of discharge from the project site compared to the longer time of concentration for the approximately 4.3-square-mile El Homo Creek watershed. El Homo Creek has a design capacity of 3,100 cfs and is nearly empty during storm flows; therefore, it can accommodate the increased stormwater runoff from the project site. Finally, the project would decrease stormwater runoff to San Juan Creek by 23.5 cfs during a 25-year storm event and by 5.3 cfs during a 100-year storm event. For these reasons, the project would not exceed the capacity of the existing 27- inch RCP, El Homo Creek, or San Juan Creek, and off site flooding would not occur. In addition, the proposed drainage facilities needed to accommodate stormwater runoff would be appropriately sized during the final design phase so that on-site flooding would not occur. Finally, the proposed project would not alter the course of a stream or river. Therefore, with implementation of LID BMPs, impacts related to on-site or off-site flooding would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-41 through 4-42.) Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantially additional sources of polluted runoff or impede or redirect flood flows? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-19.) Explanation: In the existing condition, an earthen swale located off site to the west of the project site conveys stormflows from the west to a 27-inch RCP located in the southwestern corner of the project site. Catch basins on the 49 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 55 of 184 southeast portion of the ex1stmg project site also convey on-site storm water flows to the RCP. The RCP conveys storm water flows to Homo Creek Channel, which discharges stormwater to San Juan Creek. An existing scour protection wall within the project limits provides flood protection and soil stability on site. According to the Preliminary Hydrology Report prepared for the project (IBI Group, November 2017a, updated March 2018), in the proposed condition, the overall site drainage patterns would generally remain the same as existing drainage patterns. Storm flows would continue to reach San Juan Creek via the existing 27- inch RCP in the southwest corner of the project site and via Homo Creek Channel. Furthermore, the project would not alter the course of Homo Creek Channel or San Juan Creek, as drainage patterns would remain similar to the existing condition during project implementation. In the event of a 100-year flood event, stormflows would be conveyed similar to existing conditions. Currently, the project site is undeveloped and consists of primarily pervious surfaces (the project site currently contains 0.9 acre of impervious surface area). As detailed in the Preliminary Hydrology Report prepared for the project, stormwater runoff from the project site is 23.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) during a 25-year storm and 30.6 cfs during a 100-year storm. Development of the project would increase impervious surface area by approximately 6.86 acres, which would increase stormwater runoff. The increase in impervious surface waters would increase stormwater runoff from the project site by 8.4 cfs (to 31.9 cfs) during a 25-year storm and by 10.6 cfs (to 41.2 cfs) during a 100-year storm. However, the proposed BMPs would capture and reduce stormwater runoff. As specified in the PWQMP prepared for the project, proposed BMPs include a subsurface water quality detention facility and a subsurface Modular Wetland System. According to the Preliminary Hydrology Report, the total peak discharge flow rate to the existing 27-inch RCP would be below existing conditions after implementation of the proposed BMPs (peak flow would decrease by 1.4 cfs during a 25-year storm and by 2.3 cfs during a 100-year storm). Discharge to El Homo Creek would increase by 5.6 cfs during a 25-year storm event and by 7.1 cfs during a 100-year storm event. However, according to the Preliminary Hydrology Report, El Homo Creek should have sufficient capacity to accommodate the small increase in runoff due to the small time of concentration of discharge from the project site compared to the longer time of concentration for the approximately 4.3- square-mile El Homo Creek watershed. El Homo Creek is a City-owned and maintained facility, and if flows to the creek are to be increased or if alterations are made to the facility, the project will be required to obtain City approval for the alterations. El Homo Creek has a design capacity of 3,100 cfs and is nearly empty during storm flows; therefore, it can accommodate the increased stormwater runoff from the project site. Finally, the project would decrease stormwater runoff to San Juan Creek by 23.5 cfs during a 25-year storm event and by 5.3 cfs during a 100-year 50 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 56 of 184 storm event. Therefore, the increase in impervious surface area would not alter drainage patterns in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows. (Final EIR, p. 3-1.) According to the FEMA FIRM Nos. 06059C0506J and 06059C0507J (December 3, 2009), the southern portion of the project site is located within 100-year floodplain Zone AE, and the northern portion of the project site is located within Zone X (refer to Figure 4.8.1). Zone AE is defined by FEMA as areas subject to inundation by a 1-percent-annual­ chance (100-year) flood for which base flood elevations have been determined. Zone X is defined by FEMA as areas of minimal flood hazard, which are the areas outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area and higher than the elevation of the 0.2 percent annual chance flood. A portion of the project site contains a Zone AE Regulatory Floodway associated with El Homo Creek and San Juan Creek. Because the project site would place improvements and structures within a 100-year flood zone on the southern portion of the project site, there is potential for the project to impede or redirect flood flows. However, the proposed project would process all necessary map revisions with FEMA, as described below, to ensure the project does not impede or redirect flood flows that would impact adjacent or downstream property. The proposed project would be designed in compliance with the design requirements of Section 8-11.115 of the City's Municipal Code, which specifies design requirements for developments within the 100-year floodplain. The proposed project would be required to obtain an Elevation certificate, as outlined in Regulatory Compliance Measure WQ-1. The Elevation Certificate is part of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and is used to provide elevation information necessary to ensure compliance with community floodplain management ordinances, to determine the proper insurance premium rate, and may serve as documentation supporting a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR), Conditional Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (CLOMR­ F), Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), or Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (LOMR-F). In addition, as spt!cified in Regulatory Compliance Measure WQ-2, the project would be required to process a CLOMR or CLOMR-F during final design and a LOMR or LOMR-F upon project completion through the City, the OCFCD, and FEMA. A CLOMR and a CLOMR-F are FEMA's comment on a proposed project that would, upon construction, affect the hydrologic or hydraulic characteristics of a floodplain and thus result in the modification of the existing floodplain or floodway or the base flood elevation. A CLOMR proposes to revise the effective FIRM and a CLOMR-F does not revise an effective FIRM; instead, a CLOMR-F indicates whether the project, if built as proposed, would be raised above the base flood elevation. A LOMR is processed for properties elevated by the placement of fill, and is a letter determination that officially amends an effective FIRM, and a LOMR-F is processed 51 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 57 of 184 RCMWQ-1 RCMWQ-2 6.Flood Hazard Threshold: when FEMA accepts a project which does not result in an adverse impact to adjacent or downstream property and does not increase the base flood elevation. The CLOMR and LOMR or CLOMR-F and LOMR-F would ensure that the FEMA FIRM reflects the changes to the floodplain that would result from project implementation. The process of obtaining a CLOMR and LOMR or CLOMR-F and LOMR-F would not occur until after certification of the Final EIR for the proposed project. Therefore, the CLOMR and LOMR or CLOMR-F and LOMR-F are conditions of approval of the project, as noted in the Project Description in Table 3.C of the Draft EIR and described in Regulatory Compliance Measure WQ-2. With implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measures WQ-1 and WQ-2, potential impacts related to impeding or redirecting flood flows would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-15 through 4.8-19.) Flood Hazard Certification. Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the Project Applicant shall obtain certification from a registered professional engineer or surveyor that the constructed structures on comply with the requirements of Section 8-11.115 of the City of San Juan Capistrano's (City) Municipal Code. The certification shall be a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Elevation Certificate, and shall verify that all new residential construction and substantial improvement of any structure in Zone AE of the project site shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated at least 1 foot above the base flood elevation. The certification shall be submitted to and verified by the City Floodplain Administrator. Letter of Map Revision. Flood Insurance Rate Map Revisions. Prior to the issuance of any grading or construction permits, the Project Applicant shall process a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) or Conditional Letter of Map Revision based on Fill (CLOMR-F) through the City of San Juan Capistrano, Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Project construction shall not commence until the CLOMR or CLOMR-F is approved by FEMA. Upon completion of construction, the Project Applicant shall process a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) or Letter of Map Revision based on Fill (LOMR-F) through the City of San Juan Capistrano, OCFCD, and FEMA. The City of San Juan Capistrano shall not issue the first Certificate of Occupancy until the LOMR or LOMR-F is approved by FEMA. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the Project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? 52 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 58 of 184 Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], 4-44.) Explanation: Tsunami. Tsunamis are ocean waves generated by tectonic displacement of the sea floor associated with shallow earthquakes, sea floor landslides, rock falls, and exploding volcanic islands. Tsunamis can have wavelengths of up to 120 miles and travel as fast as 500 miles per hour across hundreds of miles of deep ocean. Upon reaching shallow coastal waters, the waves can reach up to 50 ft in height, causing great devastation to near-shore structures. The project site is approximately 2.8 miles from the Pacific Ocean shoreline and is not within a tsunami inundation area. According to the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (provided in Appendix B) prepared for the project, because the project site is not located near the ocean shoreline or within 50 ft of sea level, the tsunami hazard is considered low. Therefore, inundation from tsunamis is not expected. Therefore, there is no risk of release of pollutants due to inundation from tsunami. Seiche Zones. Seiching is a phenomenon that occurs when seismic ground shaking induces standing waves (seiches) inside water retention facilities (e.g., reservoirs and lakes). Such waves can cause retention structures to fail and flood downstream properties. There are no water retention facilities, such as large lakes or reservoirs, in close proximity to the project site. Therefore, inundation from seiche waves is not expected. Therefore, there is no risk of release of pollutants due to inundation from seiche. Flood Hazard. The project site is located adjacent to San Juan Creek and 5 miles downstream of the Trampas Canyon Reservoir. As discussed previously, the project site is within a 100-year floodplain of San Juan Creek. According to the FEMA FIRM maps and the City's General Plan Safety Element (December 1999), the project site is also within the inundation area of Trampas Canyon Dam. Therefore, in the event of flooding during a storm event or in the unlikely event of failure of Trampas Canyon Dam, there would be a risk of inundation and pollutant release on the project site. The project would introduce a new land use (residential) on the project site, which would change the potential on-site pollutants compared to existing conditions. However, as discussed in Response 4.10 (a), BMPs would be implemented to target and reduce pollutants of concern on the project site. In addition, as discussed in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, hazardous substances associated with residential uses would be limited in both amount and use. Because BMPs would reduce the potential for pollutants to occur on the site, and because any hazardous materials used on site would be properly stored and contained, impacts related to release of pollutants in the event of inundation from flooding, tsunami, or seiche would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4- 43 through 4-44.) 53 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 59 of 184 7.Water Quality Control Plan Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-45.) "Xplanation: The project is within the jurisdiction of the San Diego RWQCB. The San Diego RWQCB adopted a Water Quality Control Plan (i.e. Basin Plan) (September 1994, with amendments effective on or before May 2016), which designates beneficial uses for all surface and groundwater within its jurisdiction and establishes the water quality objectives and standards necessary to protect those beneficial uses. As summarized below, the project would comply with the applicable NPDES permits and implement construction and operational BMPs to reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and sedimentation compared to existing conditions. In addition, chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (e.g., paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete-related waste may be spilled or leaked and have the potential to be transported via stormwater runoff into receiving waters. However, the proposed project would be required to comply with the requirements set forth by the Construction General Permit, which requires preparation of a SWPPP and Erosion Control Plan and implementation of construction BMPs to control stormwater runoff and discharge of pollutants. The project would also comply with the requirements of the Groundwater Discharge Permit, including testing and treatment (if necessary) of dewatered groundwater prior to discharge to surface waters. The primary pollutants of concern during project operations are suspended solids, bacteria/viruses/pathogens, and dry-weather runoff. Other pollutants of concern are nutrients, heavy metals, pesticides, toxic organic compounds, and trash and debris. A Final WQMP would be prepared for the project in compliance with the South Orange County MS4 Permit and the City's Municipal Code. The Final WQMP will detail the Source Control, Site Design, and LID BMPs that would be implemented to treat stormwater runoff and reduce impacts to water quality during operation. The proposed LID BMPs include proprietary biofiltration BMPs. These BMPs would capture and treat stormwater runoff and reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff. The project would comply with the applicable NPDES permits, which require preparation of a SWPPP, preparation of a Final WQMP, implementation of construction and operational BMPs to reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff, and compliance with the Groundwater 54 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 60 of 184 Discharge Permit so that the project would not degrade water quality, cause the receiving waters to exceed the water quality objectives, or impair the beneficial use of receiving waters. As such, the project would not result in water quality impacts that would conflict with the RWQCB's Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). Impacts related to conflict with a water quality control plan would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was enacted in September 2014. SGMA requires governments and water agencies of high-and medium-priority basins to halt overdraft of groundwater basins. SGMA requires the formation of local groundwater sustainability agencies, which are required to adopt Groundwater Sustainability Plans to manage the sustainability of the groundwater basins. The project site is located within the San Juan Valley Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the San Juan Basin Authority, which consists of the City of San Juan Capistrano, the Moulton Niguel Water District, the Santa Margarita Water District, and the South Coast Water District. The San Juan Valley Groundwater Basin is identified by the California Department of Water Resources as a very low-priority basin ; therefore, development of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan is not required. Because there is not an adopted Groundwater Sustainability Plan applicable to the groundwater basin within the project area, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, no impact would occur related to conflict with or obstruction of water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plans, and no mitigation is required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-44 through 4-45.) K.LAND USE AND PLANNING 1.Established Communities Threshold: WuulJ the Project physically divide an established community? Finding: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-46.) Explanation: The project site consists of a vacant, undeveloped site that is comprised of Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 666-131-07, -08, -09, -13, -14, -15, and -16. In its existing condition, the project site is primarily characterized by dirt and scattered ruderal vegetation, is irregular in shape, and is relatively flat with a slight slope to the east/southeast. The project site is bordered on the north by Calle Arroyo, with commercial and institutional uses located beyond. El Homo Creek (a tributary of San Juan Creek) and San Juan Creek are located adjacent to the southern portion of the property; portions of the San Juan Creek Trail are located along the southern portion of the project site. The San Juan Hills Golf Club and 55 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 61 of 184 multi-family residential developments are located further south of the project site. Paseo Tirador is located along a portion of the eastern boundary of the project site with the Ortega Equestrian Center located further east. The 1-5 freeway forms the western boundary of the project site with the Del Obispo Shopping Center located beyond (refer to Figure 2.2, Project Vicinity, in the EIR, Chapter 2.0, Environmental Setting and Project Description). The project site is located on an approximately 16.1-acre site within a largely developed portion of the City. The project involves the construction of a 132-unit residential development, consisting of 43 single-family units and 89 townhome units, on the currently vacant project site. Vehicular access to the proposed project would be provided by via three driveways on Calle Arroyo. Paseo Tirador, an existing street within the project site, would be extended to the southwesternmost portion of the site and would be utilized as the main street serving the development. The City has vacated Paseo Tirador, and it will become a private road as part of the proposed development. Multiple roads providing access to individual units would connect to Paseo Tirador and, in some cases, Calle Arroyo. All improvements proposed as part of the project would be restricted to within the boundaries of the site. Therefore, construction and implementation of the project would not result in the physical division of an established community, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-46.) 56 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 62 of 184 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, p. 4.9-32.) xplanation: Several regionally and locally adopted land use plans, policies, and regulations would be applicable to development for the proposed project, including the SCAG 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan, the SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, the City of San Juan Capistrano General Plan, and the City of San Juan Capistrano Zoning Code. Southern California Association of Governments Regional Comprehensive Plan. The 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) addresses regional goals related to growth and infrastructure in the Southern California region. The RCP also addresses issues such as housing, traffic, air quality, and water resources as a guide for local agencies to use in preparing plans that deal with regional issues. The RCP outlines a vision of how the Southern California region can balance growth with conservation in order to achieve a higher quality of life. In order to achieve this balance, the RCP aims to establish the following land use goals: (1) focus growth in existing centers and along major transportation corridors, (2) encourage mixed-use development, (3) provide new housing opportunities, ( 4) encourage development near existing and planned transportation stations to reduce traffic congestion and associated air pollutants, (5) preserve existing single-family neighborhoods, and ( 6) protect open space and environmentally sensitive habitat areas from development. The proposed project is residential in nature and does not feature a mixed-use component; therefore, Goal (2) is not applicable to the proposed project and is not discussed further in the following RCP consistency analysis below. The project site is located immediately east of I-5, south of Calle Arroyo, northwest of Paseo Tirador, and north of San Juan Creek. The proposed project would develop the currently undeveloped and underutilized project site with a 132-unit residential development with recreation amenities and a multi-use trail along San Juan Creek. Development of the proposed project would introduce a residential land use to an area that is characterized by commercial and residential land uses, and provide additional housing near employment and retail centers. Uses proposed as part of the project would be easily accessed from Calle Arroyo and Paseo Tirador, and other major transportation corridors near the 57 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 63 of 184 project site (e.g., 1-5, Rancho Viejo Road, and Ortega Highway/State Route 74 (SR-74)). In addition, the proposed project would be located immediately north of a Class 2 bike lane along the San Juan Creek trail, 1.1 miles east of the nearest bus station (e.g., Orange County Transportation Authority Route 91 station near the intersection of Del Obispo and Camino Capistrano), and 1.2 miles southeast of the San Juan Capistrano Train Station. Due to the proximity to these facilities, residents of the proposed residential development and visitors may utilize alternative transportation to access the site. The proposed project would be consistent with RCP Goal 1 to focus growth along major transportation corridors, Goal 3 to provide new housing opportunities, and Goal 4 to encourage new development near existing transportation stations. The proposed project would improve the currently vacant and underutilized site with landscaping and amenities that would serve future residents; it would not interfere or conflict with the existing land use patterns and visual character of established residential neighborhoods near the site. Therefore, the project would be consistent with RCP Goal 5 of preserving existing single-family neighborhoods. Though the southernmost and easternmost portions of the project site have General Plan Land Use designations of Open Space and Community Park, the proposed residential development uses would not be sited in these areas. The portions of the project site designated as Open Space and Community Park would be developed with vegetation and landscaping. In addition, a portion of the multi-use trail would be sited with the area designated as Open Space. As such, the proposed land uses are consistent with these land use designations. Furthermore, the project proposes to designate a 5.5-acre area adjacent to the project's southern boundary along the San Juan Creek as a conservation area. As such, the project would protect existing open space an environmentally sensitive areas; therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with RCP Goal 6 to protect open space and environmentally sensitive habitat areas from development. For the reasons stated above, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable goals and policies in SCAG's 2008 RCP. SCAG RTPISCS Consistency. The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS also provides a comprehensive outline for transportation investments throughout the SCAG region. The R TP was most recently adopted in 2016 and is updated every four years to address regional transportation needs. In order to receive State and federal funding, transportation projects must be outlined in the R TP. In addition, 58 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 64 of 184 the 2016-2040 RTP outlines the following primary goals: (1) align the plan investments and policies with improving regional economic development and competitiveness, (2) maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region, (3)ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region, (4) preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system, (5) maximize the productivity of our transportation system ( 6) protect the environment and health of our residents by improving air quality and encouraging active transportation ( e.g., bicycling and walking) (7) actively encourage and create incentives for energy efficiency, where possible, (8) encourage land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and active transportation, and (9) maximize the security of the regional transportation system through improved system monitoring, rapid recovery planning, and coordination with other security agencies. Goal 9 of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS relates to planning/policy actions to be taken by regional and local agencies; therefore, the project's consistency with Goal 9 is not discussed further in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS consistency analysis provided below. As previously stated, the proposed project would result in the conversion of the currently vacant and underutilized project site to a residential community with recreational outdoor amenities. Access to the project site is provided by Calle Arroyo, a Commuter Arterial that runs in an east-west fashion. Calle Arroyo connects with Rancho Viejo Road, which would serve to connect the project site with the local and regional transportation network. Additionally, Ortega Highway/SR-74, which is located to the north of the project site, provides regional access. The project would provide access to the site from Calle Arroyo and Paseo Tirador, which would serve to connect the site with the local and regional transportation systems. The project site would contain internal drive aisles, and three access points would be provided from Calle Arroyo. Paseo Tirador would serve as an east-west entry to the project site. By providing multiple access points and a robust on­ site circulation system, traffic queueing and congestion at any individual access point would be reduced, and the productivity of the existing roadway network would be maximized. In addition, the project would provide connections to the existing regional bikeway and equestrian trail network along the San Juan Creek, which would encourage greater use of the region's existing sidewalks, bikeways, and multi-purpose trails. As such, development of the proposed project would help maximize the productivity of the existing roadway network in the vicinity of the site and would improve accessibility to the site and areas adjacent to the site (Goals 2 and 5), including I-5 to the west. The project's on-site circulation system would accommodate pedestrians and 59 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 65 of 184 cyclists. The project would also provide connections to the existing regional bikeway and equestrian trail network, thereby encouraging the use of active transportation modes (Goals 4 and 6). Moreover, all access improvements included as part of the proposed project would comply with City and OCF A standards to ensure the safety and reliability of transportation improvements included as part of the project (Goal 3). Development of the currently underutilized project site would also provide additional housing opportunities in the City. Therefore, the proposed project would improve the regional economy by promoting economic activity and ensuring that are workers would have access to new housing in close proximity to their jobs. (Goal 1). The proposed project would promote energy efficiency through compliance with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). Sustainability features proposed as part of the project would include the installation of an off-site recycled water main to allow the future use of recycled water in the vicinity of the project, the installation of on-site private recycled water lines to allow the future use of recycled water for irrigation of common landscaped areas, installation of energy-efficient lighting techniques and "smart" weather-based irrigation controllers, the exclusion of landscaping materials that are invasive species and the inclusion of vegetation requiring minimal watering, and the utilization of drip-irrigation for all non-turf areas. As such, the project would be consistent with Goal 7 in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. As described above in the analysis for Goals 2 and 5, the project would provide an on-site circulation system that would encourage pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and specifically a connection to the San Juan Creek Trail, thereby encouraging the use of active transportation modes. OCT A Route 91 serves the City and provides bus service from the City of Dana Point to the City of Rancho Santa Margarita, through the City of Mission Viejo. Route 91 provides connections to other major OCT A routes that provide greatest access to the northern portion of Orange County. An OCTA Route 91 is provided approximately 1 mile of the project site on Camino Capistrano north of Ortega Highway. Route 91 northbound and southbound bus stops are located immediately north of Camino Capistrano's intersection with Ortega Highway. OCT A Route 91 provides transportation to/from the Laguna Hills Transportation Center and the San Clemente Metrolink Station with a stop at the San Juan Capistrano Train Depot. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, bus frequency has been reduced to temporarily reflect Sunday schedules every day of the week until further notice. Current bus schedules can be found on the OCT A 60 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 66 of 184 website. This stop can be accessed by foot or by bicycle from the project site along the San Juan Creek Trail and Camino Capistrano. (Final EIR, p. 3-1.) The project would facilitate transit use and active transportation by providing new housing on the project site, which is already adjacent to a Class 2 bikeway. Additionally, the project site is located 1.2 miles from the San Juan Capistrano Train Station along the LOSSAN corridor. This train station is served by the Amtrak and Metrolink lines, which provide connectivity throughout Orange, San Diego, and Los Angeles counties, as well as to major the employment centers near the Irvine, Tustin, Fullerton, and Orange train stations. New residents would be able to cycle or take transit to work at major employment centers within the area. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal 8 in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. For the reasons stated above, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable goals outlined in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. City of San Juan Capistrano General Plan. The existing General Plan land use designation for the project site is Planned Community. According to the City's Land Use Element (1991), the Planned Community land use designation denotes large areas of land under common ownership for the detailed planning and development of residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational, or open spaces uses. There are also small portions of the project site designated as General Open Space and Community Park. The proposed land uses are consistent with these designations, and no General Plan Amendment would be required to implement the proposed project. The project site is identified in the City's General Plan 2014-2021 Housing Element as accommodating 230 very-low-income units. The proposed project would develop the site with 118 market-rate units and 14 moderate-income affordable units on the site. As such, the project would result in fewer units by income category for the site than identified in the City's Housing Element. SB 166, which went into effect on January 1, 2018, requires a local jurisdiction to ensure that its Housing Element inventory can accommodate at all times its remaining unmet Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RI-INA). To ensure compliance with SB 166, the Project Applicant and the City have identified a separate site to accommodate the "net loss" of 216 affordable housing units that would result from development of the site with the proposed project. The City identified an alternative site, which includes 9.3 acres designated as Very High Density Residential on the City's 61 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 67 of 184 Land Use Map. This site, identified as APN 121-070-57, is entitled to be developed at a density of 30 dwelling units per acre, or 279 units. The 219 units which are no longer able to be accommodated by the proposed project can be accommodated on this alternative site. The City will notify the State Department of Housing and Community Development regarding the site identified to accommodate the replacement housing should the development be approved to ensure the project's compliance with SB 166. The City of San Juan Capistrano General Plan also contains goals and policies that are considered applicable to the proposed project. These goals and policies are discussed in Table 4.9.A, General Plan Consistency Analysis, (found at Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-13 through 4.9-29) and a consistency analysis is provided for each applicable General Plan goal and policy. Goals and policies that are not applicable to the proposed project are not included in this table. This discussion is intended to provide a guide to the decision­ makers for policy interpretation. As identified through this consistency analysis, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable General Plan land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted by the City for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact. City of San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code. As previously stated, the site is zoned as a Planned Community District associated with the adopted Ortega Planned Community Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) 78-01. The purpose of the Planned Community zone is to encourage the use of modern land planning and design techniques to create developments integrating a mixture of different types of land uses. As explained above, the Project Applicant would be entitled to a concession and waivers of certain development standards for providing restricted affordable units in the project. Development Standards. Section 9-3.301 of the Municipal Code outlines permitted uses and minimum development standards allowed in residential zones. Section 9-3.315, Planned Community (PC) Districts, of the City's Zoning Code includes applicable development standards for the PC District zoning classification. According to CDP 78-01, development standards for the project site are governed by Planning Sectors B-3 and C. As outlined in this section of the City's Municipal Code, the regulations for the PC District are designed to permit the adoption of a Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) providing for a diversity of uses, building relationships, and open spaces within planned building groups, while insuring compliance with the General Plan and this Code. According to CDP 78-01, design standards for the project site are governed by Planning Sectors B-3 and C. Table 4.9.B (found at Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-30 through 4.9-31) shows the proposed project's consistency with development standards outlined in CDP 78-01. As shown in Table 4.9.B, the proposed project would be 62 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 68 of 184 consistent with development standards required by CDP 78-01 following approval of the affordable housing concession and waivers discussed above. As shown in Table 4.9.A (found at Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-13 through 4.9-29), the proposed project would be consistent with development standards required by CDP 78-01 following approval of the waiver discussed above. Pa1·king Standards. The proposed project would provide parking spaces along Paseo Tirador in the southern portion of the project site and along the western boundary. Section 9-.535, Parking, in the City's Municipal Code, requires 2 covered spaces per single-family and multi-family residential unit, and 0.8 guest spaces per residential unit. By this standard, the proposed project would require a minimum of 369 parking spaces, including 120 single-family unit spaces and 249 townhome spaces. The project proposes to provide 389 on-site parking spaces, including 139 single-family unit spaces and 250 townhome spaces. Five guest spaces would be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible, including one van-accessible space and four standard spaces. To comply with 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code), 8 of the 72 multi-family guest stalls would be capable of supporting future electric vehicle (EV) connections. The project would satisfy the City's parking requirements and would provide a surplus of 20 parking spaces on the project site. Therefore, the project would comply with the City's parking requirements as established in Section 9-5.535 in the City's Municipal Code. For the reasons discussed above, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to potential conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-9 through 4.9-32.) L.MINERAL RESOURCES 1.Regional and Statewide Mineral Resources Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-50.) xplanation: In 1975, the California Legislature enacted the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act which, among other things, provided guidelines for the classification and designation of mineral lands. Areas are classified on the basis of geologic factors without regard to existing land use and land ownership. The mineral land areas are categorized into the following four Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ): 63 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 69 of 184 •MRZ-1: An area where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. •MRZ-2: An area where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence. •MRZ-3: An area containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated. •MRZ-4: An area where available information 1s inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ zone. The project site has been classified by the California Department of Mines and Geology as being located within MRZ-2. Of the four categories, lands classified as MRZ-2 are of the greatest importance. Such areas are underlain by demonstrated mineral resources or are located where geologic data indicate that significant measured or indicated resources are present. MRZ-2 areas are designated by the State of California Mining and Geology Board as being "regionally significant." Such designations require that a Lead Agency's land use decisions involving designated areas be made in accordance with its mineral resource management policies and that it consider the importance of the mineral resource to the region or the State as a whole, not just to the Lead Agency's jurisdiction. The project site and surrounding area are classified as MRZ-2 due to proximity to the San Juan Creek. Alluvial material in the San Juan Creek deposit is Holocene to Pleistocene in age (the most current geological epochs) and consists of about 20 percent coarse aggregate composed of metavolcanic rock, granodiorite, and sedimentary rocks derived from the Santa Ana Mountains; the remaining 80 percent of the deposit is composed of sand and finer material. Historically, the Conrock Company has mined aggregate material from the San Juan Capistrano Quarry and San Juan Creek, located at 31507 Ortega Highway approximately 4.5 miles east of the project site. Currently, Greenstone Materials operates aggregate mining from this location, and they specialize in the production of construction materials such as concrete and asphalt. Construction of the proposed project would involve grading and earthwork activities that would result in disturbances to on-site soils, including any aggregate material that may be present on the site. However, project construction would not involve the export of any on-site soils or materials that would result in the permanent loss of on-site aggregate material. Therefore, implementation of the project would not remove on-site aggregate material, resulting in the permanent loss of such materials. 64 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 70 of 184 As previously stated, the closest mining operations to the project site are located 4.5 miles east of the property. Although the project site is designated as MRZ-2, the site has not historically or is currently utilized for mineral resource extraction. Further, the City's General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element (2002) does not elaborate on significant mineral resources within the City and does not identify the site as a property targeted for the conservation of mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the State, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-49 through 4-50.) 2.Locally-Important Mineral Resource Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Finding: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-51.) Explanation: Required elements of a General Plan are regulated by Section 65302 of the Government Code. As defined in Section 65302(d) of the Government Code, a City's General Plan Conservation Element must contain goals and policies to protect and maintain natural resources, including minerals. The City's General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element (2002) does not discuss mineral resources within the City. Although the project site is classified by the California Department of Mines and Geology as MRZ-2, no mineral resource extraction activities have historically or presently occur on the site. The nearest aggregate mining operation is located approximately 4.5 miles upstream from the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site as delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan as a result of project implementation. No mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-50 through 4-51.) 65 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 71 of 184 M.NOISE 1.Vibration Threshold: Would the Project result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-17.) Explanation: Construction Vibration Impacts. Construction of the proposed project could result in the generation of ground-borne vibration. This construction vibration impact analysis discusses the level of human annoyance using vibration levels in VdB (vibration velocity decibels) and will assess the potential for building damages using vibration levels in PPV (in/sec) because vibration levels calculated in RMS velocity are best for characterizing human response to building vibration, while vibration levels in PPV are best 'used to characterize potential for damage. The Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) 2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual guidelines indicate that a vibration level up to 102 V dB ( equivalent to 0.5 in/sec in PPV) is considered safe for buildings consisting of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster), and would not result in any construction vibration damage. For a non-engineered­ timber and masonry building, the construction vibration damage criterion is 94 V dB (0.2 in/sec in PPV). Table 4.10.I (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.10-16) shows the PPV and VdB values at 25 ft from a construction vibration source. As shown in Table 4.1 0.I, bulldozers and other heavy-tracked construction equipment (except for pile drivers and vibratory rollers) generate approximately 87 VdB of ground-borne vibration when measured at 25 ft, based on the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Outdoor site preparation for the proposed project is expected to include the use of bulldozers and loaded trucks. The greatest levels of vibration are anticipated to occur during the site preparation and grading phase. All other phases are expected to result in lower vibration levels. The distance to the nearest buildings for vibration impact analysis is measured between the nearest off-site buildings and the project boundary (assuming the construction equipment would be used at or near the project boundary) because vibration impacts occur normally within the buildings. The formula for vibration transmission is provided below: LvdB (D) = LvdB (25 ft)-30 Log (D/25) PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)l.5 As identified in the Project Description, the project site is bordered on the 66 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 72 of 184 2.Airport Noise north by Calle Arroyo, with commercial and institutional uses located beyond. El Homo Creek (a tributary of San Juan Creek) and San Juan Creek are adjacent to the south of the project site; a portion of the San Juan Creek Trail is located along the southern portion of the project site. The San Juan Hills Golf Club and multifamily residential developments are located further south of the project site. Paseo Tirador is located along a portion of the eastern boundary of the project site, with the Ortega Equestrian Center located further east. I-5 forms the western boundary of the project site, with the Del Obispo Shopping Center located beyond. The closest buildings to the project site are commercial uses located northwest and north of the project site, which are located approximately 55 ft and 100 ft, respectively, from the project construction boundary. At 55 ft and 100 ft, the closest commercial buildings would experience vibration levels of up to 77 VdB (0.027 PPV [in/sec]) and 69 VdB (0.011 PPV [in/sec]), respectively. Other buildings surrounding the project site are located farther away and would experience lower vibration levels. Vibration levels at the closest commercial buildings would not exceed the FT A community annoyance threshold of 84 V dB for land uses similar to office uses. In addition, this vibration level would not exceed the FT A damage threshold of 94 V dB (0.2 in/sec PPV) for buildings constructed of non-engineered timber and masonry. Therefore, ground-borne vibration generated from construction activities associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. Operational Vibration Impacts. The proposed residential project would not generate vibration. In addition, vibration levels generated from project-related traffic on the adjacent roadways (Calle Arroyo and Rancho Viejo Road) are unusual for on-road vehicles because the rubber tires and suspension systems of on-road vehicles provide vibration isolation. Therefore, vibration generated from project-related traffic on the adjacent roadways would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-15 through 4.10-17.) Threshold: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-53.) Explanation: The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The project is approximately 16 miles southeast of John Wayne Airport and does not fall within the John Wayne Airport Planning Area. Due to the distance of the airport from the project site, there would be no noise- 67 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 73 of 184 related impacts due to airport activities following project implementation, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4- 53 .) N.POPULATION AND HOUSING 1.Population Growth Threshold: Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure? Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-55.) Explanation: The proposed project includes the development of a residential community consisting of 132 residential units, which would result in additional residential growth within the City. According to the California Department of Finance City/Population and Housing Estimates (January 2018), the average number of persons per dwelling unit in the City in 2018 was 3 .10 persons. Based on the City's average occupancy rate, the addition of 132 units would result in approximately 410 additional residents. The addition of 410 residents would be approximately 1.14 percent of the City's 2017 population of 36,064, and an increase of 1.08 percent of the City's projected population of 38,100 for the year 2020. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant unplanned population growth as a result of project implementation. In addition, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment Allocation Plan (RHNA), has quantified a range of housing needs by income groups for each jurisdiction during specific planning periods. According to the City's 2014-2021 General Plan Housing Element, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has established an RHNA goal for the City to develop 63 8 new housing units by the year 2021. Of these 63 8 units, 14 7 would be set aside for Extremely Low/Very Low Income groups, 104 units for Low Income Groups, 120 for Moderate Income Groups, and 267 for Above Moderate Groups. In order to meet these requirements, the City's Housing Element identifies the project site as accommodating 230 very-low income units. The proposed project would allow for the development of 118 new market-rate housing units and 14 new moderate-income housing units on the project site, which would result in fewer units by income category for the site than identified in the City's Housing Element. Nonetheless, implementation of the project, which includes construction of 14 moderate-income units, would contribute to the City's realization of RHNA goals. To comply with SB 166, the Applicant and the City have identified a separate site to accommodate the "net loss" of 216 affordable housing units that would result from development of the site. The identification of a new site for the 68 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 74 of 184 affordable housing units would ensure that there is no conflict with the City's RHNA or with SB 166 and that adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA designated affordable housing units have been identified. The project does not propose to expand any surrounding utility infrastructure in the project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce unplanned population growth through the extension of roads or other infrastructure. Therefore, potential impacts related to substantial inducement of unplanned population growth, either directly or indirectly, would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-54 through 4-55.) 2.Displacement of Housing Threshold: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; and displace substan tial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Finding: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-55.) Explanation: The project proposes the development of a currently vacant site. Project implementation would not displace any existing people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. As stated previously, the proposed project would allow for the development of 118 new market-rate housing units and 14 new moderate income housing units on the project site, which would result in fewer units by income category for the site than identified in the City's Housing Element. Nonetheless, implementation of the project, which includes construction of 14 moderate-income units, would contribute to the City's realization of RHNA goals. To comply with SB 166, the Applicant and the City will identify a separate site within the City to accommodate the "net loss" of affordable housing units that would result from development of the site. The identification of a new site for the affordable housing units would ensure that there is no conflict with the City's RHNA or with SB 166 and that adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA designated affordable housing units have been identified. Additionally, the project would not result in a loss of housing or necessitate the development of replacement housing elsewhere. No mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-55.) 0.PUBLIC SERVICES 1.Fire Protection 69 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 75 of 184 Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection? Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-57.) Explanation: Fire protection and paramedic services for the project area and project vicinity are provided to the City under contract to the Orange County Fire authority (OCF A). The City is located in Division Ill, which includes Battalions 6 and 7. Fire Station No. 7 is the only OCF A station located in the City. Located at 31865 Del Obispo Street, San Juan Capistrano ( approximately 0.19 mile west of the project site), Fire Station No. 7 would be the first to the project site in the event of an emergency, and would be the "first-in" station. Station No. 7 is staffed by three captains, three engineers, nine firefighters, and reserve firefighters. "Second call" stations are fire stations that support the "first-in" station. Fire Station No. 49 would be designated as the "second call" station to support Fire Station No. 7. Fire Station No. 49 is located at 31461 Golden Lantern Street, Laguna Niguel, approximately 4.9 miles west of the project site. Station No. 49 is staffed by three captains, three engineers, and six firefighters. The project site is not located within a High Fire Hazard Zone according to the Fire Hazards Area Map in the City's General Plan Public Safety Element (2002).28 In addition, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) does not designate the project site as being located in a fire hazard area.' However, development of the proposed project would result in an increased number of individuals on the site, which could increase the demand for OCF A services. The proposed project does not include any characteristics (e.g., permanent road closure or long-term blocking of road access) that would physically impair or otherwise conflict with the City's Emergency Preparedness Program. In addition, construction of the project would not result in the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities related to fire protection. Further, all infrastructure improvements included as part of the project would occur within the boundaries of the existing site and would not require or result in any temporary lane closures on roadways adjacent to the site. Therefore, construction impacts related to acceptable emergency response time plans and fire protection services associated with construction of the proposed project would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. 70 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 76 of 184 The proposed project would allow for the development of a residential community on the site, which would increase the number of on-site residents and visitors, and potentiality increase the demand for fire protection services. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable building code requirements requiring fire protection devices, such as sprinklers, alarms per the California Fire Code (Municipal Code Section 8-10.01 [Adoption of the 2016 California Fire Code]), adequately spaced fire hydrants, fire access lanes, and adequate emergency access. In order to meet the California Fire Code requirements, the project would include the addition of six on-site fire hydrants, fire lanes throughout the site, and emergency access at all entry points to the property. In addition, buildings proposed on the southwestern portion of the site (which are closer to areas near San Juan Creek that could be subject to wildfires) would include automatic sprinkler systems and would comply with Section R337 of the California Code of Regulations to further minimize impacts related to fires. As such, the proposed project would be designed to comply with all Fire Department access requirements and California Fire Code requirements. Therefore, the proposed project would not impair emergency response vehicles or increase response times, and would not substantially increase calls for service, thereby triggering the need for new or altered facilities. No mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-56 through 4-57.) 2.Police ProtectionThreshold: 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? Finding: Less than significant. (ApptmJix A [Initial Study], p. 4-58.) Explanation: The City contracts with the Orange County Sheriffs Department (OCSD) for police protection services. OCSD provides 24-hour contract law enforcement services to the City. The OCSD Police Services Station, located at 32506 Paseo Adelanto in San Juan Capistrano, approximately 1.7 miles west of the project site, serves the City. OCSD's Aliso Viejo Station, located at 11 Journey in Aliso Viejo, approximately 9 miles northwest of the project site, also serves the City. In total, 28 OCSD personnel are assigned to the City, including one lieutenant, four sergeants, two investigators, and 21 sheriffs deputies. The City's staffing level is based on response times and crime rates. At the 71 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 77 of 184 3.Schools present time, OCSD maintains a staffing ratio of approximately one sworn officer for every 1,300 residents in the City. Police protection services are expanded in the City consistent with community needs. The ongoing-operations of OCSD in the City are primarily funded from the City's General Fund, which receives revenue from property taxes, transit taxes, and other sources. The City utilizes part of this revenue to increase police staffing on an as-needed basis. Construction of the proposed project would be temporary in nature and would not result in the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities related to police protection and would not result in an increased demand for police services. Therefore, impacts related to the provision of police protection for the construction of the proposed project wuukl b� less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. The proposed project would increase the City's population up to 410 residents. When considered with the existing population, the project­ related population increase would have a negligible impact on the OCSD's ratio of police officers per 1,300 residents. Additional property tax revenue generated by implementation of the proposed project would also contribute to the City's General Fund, which could be allocated to fund additional police services. Therefore, the increase in population associated with the proposed project would be minimal compared to the number of police officers currently employed by the City, and would not trigger the need for new or physically altered police facilities. Although the project would incrementally contribute to the demand for additional police protection services, the project would not result in the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-58.) Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools? Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-60.) Explanation: The provision of education and school facilities in the City is the responsibility of the Capistrano Unified School District (CUSD). The CUSD currently serves approximately 54,000 students in grades kindergarten through 12. 72 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 78 of 184 Construction of the proposed project would not require or result in any temporary lane closures on roadways adjacent to the site that would have any adverse impacts on the existing CUSD operation. Therefore, there would be no project construction impacts related to public schools, and no mitigation would be required. The CUSD elementary, middle, and high schools assigned to the project site are Ambuehl Elementary (0.9 mile northeast), Marco Forster Middle (2.8 miles southwest), and San Juan Hills High (4.8 miles east of the site). The current student capacity for the schools serving the project site is shown in Table 4.15.A (found at Draft EIR, p. 4-59). CUSD student generation rates for single-family residential units were used to analyze the estimated students generated as a result of project implementation. Based on these generation factors, it is assumed that the proposed 43 single-family detached units would generate approximately 7 elementary school children, 4 middle school children, and 6 high school students. The 89 multi-family attached units would generate approximately 14 elementary school children, 8 middle school children, and 9 high school students. As shown in Table 4.15.B, found at Draft EIR, p.4-60, the total number of students generated by the proposed development would be approximately 48 new students. The increase in students projected as a result of project implementation would incrementally increase the demand for school facilities. However, the project-related increase in school children would not result in the need for new or expanded school facilities given the current capacities at schools serving the project area (refer to Table 4.15.A, found at Draft EIR, p.4-59). Furthermore, pursuant to California Education Code Section l 7620(a)(l), the governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the boundaries of the district for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. The Applicant would be required to pay such fees to reduce any impacts of new residential development on school services as provided in Section 65995 of the California Government Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65996, a project's impact on school facilities is fully mitigated through payment of the requisite school facility development fees current at the time a building permit is issued. The current Development Impact Fee for residential projects within the CUSD's jurisdictional boundaries is $3. 79 per square foot. Therefore, with payment of the required fees, potential impacts to school services and facilities associated with implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-59 through 4-60.) 73 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 79 of 184 4.Parks Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks? Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-60.) Explanation: The City maintains approximately 193 acres of parks and recreational uses. Currently, the City provides 5 acres of park space per 1,000 residents. The closest park to the project site is Cook La Novia Park, which is located 0.5 mile northeast of the project site. Although it is possible that residents of the project might use City parks for recreational activities, it is likely that the recreational facilities included as part of the project would meet the project-related demand for parks and passive recreational facilities. Additionally, the use of other parks in the City by on-site residents would not increase to a level that would result in the need for new or physically altered facilities. Although the proposed project would include the development of housing, which would create an additional demand for park facilities, the proposed project also includes the development of recreation areas along the multi­ purpose trail that would satisfy a portion of the total required parkland dedication that, in combination with in-lieu park fees, would satisfy the requirements for provision of parks. Therefore, the dedicated recreation areas in combination with payment of in lieu fees provided by the proposed project would meet any increase in parks required by the proposed project's increase in population and would ensure that existing parks would not be physically altered or degraded as a result of project implementation. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to the provision of park space, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-59 through 4-60.) 5.Other Public Facilities Threshold: Finding: 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? Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-62.) 74 7/2112020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 80 of 184 Explanation: The Orange County Public Library (OCPL) system provides library services to the County, including the City. The only OCPL system branch in the City is the San Juan Capistrano Regional Library located at 31495 El Camino Real, across the street from the Basilica Mission. The San Juan Capistrano Regional Library consists of a 12,000 sf building that holds over 45,789 volumes, CDs, and videos, and provides 23 public computers and 3 additional resource/catalogue computers. Short-term construction activities would be temporary in nature and would cease upon project completion. Temporary workers on the site during construction are not expected to create an increased demand for library services. Therefore, impacts related to the provision of public libraries from construction of the proposed project would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Demand for library services is typically determined based on the size of the resident population. The City's General Plan determines the adequacy of library services according to a ratio of the resident population to the total library floor area and collection size, using the standards of 0.2 sf of library space per capita and 1.5 books per capita. As discussed further in Section 4.13, Population and Housing, the increase in population associated with up to 132 residential units would be approximately 410 persons. Using this standard and the estimated project-related increase in 410 persons, the San Juan Capistrano Regional Library would need to be 7,434 sf in size with 55,753 books. Although the San Juan Capistrano Regional Library exceeds the standard for size with a 12,000 sf facility, the library would need an additional 9,056 books to meet the projected demand for library books. The San Juan Capistrano Library reduced the total amount of hardcopy library materials from 80,000 to 45,789 between 2014 and 2017 in an effort to eliminate outdated materials and replace select volumes with electronic copies. Due to the accessibility of online materials via the 23 public computers at the library, the replacement of the hardcopy materials with electronic copies is not considered a loss of library volumes. In addition, authorized by Government Code Section 66001(e), the Orange County Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 13-062 with respect to the Development Fee program for Branch Libraries, stating that those facilities have been constructed and the fee program is no longer needed. As such, the proposed project's increase in demand on library services is incremental and would not necessitate the need for expanded library facilities, the development of which could cause a physical adverse environmental impact with respect to libraries. Therefore, the project would have less than significant impacts related to public libraries, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-61 through 4-62.) P.RECREATION 75 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 81 of 184 1.Increased Use Threshold: Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Finding: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-63.) Explanation: The City of San Juan Capistrano currently maintains 27 public parks, consisting of approximately 193 acres of parks and recreational uses throughout the City.' According to the Parks and Recreation Element of the City's General Plan (2002), the City has an established standard of 5 acres of park space per 1,000 residents. For comparison, the National Park standard is 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The proposed project would include a 20 ft wide multi-purpose pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian trail along the project site's southern boundary. This trail would serve to provide increased connectivity between off-site recreational uses (e.g., Ortega Equestrian Center) and on-site amenities provided as part of the project. Specifically, recreational amenities provided as part of the project would consist of a gathering area with barbeques, seating, a shade structure, a climbing boulder, and a wishing well; an open play turf area with benches; an equestrian hitching post; and exercise stations. Although a portion of the San Juan Creek Trail may be inaccessible during project construction, short-term construction activities would be temporary in nature and would cease upon project completion. Further, project operation would encourage access to the multi-use trail and promote new opportunities for recreation due to the amenities proposed as part of the project. Section 9.4-159, Parkland, of the City's Municipal Code was adopted to implement the provisions of the Quimby Act (State of California Planning and Zoning Law, Section 66477), which allows the legislative body of a city to require the dedication of land for park facilities and/or the payment of in lieu fees for park and recreational purposes as a condition to the approval for a final tract map or parcel map for certain subdivisions. The proposed 132-unit project would increase the City's population by approximately 410 residents and would be subject to the dedication of land for park facilities and/or the payment of in-lieu fees for park and recreational purposes. Section 9.4-159, Parkland, states that the subdivider shall dedicate land or pay a fee in lieu of, or a combination of both, as a condition of approval for the purpose of providing parks and recreation facilities. Based on the City's parkland requirement of 5 acres per 1,000 residents, the proposed project would increase the demand for parkland in the City by 2.05 acres. As such, the Applicant would be required to pay fees in compliance with Section 9.4-159, Parkland, of the City's Municipal Code. Therefore, with the provision of the on-site recreation areas and the payment of in-lieu park fees, impacts to recreation 76 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 82 of 184 requirements would be less than significant. In addition, the proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreation facilities such that substantial deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-63 through 4-64.) 2.Construction and Expansion Tlu-eshold: Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-64.) Explanation: There is no identifiable physical impact to the environment that is unique to recreation resources. Potential impacts relate to separate environmental topics that will be analyzed further in the EIR, such as impacts associated with construction air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. The construction or expansion of off-site recreational facilities would not occur as the project is providing on-site recreational amenities including a multi­ use trail; a gathering area with barbeques, seating, a shade structure, a climbing boulder, and a wishing well; an open play turf area with benches; an equestrian hitching post; and exercise stations. Therefore, implementation of new recreational areas proposed as part of the project would result in less than significant environmental impacts, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-64.) Q.TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC 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, p. 4.11-21.) Explanation: Construction. Construction equipment and vehicles will be staged on site. Although the project does not include any characteristics ( e.g., permanent road closure or long-term blocking of road access) that would physically impair or otherwise interfere with transit, roadways, bicycle facilities, and/or pedestrian facilities in the project vicinity, the project would require temporary lane closures on Calle Arroyo to allow for utility connections on the project site. Project construction would take approximately 20 months. Project 77 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 83 of 184 construction will consist of the five phases (including average duration, number of employees, and trucks) listed below. It should be noted that Phases 3-5 would overlap for a period of 7 months. •Phase 1 -Site Preparation (1 month): 9 workers •Phase 2 -Grading (5 months): 10 workers and 38 haul trucks •Phase 3 -Building Construction (13 months): 71 workers and 19 vendor trucks •Phase 4 -Paving (8 months): 8 workers •Phase 5 -Architectural Coatings (8 mouths): 14 workers •Overlapping Phases 3-5 (7 months): 93 workers and 19 vendor trucks Typical construction hours are 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., consistent with the City's Municipal Code (Section 8-2.04). Each worker will arrive between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. (outside of the a.m. peak hour). Approximately 60 percent of the workers will leave between 3:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. (outside the p.m. peak hour) and the remaining 40 percent will leave after 4:00 p.m. (during the p.m. peak hour). To present a conservative analysis, all workers are assumed to drive themselves to/from the project site. Vendor truck trips will occur throughout the day (between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.) and haul truck trips will occur outside of the peak hours (between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.). As determined in the TIA, the most intense period of construction (i.e., the overlap of Phases 3-5) would generate 10 a.m. peak-hour trips (5 inbound and 5 outbound) and 47 p.m. peak-hour trips (5 inbound and 42 outbound) in passenger car equivalents (PCEs). Because operations associated with the proposed project (64 a.m. peak-hour trips and 82 p.m. peak-hour trips [ discussed in further detail below]) would generate more trips than construction (10 a.m. peak-hour trips and 47 p.m. peak-hour trips) and the LOS analyses have determined that the project would not result in any significant traffic impacts, it can be concluded that construction traffic impacts would be less than significant. Although construction traffic would be less than traffic generated by project operation, the project would be required to adhere to all applicable City requirements to reduce potential impacts on the local circulation system during project construction. Therefore, construction of the project would result in less than significant traffic impacts related to potential conflicts with plans, programs, ordinances, or policies addressing the local circulation system, and no mitigation would be required. 78 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 84 of 184 Operation. The proposed project would be required to comply with General Plan policies addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The project would also be required to comply with City Council Policy No. 310, which establishes metrics for determining traffic impacts, consistent transportation-related goals and policies in the City's General Plan, and the Orange County CMP (2019). The project's consistency with these plans is described in detail below. Conformance with the General Plan. The proposed project would be required to comply with transportation related goals and policies in the City's General Plan (refer to Section 4.11 .4.4, of the Draft EIR, for a list of goals and policies applicable to the proposed project) as described below. As previously stated, primary access to the project site would be provided via driveways on Paseo Tirador, and secondary access would be provided via two driveways on Calle Arroyo. An LOS analysis was conducted at the intersection of Paseo Tirador-San Juan Creek Trail/Calle Arroyo, which confirmed that this intersection would operate at LOS B or better during both peak hours using the ICU methodology. As part of the project, a multi-purpose pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle trail would be constructed along the project site's southern boundary. The multi-purpose trail would connect to the existing sidewalk along Calle Arroyo directly east of the project site, traverse along the site's southern boundary, and connect to the existing San Juan Creek Trail southwest of the site. Implementation of the multi-purpose trail would be consistent with the intention to expand the existing bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails network (Circulation Element Goal 3 and Policy 3.1), as well as the intention to minimize the conflict between bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian uses and vehicular traffic (Circulation Element Goal 4 and Policy 4.1 ). The proposed project would also connect the project site to nearby sidewalks and bicycle routes on Calle Arroyo through the installation of new internal sidewalks serving the residential development. The project would also allow for the continuation of existing on-street (Class II) bike lanes provided on Rancho Viejo Road (located west of the project site), as well as continuation of the existing bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trail located along the San Juan Creek. The existing bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian network also serve to connect the project area with the surrounding residential, employment, commercial, and recreational destinations. As such, the project would be consistent with the City's goals of proving a circulation system that meets the needs of the communit y and minimize conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, equestrians, and bicycles (Circulation Element Goals 1 and 4). In addition, the 79 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 85 of 184 development of an internal, private circulation system servmg the residential development would be consistent with the intention of installing street improvements within areas where necessary to improve the circulation system in concert with land development (Circulation Element Policies 1.1 and 1.4). As such, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable provisions in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. Conformance with Administration Policy No. 310. City Council Policy No. 310 requires development projects to conduct a transportation impact analysis to analyze conformance with the transportation strategies, goals, and policies in the General Plan and address adverse impacts to the transportation system. In order to assess the project's consistency with City Administrative Policy 310, a trip generation analysis was first conducted to determine the number of trips that would occur following implementation of the project. As shown in Table 4.11.H (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.11-17), the project has the potential to generate approximately 890 ADT, including 64 trips (16 inbound and 48 outbound) in the a.m. peak hour and 82 trips (51 inbound and 31 outbound) in the p.m. peak hour. In order to determine impacts at roadway intersections associated with implementation of the project (i.e., the Existing Plus Project condition), the results of the trip generation analysis for the proposed project were added to existing baseline traffic volumes at the study area intersections. Tables 4.11.I and 4.11.J (found at Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-18 through 4.11-19) summarize the results of the Existing Plus Project peak-hour LOS analysis using the ICU and HCM methodologies, respectively. As shown in Table 4.11.I (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.11-18), all study area intersections, including the hot-spot intersections, are anticipated to operate at satisfactory LOS based on the ICU methodology. As shown in Table 4.11.J (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.11-19), all study area intersections, including the hot-spot intersections, are anticipated to operate at satisfactory LOS based on the HCM methodology. Therefore, a significant impact would not occur at any study area intersection based on the ICU and HCM methodologies. No mitigation would be required. In addition to assessing project impacts on roadway intersections, project-related impacts to roadway segments were also evaluated for conformance with City Administrative Policy No. 310. As part of this assessment, the trip generation results for the proposed project were added to existing baseline traffic volumes at study area roadway segments. Existing Plus Project roadway segment ADT volumes, v/c ratios, and LOS are presented in Table 4.11.K 80 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 86 of 184 (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.11-20). As Table 4.11.K (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.11-20) indicates, all study area roadway segments, including the hot-spot roadways, are anticipated to operate at satisfactory LOS with the project, except for Valle Road between San Juan Creek Road and the I-5 northbound ramps (LOS F). However, the roadway segment v/c ratio does not increase by 0.01 or greater in the Existing Plus Project condition. Therefore, consistent with City Administrative Policy No. 310, impacts would be considered less than significant under Existing Plus Project conditions. No mitigation would be required. In summary, the project would not result in conflicts with City Administrative Policy No. 310 because the addition of project traffic would not result in impacts to the surrounding roadway system in the Existing Plus Project condition. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Conformance with the Orange County CMP. Ortega Highway is an Orange County CMP roadway. LOS E is considered acceptable at this location, consistent with the City's target LOS for hot spot locations. The TIA included two intersections (I-5 northbound ramps/Ortega Highway and I-5 southbound ramps/Ortega Highway) and three roadway segments (Ortega Highway between La Novia A venue and Rancho Viejo Road, Ortega Highway between Rancho Viejo Road and I-5 northbound ramps, and Ortega Highway between I-5 northbound ramps and I-5 southbound ramps) considered CMP monitoring locations. As stated above, the addition of project traffic would not result in impacts to the surrounding roadway system in the Existing Plus Project condition, and therefore, the CMP monitoring locations included in the study area would not be significantly impacted. As such, no further analysis of project-related impacts on CMP roadway segments and/or intersections is required. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in conflicts with the Orange County CMP, and no mitigation would be required. Queueing Analysis. The TIA analyzed the 95th percentile queues of the I-5 northbound and southbound ramps at Ortega Highway using the HCM 6th Edition methodology. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the adequacy of the existing tum-lane storage capacity and identify the potential for vehicles to spill back into the through lanes at these ramp intersections. The 95th­ percentile queue is defined as the queue length that has only a 5 percent probability of being exceeded during the analysis time period. It is a useful parameter for determining the appropriate length of turn pockets, but it is not typical of what an average driver would experience. Table 4.11.L (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.11-22) summarizes the queueing analysis for Existing, Existing 81 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 87 of 184 2. VMT Plus Project, Existing Plus Cumulative No Project, Existing Plus Cumulative Plus Project, Buildout No Project, and Buildout Plus Project conditions. As shown in Table 4.11.L (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.11-22), the storage length of the dual westbound turn lanes at the 1-5 southbound ramps at Ortega Highway will be exceeded under the Existing Plus Cumulative Plus Project condition. However, the project would only contribute 2 ft to the queue. Therefore, the project would not contribute significant queues under the Existing Plus Cumulative condition. Similar to the Existing Plus Cumulative Plus Project condition, the storage lengths of four turn lanes at the 1-5 northbound and southbound ramps at Ortega Highway will be exceeded under the Buildout Plus Project condition. However, the project would only contribute 6 ft or less to each of these queues. Therefore, the project would not contribute significant queues under the Buildout condition. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-14 through 4.11-21.) Threshold: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines sections 15064.3 or will conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-24.) Explanation: According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a), project-related transportation impacts are generally best measured by evaluating the project's vehicle miles traveled (VMT). VMT refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) sets forth criteria for analyzing transportation impacts, breaking down the methodology based on project type and specifying other criteria for conducting VMT analysis. For land use projects, VMT exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects located within 0.5 mile of an existing high-quality transit corridor should be considered to have a less than significant impact. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b )(2) addresses VMT associated with transportation projects and states that projects that reduce VMT, such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit projects, should be presumed to have a less than significant impact. Subdivision (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, 82 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 88 of 184 Section 15064.3, acknowledges that Lead Agencies may not be able to quantitatively estimate VMT for every project type; in these cases, a qualitative analysis may be used. The regulation goes on to state that Lead Agencies have the discretion to formulate a methodology that would appropriately analyze a project's VMT. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4)). It is important to note that State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3( c) states that while an agency may elect to be governed by the provisions of this section immediately, it is not required until July 1, 2020. The City has not yet established thresholds or standards related to VMT. However, State law provides sufficient guidance to evaluate the project's impacts related to VMT. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (QPR) Technical Advisory (TA) states that existing VMT for residential projects may be measured at the regional or City level. For purposes of this vehicle miles traveled (VMT) evaluation, the City has been considered as the Region. The OPR TA on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA for residential projects, December 2018: Page -15 states the following: "Recommended threshold for residential projects: A proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing VMT per capita may indicate a significant transportation impact. Existing VMT per capita may be measured as regional VMT per capita or as city VMT per capita. Proposed development referencing a threshold based on city VMT per capita (rather than regional VMT per capita) should not cumulatively exceed the number of units specified in the SCS for that city, and should be consistent with the SCS." The proposed project will not cumulatively exceed the number of units specified in the Orange County Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS) for the City. Therefore, for purposes of the VMT evaluation and as suggested in the TA, the project VMT per capita has been compared with the City's (Region) VMT per capita to determine whether the project will have a significant transportation impact. The Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCT AM) has been used to estimate both the regional and project VMT, since it is consistent with the forecasts included in the 2018 Orange County Long Range Transportation Plan. The OCT AM socioeconomic database for both base (2012) and future (2040) scenarios was updated with the project land uses to calculate project VMT. Regional and project VMT were calculated from the OCTAM model runs as described below. •Project Traffic Analysis Zone Update: The first step in preparation 83 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 89 of 184 of the VMT evaluation was to update the traffic analysis zones (TAZs) in the model that include the project area. LSA converted the project land use into model socioeconomic categories. The OCT AM socioeconomic database for both base (2012) and future (2040) scenarios was updated with the project land uses to calculate project VMT. A separate TAZ was created and updated with the socioeconomic data developed for the proposed residential use. •Select Zone Model Runs: Upon completion of the socioeconomic data update, LSA conducted model runs for both 2012 and 2040 scenarios. The model runs included select zone model runs for the project T AZ. The select zone runs have been utilized in determining project-specific VMT data from the model outputs. In the TIA, regional and project VMT were calculated from the OCT AM runs, as described below. The regional (City) VMT per capita for both base (2012) and future (2040) model scenarios were obtained from the model. Existing (2019) VMT per capita was developed by interpolating between base and future year VMT data obtained from the model. The regional VMT is 24.2 per capita. Project select zone model runs were utilized to develop project VMT. Project VMT per capita was calculated for both base (2012) and future (2040) model scenarios. The existing (2019) project VMT per capita was developed by interpolating between the base and future year VMT per capita for the project. The project­ related VMT is 11. 7 per capita. As such, the VMT per capita for the project is 51 percent less than the regional VMT per capita under existing (2019) conditions (detailed VMT development calculations are included in Appendix G of the TIA). Therefore, based on the OPR TA guidance, the project will not have a significant VMT transportation impact. At this time, the City has not adopted a methodology to analyze VMT impacts within its jurisdiction. Therefore, since the City does not currently have thresholds or standards in place for assessing potential VMT impacts, this information is provided for disclosure purposes only, and the analysis of traffic impacts in this Draft EIR for CEQA purposes are based on the City's LOS thresholds. Further, according to the TIA, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant project-related impacts to the surrounding roadway system. No mitigation would be required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-23 through 4.11-24.) 3.Design Hazards Threshold: Finding: 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)? No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-67.) 84 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 90 of 184 Explanation: Access to the project site would be provided via three driveways on Calle Arroyo. Paseo Tirador, an existing street within the project site, would be extended to the southwesternmost portion of the site and would be utilized as the main street serving the development. The City has vacated Paseo Tirador, and it will become a private road as part of the proposed development. Multiple roads providing access to individual units would connect to Paseo Tirador and, in some cases, Calle Arroyo. Vehicular traffic to and from the project site would utilize the existing network of regional and local roadways that currently serve the project site area. The proposed project would not introduce any new roadways or introduce a land use that would conflict with existing urban land uses in the surrounding area. The proposed project includes internal private roadways that would provide resident access to residential units. Design of the proposed project, including the internal private roadways, ingress, egress, and other streetscape changes, would be subject to review by the City's Department of Public Works. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curve or dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses ( e.g., farm equipment), and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-67.) 4.Emergency Access Threshold: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-67 .) Explanation: As stated previously, access to the project site would be provided via three driveways on Calle Arroyo. One fire department access point would connect to the 24 Hour Fitness parking lot; this access point would be used for emergency access only and secured with a gate. Access to/from the project site must be designed to City standards and would be subject to review by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCF A) and the Orange County Sherriff Department (OCSD) for compliance with fire and emergency access standards and requirements. Therefore, approval of the project plans would ensure that the proposed project's impact related to emergency access would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-67.) R.TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 1.Tribal Cultural Resources Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 2107 4 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, 85 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 91 of 184 sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1 (k)? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-7.) �xplanation: The project site is not listed or eligible for listing in the California Register, or in a local register of historical resources. However, the NAHC SLF search did return positive results as one prehistoric site, CA-ORA- 1672, located within the project site. Despite this positive finding, subsequent subsurface testing was completed and the resources were not recommended as significant due to their lack of integrity and the absence of data to answer important research questions in prehistory. Therefore, because there is no resource listed or eligible for listing on the California Register or local register, impacts under this threshold are considered less than significant. No mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-7.) S.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SY TEMS 1.Wastewater Treatment Requirements Threshold: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-75.) Explanation: Water. The City's Utilities Department provides water services to the project site. The Utilities Department receives its domestic water supply from the following three sources: (1) water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD); (2) the City's Groundwater Recovery Plant; and (3) local groundwater wells within the City. The largest source of water for the City is purchased water from MWD, which accounts for approximately 64 percent of the City's water supply portfolio. The City's water supply system provides reliable service to a population of nearly 39,047 within the service area. According to the City's Final 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the total projected water demand for the retail customers served by the City was approximately 8,531 af in 2015. The City's projected water demand for 2020 and 2040 is 8,618 and 8,688 af per year, respectively, which would be equal to the City's projected water supply for 2020 and 2040 (8,618 and 8,688 af per year, respectively). According to the 2015 UWMP, the City's available supply will meet the future projected demand because the City has entitlements to receive imported water from the MWD and also has 86 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 92 of 184 significant water reserves from local groundwater supplies. In addition, the 2015 UWMP water demand forecast for South Orange County (which includes the City of San Juan Capistrano) is based on projected demographics (U.S. Census Bureau data) provided by the Center for Demographic Research to each water agency in Orange County. Based on these projections, along with the City's access to imported water and local groundwater, the City would have adequate water supplies to meet full service demands. Short-term demand for water may occur during construction activities on site. Water demand for soil watering (fugitive dust control), cleanup, masonry, painting, and other activities would be temporary and would cease once construction is completed. Overall, construction activities require minimal water and are not expected to have any adverse impacts on the existing water system or available water supplies. Therefore, potential project impacts associated with short term construction activities would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. As shown in Table 4.19.A, found at Draft EIR, p. 4-71, the proposed project would develop the currently vacant project site with up to 132 single-family residences, which would result in a projected water demand of 36,295 gallons per day (gpd) (0.11 af/day or approximately 41 af annually). Therefore, the estimated increase in water demand associated with the proposed project would represent approximately 0.5 percent of the City's current and projected annual water demand (based on the City's consumption of 8,531 af in 2015 and projected water demands of 8,618 af in 2020 and 8,688 af in 2040). As is required for all new development in California, the proposed project would comply with California State law regarding water conservation measures, including pertinent provisions of Title 24 of the California Government Code (Title 24) regarding the use of water-efficient appliances and low-flow plumbing fixtures. The Applicant would also be required to pay the proposed project's fair share of Domestic Water Fees in accordance with City Resolution No. 04-05-18-04. Moreover, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation of Planned Community for the site, and consequently, water use anticipated with the proposed development was already considered and planned for the in the City's current UWMP. As such, the proposed project would not necessitate new or expanded water entitlements, and the City would be able to accommodate the increased demand for potable water. Therefore, project impacts associated with an increase in potable water demand are considered less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Water Distribution. The proposed project includes the installation of a new 4-inch private water line along Paseo Tirador and other internal roads, 87 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 93 of 184 which would connect to an existing 16-inch public water line on Calle Arroyo north of the site. The project would also replace an existing 12- inch public water line with a new 16-inch water line adjacent to the 1-5 freeway near the western boundary of the site. The proposed 4-inch private water line would connect to the existing 16-inch water line. The project site is not currently served by recycled water. However, in conjunction with project implementation, a public recycled water line would be installed off site in the roadway along Calle Arroyo alongside existing water and sanitary sewer lines. The 6-inch recycled water line would connect to an existing 6-inch line at the intersection of Calle Arroyo and Rancho Viejo Road and connect to the project site at the intersection of Calle Arroyo and Paseo Tirador. As part of the project, recycled water lines would be installed on the site and connect to the proposed 6-inch line at Calle Arroyo and Paseo Tirador. Recycled water would irrigate common landscaped areas on the project site. The project also includes a new 8-inch well line between the residential uses and the San Juan Creek Area. This new well line would connect to an existing 8-inch well line adjacent to the 1-5 freeway at the western boundary of the site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed water infrastructure improvements on the site would ensure that there is sufficient water distribution infrastructure to accommodate the project's domestic and recycled water needs. If a deficiency or service problem were found during the permitting process, the Applicant would be required by existing regulations to fund the required upgrades to adequately serve the project. Therefore, the project's impacts related to water conveyance and distribution would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Wastewater. As previously stated, wastewater generated in the City is collected and treated at the J.B. Latham Regional Treatment Plant (J.B. Latham Plant), located at 34156 Del Obispo Street in the City of Dana Point, approximately 2 miles south of the project site. The City is one of 10 member agencies that own treatment capacity in the South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA) wastewater treatment facilities. The City owns 4 million gallons per day (mgd) of the liquids treatment capacity (30.8 percent) of the J.B. Latham Plant. The J.B. Latham Plant has a total design capacity of 13 mgd and currently treats an average wastewater flow of 6. 7 mgd. Therefore, the J.B. Latham Plant is currently operating at approximately 52 percent of its daily design capacity. The City operates and maintains a sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system that includes approximately 120 miles of sewer lines in sizes up to 27 inches in diameter. In addition, the City also operates and 88 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 94 of 184 maintains two lift stations-the Rosenbaum Lift Station and the A venida De La Vista List Station. As part of the proposed project, a 6-inch sewer line would be installed within all internal roads serving the residential uses and would connect to an existing 15-to 18-inch sanitary sewer line within Paseo Tirador. In addition, the project would involve upsizing an existing 15-inch public sanitary sewer line to an 18-inch line adjacent to the 1-5 freeway at the project site's western boundary. All proposed sewer connections would require a drop manhole. As shown in Table 4.19.B (found at Draft EIR, p. 4-73), the proposed project would develop the currently vacant project site with up to 132 residences at a medium density, and would generate approximately 21,239 gpd (0.02 mgd) of wastewater. Therefore, the estimated increase in wastewater generated as a result of project implementation would represent approximately 0.3 percent of the available daily treatment capacity at the J.B. Latham Plant. The J.B. Latham Plant is in compliance with the San Diego RWQCB's treatment requirements and has the capacity to accommodate the increased wastewater flows from the proposed project. Therefore, development of the project would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities, which would cause significant environmental impacts. Furthermore, the Applicant would be required to pay a Sewer Connection Fee in compliance with City Resolution No. 04-11-16-05, which would further reduce project impacts related to wastewater treatment facilities. Project impacts related to construction or expansion of wastewater treatment facilities would, therefore, be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Storm Water Drainage. The project would comply with the requirements of Title 8, Chapter 14, of the Municipal Code and the San Diego RWQCB's South Orange County MS4 Permit. The South Orange County MS4 Permit regulates urban stormwater runoff, surface runoff, and drainage that flow into the MS4 system. As part of the project, storm drains would be installed throughout the center of the project site. An existing swale running along 1-5 would convey runoff from the westerly portions of the project site to the existing 27-inch stormdrain pipe, which would eventually be conveyed into San Juan Creek. All on-site runoff from the easterly portions of the proposed development would be conveyed to a Modular Wetlands System (a stormwater biofiltration system proposed at various locations on the project site) prior to converging into the El Homo Creek Channel. As 89 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 95 of 184 discussed further in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, receiving waters have sufficient capacity to accommodate the project's increase in runoff, and the project would not exceed the capacity of downstream storm drain lines. Therefore, project impacts related to the construction or expansion of storm water drainage facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Electric Power and Natural Gas. The San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E) would supply electricity and natural gas to the project site. Construction and operation of the proposed project has the potential to result in significant impacts associated with wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, including electricity and natural gas. Although impacts with respect to energy resources will be evaluated as part of the EIR, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in impacts related to the construction or relocation of existing electric power or natural gas facilities. Specifically, because the project-related demand for electricity and natural gas is anticipated to be typical of existing residential users in SDG&E's territory, the project itself is not anticipated to result in an increased demand for electric power or natural gas that would require new electric facilities to serve the site. Moreover, the environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of project-related infrastructure improvements (such as utility connections to existing electric and natural gas lines) would be analyzed throughout the EIR. Therefore, impacts with respect to the construction or expansion of electric and natural gas facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Telecommunications. The primary cable and telephone service providers available to residents within the project's vicinity (and, more generally, within San Juan Capistrano) are AT&T and Cox Communications. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would not increase the demand for telecommunications facilities. As stated previously, project implementation is anticipated to result in a population increase of approximately 410 people, which comprises 1.08 percent of the total projected 2020 population of San Juan Capistrano. The project-related increase of 410 people would not generate a significant increase in the demand for telecommunication services such that the project would necessitate the need for new telecommunications facilities. As such, any project-related impacts to telecommunications facilities would be negligible and would not cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts related to the construction or relocation of existing telecommunications facilities, and no mitigation would be required. Summary. The proposed project would require the construction of new or expanded facilities for water, wastewater, storm water drainage, 90 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 96 of 184 electricity, and telecommunications lines. However, for the reasons discussed above, the relocation and construction of these facilities would not result in significant environmental impacts. Therefore, impacts to these utility facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-70 through 4-75.) 2. Water Supplies Threshold: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-75.) Explanation: As stated previously, the proposed project would result in the development of 132 residential units and approximately 410 additional residents in San Juan Capistrano. Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increased demand for water, which would represent approximately 0.5 percent of the City's current and projected annual water demand. The proposed project would use approximately 36,295 gpd (41 af per year) of potable water. According to the City of San Juan Capistrano's Final UWMP (2015), citywide supply and demand for potable water was 8,531 afin 2015 and is expected to increase to 8,618 afby 2020 and 8,688 af by 2040 under a normal-year scenario. The 2015 UWMP projections include population increases of approximately 1 percent per year, as well as anticipated water conservation strategies. Moreover, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation of Planned Community for the site. As such, water use anticipated with the proposed development was already considered and planned for in the City's current UWMP. Overall, the City's per capita water use is projected to continue to decrease into the future, thereby keeping demand relatively constant over the next 25 years. The proposed project's projected water demand would represent approximately 0.5 percent of the projected water supply and demand in 2020 and 2040. As described further in the City's Final 2015 UWMP, the City has sufficient entitlements to receive imported water from the Metropolitan Water District and also has significant water reserves from local groundwater supplies. Based on the Final UWMP, the City would be able to purchase additional water to supply the project-related increase in demand for potable water. As such, the City would have adequate water supplies to serve existing and projected water demands through the year 2040 under normal, single-dry-year, and multiple-dry-year scenarios. The incremental water demand generated by the proposed project would be within the current and projected water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, 91 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 97 of 184 and multiple dry years. Therefore, impacts related to water supplies would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-75.) 3.Wastewater Capacity Threshold: Finding: Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-76.) Explanation: Although the project is located within Orange County, it falls within the jurisdiction of the San Diego RWQCB. Implementation of the proposed project would allow for the development of 132 residential units and various outdoor amenities on a currently undeveloped site. Short-term generation of wastewater may occur during construction activities on site. Wastewater generated from soil watering (fugitive dust control), cleanup, masonry, painting, and other activities would be temporary and would cease once construction is completed. Overall, construction activities generate minimal wastewater and are not expected to adversely impact the wastewater treatment provider that serves the project. Therefore, potential project impacts associated with short-term construction activities would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Wastewater from the proposed project would be directed to the City's sanitary sewer system, which connects to trunk sewers operated by SOCW A. SOCW A is a Joint Powers Authority with 10 member agencies, consisting of local retail water agencies and cities providing water to their residents. SOCW A operates three treatment plants and two ocean outfalls, as well as multiple programs to meet the needs of its member agencies and the requirements of the Clean Water Act and applicable NPDES permits. SOCWA's three primary treatment facilities have a treatment capacity of 26 million gallons of wastewater per day. Historically, approximately half of this wastewater is treated for recycled water use, while the other half is treated and discharged through the two ocean outfalls. Wastewater entering the SOCW A trunk sewer lines from the City is delivered to the J.B. Latham Regional Treatment Plant (J.B. Latham Plant) for collection, treatment, and disposal. This facility is responsible for the treatment and disposal of wastewater. Wastewater generated from the proposed project would be typical of commercial wastewater flows in the City. Operation of the proposed project would �enerate approximately 92 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 98 of 184 4.Solid Waste 21,239 gpd (0.02 mgd) of wastewater, which would represent approximately 0.3 percent of the available daily treatment capacity at the J.B. Latham Plant. The J.B. Latham Plant has the capacity to accommodate the increased wastewater flows from the proposed project in addition to existing commitments. Therefore, impacts related to wastewater generation are considered less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-75 through 4-76.) 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? inding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-77.) Explanation: The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped; therefore, no solid waste is generated under existing conditions. Construction of the proposed project would generate a minimal amount of demolition waste because the site is currently vacant, and no demolition of structures would be required. In compliance with Municipal Code Section 6-3.08.01, Minimum Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion Requirements, the project would divert at least 65 percent of the construction waste materials generated during construction of the project. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to cause significant impacts related to solid waste generation during construction, and no mitigation measures regarding construction debris are required. The City contracts with CR&R Waste and Recycling Services (CR&R), a private solid waste hauler, to collect and dispose of the solid waste/refuse generated by the City. Solid waste generated by the proposed project would be collected by CR&R and hauled to the Prima Deshecha Landfill, which currently processes an average of approximately 1,400 tons per day (tpd), with a maximum capacity of 4,000 tpd. The Prima Deshecha Landfill is currently operating at 3 5 percent of its daily design capacity. Build out of the proposed project would generate approximately 894 pounds (lbs) of solid waste per day (0.45 tpd).5253 Therefore, the total solid waste generated at project build out would represent approximately 0.2 percent' of the Prima Deshecha Landfill's current permitted daily capacity and would not significantly impact the daily capacity of the Prima Deshecha Landfill. The Prima Deshecha Landfill is scheduled to close in approximately 2067. The proposed project is estimated to be completed by 2021; the Prima Deshecha Landfill is therefore anticipated to be closed 46 years after the completion of project build out. The proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure. Moreover, 93 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 99 of 184 the project would not otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact to solid waste and landfill facilities, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-76 through 4-77.) 5.Solid Waste Laws T. 1. Threshold: Will the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-78.) Explanation: The California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) changed the focus of solid waste management from landfill to diversion strategies, such as source reduction, recycling, and composting. The purpose of the diversion strategies is to reduce dependence on landfills for solid waste disposal. AB 939 established mandatory diversion goals of 25 percent by 1995, 50 percent by 2000, and 75 percent by 2020. WILDFIRE The proposed project would comply with existing and future statutes and regulations, including waste diversion programs mandated by City, State, or federal law. The proposed project would not result in an excessive production of solid waste that would exceed the capacity of the existing landfills serving the project site. In addition, the project would comply with Municipal Code Section 6-3.08.01, Minimum Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion Requirements, to divert at least 65 percent of the construction waste materials generated during construction of the project. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid wastes, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-78.) Response Plans Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Finding: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-80.) Explanation: The City's General Plan Safety Element (2002) identifies and evaluates natural hazards associated with seismic activity, landslides, flooding, and fire and establishes goals for each of the City's departments to provide responsible planning aimed at reducing impacts with respect to loss of life, 94 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 100 of 184 injury, damage to property, and other losses associated with disasters, such as those resulting from seismic activity, flooding, and fire. According to the City's map of evacuation routes, Rancho Viejo Road, Ortega Highway, San Juan Creek Road, and La Novia Avenue are identified as potential evacuation routes in the event of an emergency. The proposed project does not include any characteristics ( e.g., permanent road closure or long term blocking of road access) that would physically impair or otherwise conflict with the City's Emergency Preparedness Program. Further, all infrastructure improvements included as part of the project would not require or result in any long-term or permanent lane closures on roadways adjacent to the site. Therefore, construction impacts related to emergency response and evacuation plans associated with construction of the proposed project would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. The emergency management plans for the City, in conjunction with the emergency plan for the County, may be activated and directed by a number of individuals within the City or County (including, but not limited to, the City Manager, the Fire Chief, and the Police Chief). Roads that are used as response corridors/evacuation routes usually follow the most direct path to or from various parts of a community, although emergency response vehicles may choose to use a variety of routes to access surrounding areas. As stated previously, Rancho Viejo Road, Ortega Highway, San Juan Creek Road, and La Novia Avenue are identified as evacuation routes in San Juan Capistrano. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable codes and ordinances for emergency vehicle access, which would ensure adequate access to, from, and on site for emergency vehicles. Adherence to these codes and ordinances would ensure that operation of the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Further, the project site is not located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as VHFHSZ. No mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-79 through 4-80.) 2.Pollutant Concentrations Threshold: FiJ1ding: 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? Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-80.) Explanation: The project site is located in a developed portion of the City. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire), the 95 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 101 of 184 project site is not located in a fire hazard area.' In its existing condition, the project site is relatively flat and there are no significant slopes adjacent to the site. However, because the project site is adjacent to vegetation associated with San Juan Creek, the eastern portion of the site is located within a fuel modification zone. As such, the project would be required to prepare and submit a final Fuel Modification Plan to the OCF A for the proposed project. According to the conceptual Fuel Modification Plan, the project includes the use of drought-tolerant landscaping, rock, and hardscape within the fuel modification zone, as well as non-combustible building materials for structures on the site. The proposed project involves the development of the currently vacant site with a 132-unit residential development, which would reduce the amount of vegetation/combustible materials on site. In addition, the project vicinity is characterized by existing residential and commercial uses. As such, the project itself would not exacerbate wildfire risks due to slope, prevailing winds, location, and other factors, and would not be expected to expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. No mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-80 through 4-81.) 3.Infrastructure Risks Threshold: Would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Finding: No impact. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-81.) Explanation: The project does not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (including roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that would exacerbate fire risk or result in impacts to the environment. Although the project includes a proposed internal roadway within the residential development, the project is not located in a fire hazard area and does not include any changes to public or private roadways that would exacerbate fire risk or result in impacts to the environment. Although utility improvements (including domestic water, recycled water, sanitary sewer, and storm drain lines) proposed as part of the project would be extended throughout the project site, these improvements would be underground and would not exacerbate fire risk. Project design and implementation of utility improvements would be reviewed and approved by the City's Public Works Department as part of the project approval process to ensure the proposed project is compliant with all applicable design standards and regulations. Further, the project site is not located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as 96 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 102 of 184 4.Runoff Risks VHFHSZ. Therefore, the proposed project would not include infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that would exacerbate fire risk or result in impacts to the environment. No mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-81.) 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: Less than significant. (Appendix A [Initial Study], p. 4-82.) Explanation: In its existing condition, the project site is relatively flat with no slopes. As previously discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project site is within an inundation area of a 100-year flood. According to the FEMA FIRM, a majority of the project site is located within Zone AE of the San Juan Creek 100-year floodplain. Zone AE includes areas subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood with base flood elevations determined. A portion of the project site is located within the Zone AE regulatory floodways associated with San Juan Creek and El Homo Creek. Regulatory floodways are the channel of a river and adjacent land that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increa sing the water surface elevation. In addition, according to the FEMA FIRM, the project site is located within a 1 percent annual chance (100-year) floodplain and a regulatory floodway. Although the project site is located in an area that could be prone to flooding, the project site is not located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as VHFHSZ. Overall, due to the project site's distance from the nearest VHFHSZ, risks associated with wildfires are considered less than significant. Further, the project site is not within an earthquake­ induced landslide zone and is not located within an area subject to potential seismic slope instability. Therefore, downslope flooding as u result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes is unlikely to occur at the site, and no mitigation would be required. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-81 through 4-82.) SECTION III IMPACTS THAT ARE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED The City Council hereby finds that Mitigation Measures have been identified in the EIR and these Findings that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The potentially significant impacts, and the Mitigation Measures that will reduce them to a less than significant level, are as follows: 97 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 103 of 184 A. 1. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Sensitive Species Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-17.) Explanation: The project is located in close proximity to San Juan Creek and El Homo Creek, which contains habitat for several regional special-status species. However, according to the Biological Resources Assessment, no special­ status natural communities, or special-status plants are present on the project site. While special-status plant species are not expected, Mitigation Measure B10-1 would require a springtime botanical survey during the typical springtime blooming season (April through May 2020) to confirm the absence of annual special-status plant species that bloom during this period. Implementation of Mitigation Measure B10-1 would result in avoidance of impacts to special-status plant species by confirming their absence. Should special-status plant species be identified as present on the project site, specific procedures would be implemented to avoid or compensate for impacts to such species, where applicable. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure B10-1, impacts to special-status plant species would be less than significant. According to the Biological Resources Assessment, no special-status animal species are known or observed to occur on the project site, and would therefore not be directly affected by the proposed project. However, several special-status animal species are known to occur within 5 miles of the project site, and therefore have the potential to be indirectly affected during construction activities through increased noise, vibration, lighting, and dust. Such indirect disturbance has the potential to affect foraging patterns and disorient special-status species occurring in adjacent habitat areas. To ensure that such species are not indirectly impacted by project construction activities, Mitigation Measure B10-2 is proposed and requires Worker Environmental Awareness Training to be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to initial groundbreaking to educate all construction personnel on the relevant federal, state, and local laws related to regional special-status species known to occur in adjacent habitat types, particularly habitat associated with San Juan Creek. Training construction crews on special-status species identification and applicable standards and regulations would help avoid impacts to special-status species that are known to occur in habitats adjacent to the project site by identifying those areas where special-status species have potential to be present and specifying procedures that would be implemented to avoid impacts to such 98 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 104 of 184 species. Mitigation Measure B10-3 is also proposed and outlines best practices/construction housekeeping measures to minimize impacts on habitat subject to construction disturbances and other types of ongoing project-related disturbance activities. Construction site housekeeping measures included in Mitigation Measure B10-3 would effectively minimize temporary construction effects on sensitive biological resources by limiting construction equipment and personnel from entering areas where special-status species may be impacted, limiting the potential for fuel or chemical spills that could adversely impact water quality and adjacent aquatic habitats, minimizing the disturbance area needed for construction access and related effects (i.e., dust, noise, and vibration, etc.), reducing the likelihood of attracting or introducing predators of special-status species, and by preventing the primary or secondary poisoning of wildlife in the project vicinity. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures B10-2 and B10-3, impacts to special-status animal species during construction would be less than significant. Construction activities also have the potential to result in temporary indirect effects to water quality during construction, which could lead to habitat degradation and associated impacts to special-status species. Such effects include a potential increase in erosion and sediment transport into adjacent or downstream aquatic areas. Chemical spills or leaks of fuel, transmission fluid, lubricating oil, or motor oil from construction equipment could also contaminate waters and degrade their quality. These potential indirect effects to hydrology and water quality would be avoided or substantially minimized through the implementation of best management practices (BMPs), project design features, and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure B10-4 is required to reduce indirect impacts to San Juan Creek and El Homo Creek during project construction. Mitigation Measure B10-4 requires grading and construction resulting in ground disturbance to occur within the typical dry season, as feasible, to avoid erosion and sedimentation impacts to nearby creeks and water quality. The Project Contractor would also be required to install adequate erosion and sedimentation barriers prior to ground disturbance to prevent any sediment laden runoff or debris from entering adjacent waterways or the Pacific Ocean during the wet season or periods of rain. The erosion and sedimentation barriers would have the added benefit of minimizing the potential for special-status amphibians and other wildlife from entering work areas during construction. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure B10-4 would reduce the potential for habitat degradation through temporary indirect effects to water quality during construction to less than significant levels. Though the project site does not include highly suitable nesting habitat for raptors or other tree-nesting species, the site does contain suitable nesting 99 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 105 of 184 habitat for ground-nesting birds and for other birds that are protected while nesting under the California Fish and Game Code. According to the Biological Resources Assessment, riparian woodland adjacent to the project site serves as suitable nesting habitat for various common and special-status bird species, including least Bell's vireo. Therefore, construction activities that occur during the nesting bird season (January 1 through September 15) have the potential to result in the direct or indirect take of nesting birds. Because listed and protected species have the potential to occur adjacent to the project site, a longer, more conservative nesting period has been recommended. Mitigation Measure BI0-5 requires a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey no more than 3 days prior to the start of construction activities that would occur during active nesting bird season. Successful avoidance of direct and indirect disturbance to nesting birds during construction would ensure compliance with applicable provisions of the California Fish and Game Code, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and other State and federal regulations that afford protections to nesting birds (including species listed under CESA and FESA, such as least Bell's vireo). Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BI0-5, potential impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure BI0-6 requires that temporary fencing be installed along San Juan Creek, restricting access into the creek and adjacent habitats during construction. Mitigation Measure BI0-6 also requires that the Homeowner's Association (HOA) install signage that includes references to the environmentally sensitive nature of the creek and adjacent habitats. Fencing and signage of environmentally sensitive areas would effectively avoid or minimize edge effects on San Juan Creek and adjacent habitats. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BI0-6 would result in an improvement over existing conditions, given that there is a high degree of anthropogenic disturbance (homeless encampments, litter, and existing trails) currently occurring in this area. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BI0-6, impacts to special-status animal species during construction and operation would be less than significant. Increased anthropogenic disturbance and waste during and following project construction could attract predators of special-status species to the project vicinity and could also result in edge effects. Anthropogenic disturbances beyond urban boundaries into habitat are defined as edge effects. Such effects may have negative impacts on sensitive biological resources. However, given that the project is situated at a higher grade than the aquatic habitats associated with San Juan Creek and El Homo Creek, that there is spatial separation between proposed structures and existing riparian habitat, that the project is sited in close proximity to existing developments, and because the project lighting plan is designed to have minimal spill into adjacent habitats, long-term significant indirect 100 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 106 of 184 effects to special-status species are not anticipated. Additionally, 5.55 acres along the riparian corridor would be dedicated as conservation areas. The polyphagous shot hole borer and Kuroshio shot hole borer (ISHB) are invasive wood-boring beetles that attack dozens of tree species in Southern California, including common landscape trees and native species in urban and wildland environments. ISHB spreads a disease called Fusarium Dieback caused by pathogenic fungi. Trees that are susceptible may experience branch dieback, canopy loss, and, in some cases, tree mortality. The proposed project includes installation of landscape trees and the potential trimming of existing trees. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BI0-7 would eliminate the spread of ISHB and its effects through avoiding the installation of infected trees. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure BI0-7, potential impacts resulting from the spread of ISHB would be avoided. The project proposes a 20-foot-wide equestrian trail, and equestrian use is often associated with brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater), a brood parasite (a species that it lays its eggs in nests of other species). Brown­ headed cowbirds are considered a threat to some regional special-status bird species. However, the proposed project is not an equestrian community, and the only aspect related to equine uses is the proposed multi-use trail. The proposed multi-use trail would accommodate existing equestrian activity that already occurs in the project area, but would not, itself, increase the level of horse activity or horse keeping in the community. Given that the site is adjacent to horse stables and existing equestrian uses, and pursuant to Section 9-4.505, Bicycle and Equestrian Trails, of the City's Municipal Code (as stated in Regulatory Compliance Measure BI0-1), requiring that the HOA provide regular maintenance of the proposed trail, including the removal of horse manure, pet waste, and debris, the proposed project is not expected to substantially increase the amount of brown-headed cowbird in the area. Additionally, because there is already a high degree of equestrian use along San Juan Creek, impacts to water quality from fecal contamination greater than existing conditions in the community are not anticipated. Therefore, with implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure BI0-1, potential impacts associated with brown-headed cowbirds would remain less than significant. The project is located in close proximity to San Juan Creek, which contains habitat for several regional special-status species. Although no special-status species are known to occur on the project site, and while there is very low potential for any of these special-status species to be directly affected by the project due to the lack of suitable habitat on the project site, the project could indirectly affect special-status wildlife species through the attraction of predators and increased levels of noise, vibration, lighting, and dust during construction activities. There is also the potential for temporary indirect effects to water quality during construction, which could lead to habitat degradation. Implementation of 101 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 107 of 184 RCMBI0-1 MMBI0-1 MMBI0-2 Regulatory Compliance Measure B10-1 and Mitigation Measures B10-1 through B10-7 would effectively mitigate potential impacts on special-status wildlife plant and animal species to less than significant levels. With implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure B10-1 and Mitigation Measures B10-1 through B10-7, potential impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special-status species would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-14 through 4.3-17.) Trail Maintenance. As required by Section 9-4.505, Bicycle and Equestrian Trails, of the City of San Juan Capistrano's (City) Municipal Code, the Homeowner's Association (HOA) (or equivalent body) associated with the proposed development on the site would be required to provide regular maintenance of the proposed trail, including the removal of horse manure, pet waste, and debris. Springtime Botanical Survey. Prior to any project-related ground disturbance, the Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist/botanist to conduct a botanical survey during the typical springtime blooming season (April through May 2020) to confirm the absence of annual special-status plant species that bloom during this period. The results of the survey shall be documented and submitted to the Director of the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) Development Services Department, or designee. Should special-status plant species be found within the project disturbance limits, a compensatory mitigation plan must be prepared and approved by the City Development Services Department, or designee, prior to project-related ground disturbance. If listed special-status plant species are found, the compensatory mitigation plan must also be approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or California Department of Fish and Wildlife, as applicable. Worker Environmental Awareness Training. Prior to initial groundbreaking, the Director of the City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Department, or designee, shall confirm that a Worker Environmental Awareness Training shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to educate all construction personnel on the relevant federal, state, and local laws related to regional special­ status species known to occur in adjacent habitat types, particularly habitat associated with San Juan Creek. The training session shall include training on identification of species that may be found on or adjacent to the project site, the status of those species, and any legal protection afforded to those species. Measures that are being implemented to protect those species shall also be explained. Personnel shall be advised to report any special-status species promptly to the construction manager. The training session shall also include information regarding invasive shot hole borers 102 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 108 of 184 MMBI0-3 (ISHB), how to recognize signs of infestation, and where to report observations. A fact sheet conveying this information shall be prepared for display or for distribution to anyone who may enter the project site. Construction Site Housekeeping. Impacts to habitat subject to permanent and temporary construction disturbances and other types of ongoing project-related disturbance activities shall be minimized by adhering to the following measures for the duration of construction activities: •The project disturbance limits shall be clearly marked with construction fencing ( or other highly visible material), and construction/materials staging and vehicle/equipment maintenance and fueling areas shall be located at least 200 feet away from riparian habitat associated with San Juan Creek and El Homo Creek, where feasible. •To minimize temporary disturbances, all project-related vehicle traffic shall be restricted to established roads, construction areas, and other designated areas. •Project-related vehicles shall observe a daytime speed limit of 20 miles per hour (mph) throughout the site in all project sites, except on county roads and State and federal highways. Night-time construction shall be minimized to the extent possible. However if it does occur, then the speed limit shall be reduced to 10 mph. Off-road traffic outside of designated project sites shall be prohibited. •To prevent inadvertent entrapment of animals during the construction phase of a project, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 2 feet deep shall be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials. If the trenches cannot be closed, one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen-fill or wooden planks shall be installed. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they shall be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. In the case of trapped animals, escape ramps or structures shall be installed immediately to allow the animal(s) to escape. •For the duration of construction activities, all food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed of in securely closed containers and removed at least daily from the construction site. 103 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 109 of 184 MMBI0-4 MMBI0-5 •Pets, such as dogs or cats, shall not be permitted on the project site during construction to prevent harassment, injury, or death of wildlife in the project vicinity. •Use of rodenticides and herbicides in project sites shall be restricted to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of predators and the depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such compounds shall observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other State and federal legislation. Erosion Control and Amphibian Exclusionary Fencing. Grading and construction resulting in ground disturbance shall occur within the typical dry season (April 15 through October 15), as feasible, to avoid erosion and sedimentation impacts to nearby creeks and water quality. The Director of the City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Department, or designee, shall verify that project plans require the Project Contractor to install adequate erosion and sedimentation barriers (e.g., silt fencing, as described below) prior to ground disturbance to prevent any sediment-laden runoff or debris from entering adjacent waterways or the Pacific Ocean during the wet season or periods of rain. This silt fencing shall also serve as a temporary barrier to further minimize the potential for special-status amphibians and other wildlife from entering work areas during construction. The barriers shall consist of 3-foot-tall silt fencing buried to a depth of at least 6 inches below the soil surface along the outer limits of all work areas ( or as otherwise required by the storm water pollution and prevention plan). These barriers shall be inspected daily by construction personnel and maintained and repaired as necessary for the duration of construction to ensure that they are functional and are not a hazard to wildlife on the outer side of the fence. A qualified biologist shall monitor all fence installation. All barriers shall be removed following completion of construction. Nesting Bird Surveys. If vegetation removal, construction, or grading activities are planned to occur within the active nesting bird season (January 1 through September 15), the Director of the City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Department, or designee, shall confirm that the Project Applicant has retained a qualified biologist who shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey no more than 3 days prior to the start of such activities. If construction activities using heavy equipment (i.e., graders, bulldozers, and excavators, etc.) continue through the nesting season, weekly nesting bird surveys shall be conducted. Each 104 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 110 of 184 MMBI0-6 MM BI0-7 2.Riparian Habitat nesting bird survey shall include the work area and areas adjacent to the site (within 500 feet, as feasible) that could potentially be affected by project-related activities such as noise, vibration, increased human activity, and dust, etc. For any active nest(s) identified, the qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer zone around the active nest(s). The appropriate buffer shall be determined by the qualified biologist based on species, location, and the nature of the proposed activities. Project activities shall be avoided within the buffer zone until the nest is deemed no longer active, as determined by the qualified biologist. Delineation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. During the construction period, the Director of the City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Department, or designee, shall confirm that construction plans require that temporary fencing be installed along San Juan Creek that restricts access into the creek and adjacent habitats. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Director of the City's Development Services Department, or designee, shall confirm that permanent signage has been installed that includes references to the environmentally sensitive nature of the creek and adjacent habitats. The Homeowner's Association (HOA) shall fund annual signage monitoring and repairs, as needed. Invasive Shot Hole Borers. To prevent the spread of Invasive Shot Hole Borers (ISHB), the Project Applicant shall not install any ISHB-infected trees for landscaping, and installed trees shall be monitored once every 3 years for up to 9 years by an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist. The Worker Environmental Awareness Training, described in Mitigation Measure BIO-2, shall include a component to educate crews about ISHB and how to recognize signs of this species. A designated biologist familiar with the signs of ISHBs shall survey trees on the project site that are designated for removal or trimming. Surveys shall be conducted at least 30 <lays prior to removal or trimming activities. If any tree is determined to be infested/infected by ISHB, a control plan shall be prepared and submitted to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for review and approval. At a minimum, the control plan shall include methods of control, removal, and appropriate disposal techniques to prevent the spread of ISHB. The results of the tree survey, and if warranted, a copy of the CDFW-approved control plan shall be submitted to the City's Development Services Director, or designee, prior to issuance of grading permits. 105 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 111 of 184 Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-18.) Explanation: While mature riparian woodland associated with San Juan Creek is located to the south of the project site, no sensitive natural communities are present on the project site. Further, the proposed project does not include the removal of any sensitive natural communities, and therefore, no direct impacts to sensitive natural communities would occur as a result of project implementation. However, the proposed project has the potential to result in indirect impacts to riparian habitat within San Juan Creek and El Homo Creek as a result of construction activities. Mitigation Measures BI0-2 through 810-4 and 810-6 would mitigate indirect impacts to San Juan Creek and El Homo Creek during project construction and operation. Mitigation Measure BI0-2 requires Worker Environmental Awareness Training to be conducted to educate all construction personnel on the relevant federal, state, and local laws related to regional special-status species known to occur in adjacent habitat types, particularly habitat associated with San Juan Creek. Mitigation Measure BI0-3 includes measures to minimize impacts on habitat subject to permanent and temporary construction disturbances and other types of ongoing project­ related disturbance activities. Mitigation Measure BI0-4 requires grading and construction resulting in ground disturbance to occur within the typical dry season, as feasible, to avoid erosion and sedimentation impacts to nearby creeks and water quality and also requires the installation of adequate erosion and sedimentation barriers to mitigate the potential for indirect effects to water to result in habitat degradation. Mitigation Measure BI0-6 requires the fencing and signage of environmentally sensitive areas, which would effectively avoid or minimize edge effects on San Juan Creek and adjacent habitats during construction and operation of the proposed project. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures BI0-2 through BI0-4 and BI0- 6, indirect impacts to sensitive riparian habitat would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-17 through 4.3-18.) 3.Wetlands Threshold: Finding: 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? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-18.) Explanation: According to the National Wetlands Inventory managed by USFWS, the 106 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 112 of 184 project site does not contain federally protected wetlands. The project site is located entirely outside of the streambeds, banks, and riparian habitat associated with San Juan Creek and El Homo Creek. Soils on site are well-drained, and there are no depressional wetlands or other potentially aquatic resources within the project site. However, the San Juan Creek Channel, located immediately south of the project site, contains wetlands classified as Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland and Riverine. Due to the proximity of the San Juan Creek Channel, project construction and operation could have potential indirect impacts on off-site federally protected wetlands and waters of the United States as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Although construction activities have the potential to result in temporary indirect effects to water quality including a potential increase in erosion and sediment transport into adjacent or downstream aquatic areas and the contamination of waters from construction equipment, these potential indirect effects to hydrology and water quality would be avoided or substantially minimized through the implementation of BMPs, project design features, and preparation of a WQMP. Additionally, Mitigation Measure BI0-4 requires grading and construction resulting in ground disturbance to occur within the typical dry season, as feasible, to avoid erosion and sedimentation impacts to nearby creeks and water quality. The Project Contractor would also be required to install adequate erosion and sedimentation barriers prior to ground disturbance to prevent any sediment laden runoff or debris from entering adjacent waterways or the Pacific Ocean during the wet season or periods of rain. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BI0-4, impacts on state or federally protected wetlands would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-18.) 4.Wildlife Movement Threshold: Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-19.) Explanation: According to the Biological Resources Assessment, there are no wildlife corridors or wildlife nurseries on the project site where development is proposed. San Juan Creek, which is a known wildlife movement corridor, is located to the south of the project site and would not be directly affected by the project. Given the isolated and disturbed nature of the project site, it is unlikely that the site serves as an important corridor for animals moving locally, regionally, or in broader migrations. Migratory bird species may utilize the project site for foraging; however, the usage is likely transient and limited to species that forage over open grassland areas. Additionally, 107 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 113 of 184 the project site does not possess any characteristics that would indicate a locally significant stopover point for migratory species including raptors or waterfowl. No known wildlife movement corridors occur within the project site. The wildlife species that occur in the project vicinity and utilize San Juan Creek as a movement corridor are adapted to the urban-wildland interface, and the project would not introduce new affects to the area. The noise, vibration, light, dust, or human disturbance within construction areas would only temporarily deter wildlife from using areas in the immediate vicinity of construction activities. These indirect effects could temporarily alter migration behaviors, territories, or foraging habitats in select areas. However, because these are temporary effects, it is likely that wildlife already living and moving in close proximity to urban development would alter their normal functions for the duration of the project construction and then re-establish these functions once all temporary construction effects have been removed. Following construction, there is potential for increased long-term indirect effects to wildlife movement within San Juan Creek due to increased noise, lighting, and other anthropogenic disturbance. However, such affects are not expected to substantially change the level of wildlife movement within San Juan Creek given that the project is situated at a higher grade than the aquatic habitats associated with San Juan Creek, there is spatial separation between proposed structures and existing riparian habitat, the project is sited in close proximity to existing developments, the project lighting plan is designed to have minimal spill into adjacent habitats, and areas adjacent to San Juan Creek in the project vicinity already experience a high degree of human visitation and associated disturbance. Furthermore, the proposed project would not place any permanent barriers within any known wildlife movement corridors or interfere with habitat connectivity. Nevertheless, the project site contains suitable nesting habitat for ground­ nesting birds and for other birds that are protected under the California Fish and Game Code. The proposed project has the potential to impact active native bird nests if construction or demolition activities occur during the nesting season (January 1 through September 15). Therefore, project implementation must be accomplished in a manner that avoids impacts to active nests during the nesting season. Mitigation Measure B10-5 requires a qualified biologist to conduct nesting bird surveys and the implementation of active nest avoidance measures as deemed necessary. With implementation of Mitigation Measure B10-5, potential impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant. Therefore, impacts to the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species and wildlife corridors would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-18 through 4.3-19.) 108 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 114 of 184 B.CULTURAL RESOURCES 1.Archaeological Resources Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15064.5? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-6.) Explanation: As indicated previously, the project site is located in an area of the City of San Juan Capistrano that is archaeologically sensitive for cultural resources. Implementation of the proposed project will necessitate project site preparation and grading that would result in the destruction of one known, prehistoric archaeological site (CA-ORA-1672) that was identified during the 2007 cultural resources assessment. However, as concluded in the 2007 Ventanas Business Center Environmental Impact Report, prehistoric site CA-ORA-1672 neither possesses significant cultural materials nor represents a significant cultural resource. The previous recordation, analysis, and collection of the artifacts and ecofacts contained within CA-ORA-1672 adequately removed the potential impacts posed by implementation of the current project; further, the archaeological testing at CA-ORA-1627 concluded that the prehistoric site neither possesses significant cultural materials nor represents a significant cultural resource. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a cultural resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. However, it is possible that potentially significant prehistoric deposits and/or cultural artifacts could be encountered during construction because the project site is located within an area that is archaeologically sensitive. As a result, it remains possible that buried, previously unrecorded cultural resources could be present in native soils on the project site and disturbed during project construction. In order to address the discovery of unknown and unrecorded cultural resources, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 is proposed and requires monitoring by both a qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor. The measure includes procedures for recovering any significant or unique archaeological resource and for preparation of a report that documents any cultural resource recovery at the current project site. All procedures conducted as part of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would comply with the applicable provisions for the management of historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources as described in City Council Policy 601. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, impacts to previously unrecorded cultural resources would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-6.) 109 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 115 of 184 2.Human Remains Threshold: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-6.) Explanation: Although no human remains are known to be on the project site or are anticipated to be discovered during project construction, the archaeological sensitivity of the project site is high. There is always a possibility of encountering unanticipated cultural resources, including human remains. Precautionary mitigation is required to ensure that the proposed project does not impact or disturb any human remains. MMCUL-1 Mitigation Measure CUL-2 requires compliance with CCR Section 15064.5(e) in the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during project grading. Upon discovery of the remains, the Orange County (County) Coroner would be notified immediately, and no further disturbance would occur until the County Coroner makes a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner would notify the NAHC, which would then determine and notify the MLD. With permission from the City, the MLD would complete inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would reduce potential impacts related to the discovery of human remains on the project site to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-6 through 4.4-7.) Cultural Resources Monitoring and Accidental Discovery. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall retain, with approval of the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) Development Services Director, or designee, a qualified archaeological monitor. A monitoring plan should be prepared by the archaeologist and implemented upon approval by the City. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant, with City approval, shall also retain a Native American monitor after consultation with interested tribal and Native American representatives. Both monitors shall be present on the project site during ground-disturbing activities to monitor rough and finish grading, excavation, and other ground-disturbing activities in the native soils. Because cultural resources were previously identified on the project site, both monitors are required to be present on a full-time basis during initial site preparation and initial ground­ disturbing activities. Further, each monitor shall spot check any ground-disturbing activities ( e.g., finish grading) to ensure that no cultural resources are impacted during construction activities. 110 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 116 of 184 MMCUL-2 If cultural materials are discovered during site preparation, grading, or excavation, the construction contractor shall divert all earthmoving activity within and around the immediate discovery area until a qualified archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the find. Project personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials or human remains and associated materials. To the extent feasible, project activities shall avoid these deposits. Where avoidance is not feasible, the archaeological deposits shall be evaluated for their eligibility for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. If the deposits are not eligible, avoidance is not necessary. If the deposits are eligible, adverse effects on the deposits must be avoided, or such effects must be mitigated. Mitigation can include, but is not necessarily limited to: excavation of the deposit in accordance with a data recovery plan (see California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14(3) Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C)) and standard archaeological field methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials; production of a report detailing the methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials; curation of archaeological materials at an appropriate facility for future research and/or display; an interpretive display of recovered archaeological materials at a local school, museum, or library; and public lectures at local schools and/or historical societies on the findings and significance of the site and recovered archaeological materials. The City Development Services Director, or designee, shall be responsible for reviewing any reports produced by the archaeologist to determine the appropriateness and adequacy of the findings and recommendations. Human Remains. Consistent with the requirements of CCR Section 15064.S(e), if human remains are encountered during site disturbance, grading, or other construction activities on the project site, the construction contractor shall halt work within 25 feet of the discovery; all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the Orange County (County) Coroner notified immediately. No further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the City, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Consistent with CCR 111 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 117 of 184 Section 15064.S(d), if the remains are determined to be Native American and an MLD is notified, the City shall consult with the MLD identified by the NAHC to develop an agreement for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Upon completion of the assessment, the consulting archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results and provide recommendations regarding the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate, and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report shall be submitted to the City Development Services Director, or designee, and the South Central Coastal Information Center. The City Development Services Director, or designee, shall be responsible for reviewing any reports produced by the archaeologist to determine the appropriateness and adequacy of the findings and recommendations. C.GEOLOGY AND SOILS 1.(b) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction; or landslides? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-13.) Explanation: As with all of Southern California, the project site is subject to strong ground motion resulting from earthquakes on nearby faults. There are several faults near the project site that are capable of producing strong ground motion, including the Dana Point section of the Newport­ Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault and the San Joaquin Hills Fault. Other major regional active faults include the Wildomar Fault and the Mount Soledad Fault. During an earthquake along any of these faults, seismically induced ground shaking would be expected to occur. The severity of the shaking would be influenced by the distance of the site to the seismic source, the soil conditions, and the depth to groundwater. Peak ground acceleration (PGA) is a measure of earthquake acceleration on the ground and an important input parameter for earthquake engineering. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) Unified Hazard Tool was used in the Geotechnical Investigation in order to 112 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 118 of 184 MMGE0-1 determine how seismicity would affect the project site. Based on the site­ specific evaluation that was performed, the peak horizontal ground acceleration for the project site was calculated to be 0.5 g (acceleration due to gravity) with a two percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. These accelerations are consistent with other sites in this region of southern California that are underlain by similar geologic materials and indicate that strong seismic ground shaking generated by seismic activity is considered a potentially significant impact that may affect people or structures associated with the proposed project. Therefore, Mitigation Measures GE0-1, GE0-2, and GE0-3 would be required to ensure that appropriate seismic design provisions would be implemented during project design and construction. Mitigation Measure GE0-1 would require the Project Applicant to comply with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation and the most current CBC during design, grading, and construction. Mitigation Measure GE0-2 would require the review of the grading plan and on-site inspection during grading to ensure that recommendation developed during the geotechnical evaluation are appropriately incorporated into project plans and design. Mitigation Measure GE0-3 would require the Project Applicant to design and construct structures and retaining walls in accordance with the seismic parameters presented in the Geotechnical Investigation and applicable sections of Section 1613 of the 2016 CBC. With implementation of Mitigation Measures GE0-1, GE0-2, and GE0-3, potential project impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be reduced to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-13.) Incorporation of and Compliance with the Recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation. All grading operations and construction shall be conducted in conformance with the recommendations included in the project-specific geotechnical investigation report prepared by GeoSoils Consultants Inc. (July 10, 2017). Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) Building Code and the California Building Code (CBC) applicable at the time of grading, appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the Director of the City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Department, or designee, prior to issuance of grading permits. Recommendations m the Geotechnical Investigation are summarized below. •Site Grading/Earthwork. Prior to grading activities on the site, organics and debris shall be removed and hauled off-site. Undocumented fill within the project 113 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 119 of 184 limits shall be over-excavated to a minimum depth of 12 feet (ft). The bottom of the excavated area shall be underlain by a layer of filter fabric (which will prevent contamination of crushed aggregate from underlying fine soils) and overlain by a minimum of 2 ft of crushed rock and a geogrid layer(which will minimize the manifestation of vertical settlements to the surface). The excavated layer shall be backfilled with engineered fill, which shall be compacted to at least 90 percent. Compaction shall be verified by observation, probing, and testing by a Geotechnical Consultant. •Fill Material. On-site soils with an Expansion Index (El) less than 35 and free of organic materials, debris, and cobbles larger than 3 inches may be used for backfilling. Imported granular soils may be used in compacted fills within the project limits. All imported soil shall contain binder material. Imported materials shall also be non-expansive and free of organic materials, debris, and cobbles larger than 3 inches, with no more than 25 percent passing No. 200 Sieve. All fill materials within the upper 2 ft shall be free of particles greater than 2 inches in size. A bulk sample of import material, weighing at least 30 pounds, shall be submitted to the Geotechnical Consultant for approval at least 48 hours prior to fill operations. •Utility Trenching. Bedding materials consisting of sand, gravel, or crushed aggregate shall be used to backfill around utility pipes. On-site soils having a Sand Equivalent (SE) of 30 or greater can also be used as bedding material. Prior to placing pipes, the pipe trench subgrade shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant. If exposed subgrade is loose or unstable, unsuitable subgrade shall be excavated and replaced with bedding material. Trenches in pavement areas shall be capped with at least 1 ft of compacted, on-site soil and shall be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. •Temporary Excavations. All temporary excavations shall be properly sloped or shored. Excavation of 3.5 ft or less in depth may be performed with vertical sidewalls. Deeper excavations up to a depth of 10 ft can be accomplished with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements for Type C soils 114 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 120 of 184 and may be laid back 1H:l .5V gradient, or lH:lV upon review by the Geotechnical Consultant. •Shoring. Shoring systems feasible for the site are expected to include cantilever shoring, such as soldier piles. All shoring shall be designed in accordance with the latest edition of the Trenching and Shoring Manual (Caltrans 2011), and shall be approved by the Geotechnical Consultant. A licensed surveyor shall be retained to establish monuments on the shoring and surrounding area. These monuments shall be monitored for movement during construction. •Spread/Strip Footing Foundations. Upon completion of the grading ( cutting) required to establish the proposed building pad elevations, the proposed structures may be supported by a spread/strip footing foundation system. Spread/strip footings shall be at least 24 and 18 inches wide, respectively, and embedded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade in the engineered fill. The slab-on-grade should be at least 5 inches thick and reinforced with rebar. Footings shall be deepened as necessary in order to maintain adequate support for the foundations adjacent to utility trenches. •Matt Foundations. Upon completion of the grading ( cutting) required to establish the proposed building pad elevations, the proposed structures may be supported by a matt foundation system in areas where settlements cannot be tolerated by spread/strip footings. The mat should be at least 10 inches thick and embedded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade in the engineered fill. •Concrete Flatworks. Frequent construction or control joints shall be provided in all concrete slabs where cracking is objectionable. Contraction or weakened plane joints shall extend deeper than one-quarter of the slab thickness. Control joints shall be spaced a minimum of 10 ft intervals. Exterior concrete slab-on­ grade may be subjected to drying due to the fluctuation of moisture content in subgrade soils. Deepened edge sections will aid in reducing the potential for the shrinkage and swelling of underlying soils. 115 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 121 of 184 MMGE0-2 MMGE0-3 •Retaining Walls. The proposed development is expected to require various types of earth-retaining structures: freestanding cantilever retaining wall, temporary shoring, and below grade walls for several of the proposed structures. In general, retaining structures planned at the site shall be backfilled with compacted soil and be constructed with a backdrain. •Corrosive Soils. A representative bulk sample of soils in contact with concrete and pipes shall be collected and tested or pH, minimum resistivity, soluble chloride content, and soluble sulfate content. The test results shall be used to determine the chemical properties of on-site soils and appropriate recommendations. Recommendations for corrosion protection may include, but are not limited to, sacrificial metal, the use of protective coatings, and/or cathodic protection. •Geotechnical Review and Future Testing. Additional site testing and final design evaluation shall be conducted by the project Geotechnical Consultant to refine and enhance these recommendations. Final design shall be based on testing and analyses of the near-surface soils following the completion of grading. Design, grading, and construction shall be conducted in accordance with the specifications of the Geotechnical Consultant as summarized in a final report based on the CBC applicable at the time of grading and building and the City of San Juan Capistrano Building Code. Grading Plan Review and On-Site Inspection. Grading plan review shall also be conducted by the Geotechnical Consultant and the Director of the City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Department, or designee, prior to the start of grading to verify that the recommendations developed during the geotechnical design evaluation have been appropriately incorporated into the project plans. On-site inspection during grading shall be conducted by the Geotechnical Consultant and the City Building Official, or designee, to ensure compliance with geotechnical specifications as incorporated into project plans. California Building Code Compliance and Seismic Standards. Structures and retaining walls shall be designed in accordance with the seismic parameters presented in the Geotechnical Investigation and applicable sections of Section 1613 of the 2016 California Building Code (CBC). Prior to issuance of building permits for planned structures, the project soils engineer and the Director of 116 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 122 of 184 MMGE0-4 MMGE0-5 the San Juan Capistrano Development Services Department, or designee, shall review building plans to verify that structural design conforms to the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation and the City of San Juan Capistrano Building Code. Paleontological Resources Assessment. Prior to issuance of grading permits, and in accordance with City of San Juan Capistrano's Historical, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resource Management Guidelines (previously known as Council Policy 601 ), a paleontologist certified by the County of Orange shall prepare a Paleontological Resources Assessment that includes the following information: a clear map delineating the project boundaries, the results of a field survey of the project area, the results of background research and sources for that background information, criteria for evaluation of paleontological sensitivity of the property, and a determination of whether development of the project has the potential to impact paleontological resources. If the Paleontological Resources Assessment determines that project activities will not impact paleontological resources, no further paleontological resource impact mitigation is required. If the Paleontological Resources Assessment determines that there is a low possibility for project activities to impact paleontological resources, the Project Applicant shall retain a paleontologist on an on-call basis to address any unanticipated discoveries. If the Paleontological Resources Assessment determines that paleontological resources may be impacted by project development, a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program shall be prepared, and paleontological monitoring, fossil collection and treatment (if necessary), and preparation of a final monitoring report shall occur as described in Mitigation Measure GE0-5. Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program. In the event the project specific Paleontological Resources Assessment determines that paleontological resources may be impacted by project development, a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) shall be prepared prior to commencement of any grading activity on site, and approved by the Director of Planning, or designee. The PRIMP shall be prepared by a paleontologist who is listed on the County of Orange list of certified paleontologists, and shall include the methods that will be used to protect paleontological resources that may exist within the project site, as well as procedures for monitoring, fossil preparation and identification, curation into a repository, and preparation of a report at the conclusion of grading. The PRIMP shall be consistent with the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010). 117 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 123 of 184 The paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall attend one pre­ construction meeting in order to explain the mitigation measures associated with the project, the potential for encountering paleontological resources, and the types of resources that may be found. Ground-disturbing activities in deposits with high paleontological sensitivity shall be monitored by a paleontological monitor following the PRIMP. Spot check monitoring is required for ground disturbance in deposits with low paleontological sensitivity, and no paleontological monitoring is required for ground disturbance in deposits with no paleontological sensitivity. The monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils and/or matrix samples as they are unearthed in order to avoid construction delays. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment in the area of the find in order to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. In the event that paleontological resources are encountered when a paleontological monitor is not present, work in the immediate area of the find shall be redirected and a paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the find for significance. Sediments shall occasionally be spot-screened through one-eighth to one-twentieth-inch mesh screens to determine whether microfossils exist. If microfossils are encountered, additional sediment samples (up to 6,000 pounds) shall be collected and processed through one-twentieth-inch mesh screens to recover additional fossils. Collected resources shall be prepared to the point of identification, identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, cataloged, and curated into the permanent collections of a scientific institution. At the conclusion of the monitoring program, a report of findings shall be prepared to document the results of the monitoring program. When submitted to the City of San Juan Capistrano Director of Development Services, or designee, the report and inventory would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources. 1.(c) Seismic-Related Ground Failure including Liquefaction Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; strong seismic 118 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 124 of 184 ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction; or landslides? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-14.) Explanation: Liquefaction commonly occurs when three conditions are present simultaneously: (1) high groundwater; (2) relatively loose, cohesionless (sandy) soil; and (3) earthquake-generated seismic waves. Structures on or above potentially liquefiable soils may experience lateral spreading, consolidation and settlement of loose sediments, ground oscillation, flow failure, loss of bearing strength, ground fissuring, sand boils, and other damaging deformations. Factors known to influence the potential for liquefaction include soil type, relatively density, grain size, confining pressure, depth to groundwater, and the intensity and duration of the seismic ground shaking. The project site is located with a State-designated Liquefaction Hazard Zone for the Dana Point Quadrangle. In addition, testing performed as part of the Geotechnical Investigation found a potential for liquefaction in thin sand and sandy silt layers underlying the site. However, surface layers would be unlikely to experience liquefaction due to the confinement of potentially lower liquefiable layers from the surface by less permeable layers. Furthermore, Mitigation Measures GE0-1, GE0-2, and GE0-3 require the Project Applicant to comply with the recommendations of Geotechnical Investigation and the most current CBC, which stipulates appropriate design provisions (including provisions related to foundation design) that shall be implemented with project design and construction. Mitigation Measure GE0-2 would require the review of the grading plan and on-site inspection during grading to ensure that recommendation developed during the geotechnical evaluation are appropriately incorporated into project plans and design. With implementation of Mitigation Measures GE0-1, GE0-2, and GE0-3, potential project impacts related to seismically induced ground failure, including liquefaction, would be reduced to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, p.4.6-14.) 2.Unstable Soils Threshold: Finding: Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-15 through 4.6-17.) Explanation: As previously stated, no existing landslides are present on or adjacent to the property. Geologic mapping for the site does not indicate that the site 119 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 125 of 184 is susceptible to landslide. In addition, the project site is in a generally flat area with no evidence of historic landslides. Therefore, the potential for seismically induced landslides on the site is considered low. Due to the topography of the project site and the design of the proposed project, grading would entail cut-and-fill slopes, and construction of earth­ retaining structures, such as freestanding cantilever retaining walls, and below-grade walls, which would be necessary in some areas. In addition, shoring would be required during excavation. Unstable cut-and-fill slopes could create significant short-term and long-term hazards. Mitigation Measure GE0-1 requires planned grading and shoring to conform to the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation, which contains specific recommendations for addressing potential slope instability. With implementation of these recommendations as required by Mitigation Measures GE0-1 and GE0-2, potential impacts related to slope instability would be reduced to a less than significant level. Unsuitable Soils. Corrosive Soils and Soluble Sulfate Content. Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Corrosive soils contain constituents or physical characteristics that attack concrete (water-soluble sulfates) and/or ferrous metals ( chlorides, ammonia, nitrates, low pH levels, and low electrical resistivity). Corrosive soils could potentially create a significant hazard to the project by weakening the structural integrity of the concrete and metal used to construct the building and could potentially lead to structural instability. Structural damage and foundation instability caused by corrosive soils is a potentially significant impact. As required by Mitigation Measure GEO-I, on-site soils anticipated to come into contact with pipes or concrete on the site shall be tested for pH, minimum resistivity, soluble chloride content, and soluble sulfate content. Where corrosive soils are identified, corrosion protection measures shall be implemented. Corrosion protection may include, but is not limited to, sacrificial metal, the use of protective coatings, and/or cathodic protection. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, potential impacts related to corrosive soils would be reduced to a less than significant level. Settlement Potential. Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. 120 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 126 of 184 The amount of settlement for a site is dependent on the thickness of design fills, the loading conditions, and the nature of the native materials underlying the fill. Potential ground settlement may be separated into three types: (1) hydroconsolidation of alluvium left in place above the water table, (2) consolidation settlement of compressible alluvium left in place below the water table, and (3) liquefaction-induced settlement of a few loose, granular layers below the water table. The site is underlain by clayey, silty, and sandy layers containing rock fragments within alluvial deposits and fill, which are likely to liquefy during an earthquake. As such, these layers could experience a loss of shear strength resulting in ground deformation and settlement. In total, the Geotechnical Investigation found that seismic settlements due to liquefaction could be up to 2.62 inches on the project site. Compliance with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed project, including those related to earthwork activities and foundation design, would be required to reduce potential impacts related to ground settlement. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GE0-1 would reduce potential impacts with respect to ground settlement to a less than significant level. Subsidence. Less Than Significant Impact. The phenomenon of widespread land sinking, or subsidence, is generally related to substantial overpumping of groundwater or petroleum reserves from deep underground reservoirs. Overpumping and excessive groundwater withdrawal have not occurred in the project area. In addition, the project does not have an oil or gas pump on site, and the site has not been used for the extraction of either resource. An existing City-owned parcel, APN 666-131-08, contains an active water well directly adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site between Paseo Tirador and San Juan Creek. This well would remain in operation during the life of the proposed project. A privately owned, inactive well is located on APN 666-131-12 and will remain inactive upon project implementation. However, as previously established, the project site is not located in an area with documented subsidence. Subsidence is therefore not considered a potential constraint or a potentially significant impact of the project, and no mitigation is required. 121 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 127 of 184 Lateral Spreading. 3.Paleontological Resources Less Than Significant Impact. Lateral spreading typically occurs as a form of horizontal displacement of relatively flat-lying alluvial material toward an open or "unconfined" face such as an open body of water, channel, or excavation. In soils, this movement is generally due to failure along a weak plane and may often be associated with liquefaction. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, soils on the project site are not subject to lateral spreading. Therefore, lateral spreading is not considered a potential constraint or a potentially significant impact of the project, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-15 through 4.6-17.) Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-18.) Explanation: The project site is located on younger Quaternary Alluvium, older river terrace deposits of the San Juan Creek, and the marine Capistrano Formation. There are no known fossil localities on the project site, but based on the locality search conducted for the proposed project, sensitive sediments that may contain fossil remains do exist within the project area. As such, there is the potential to encounter paleontological resources during any ground-disturbing activities for the proposed project. Mitigation is required to reduce potential adverse impacts to unknown (buried) paleontological resources. Mitigation Measure GE0-4 requires the Project Applicant to comply with the City's Historical, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resource Management Guidelines and prepare a Paleontological Resources Assessment to evaluate the potential for project implementation to significantly impact unknown paleontological resources on the site. In the event that the Paleontological Resources Assessment does not identify the potential for the project to impact such resources, no further action or mitigation is required. In the event that the Paleontological Resources Assessment identifies a low potential for the project to impact paleontological resources, the Project Applicant shall retain a paleontologist on an on-call basis to address any unanticipated discoveries. If the Paleontological Resources Assessment determines that the paleontological resources may be impacted by project development, a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) shall be prepared, and paleontological monitoring, fossil collection and treatment 122 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 128 of 184 D.NOISE (if necessary), and preparation of a final monitoring report shall occur as described in Mitigation Measure GE0-5. Implementation of Mitigation Measures GE0-4 and GE0-5 would reduce potential impacts to unknown paleontological resources to less than significant, and no additional mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-17 through 4.6-18.) 1.Noise Standards Threshold: Would the Project result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-14.) Explanation: Construction Noise Impacts. Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction of the project site. First, construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site would incrementally increase noise levels on roads leading to the site. The pieces of heavy equipment for construction activities would be moved on site, would remain for the duration of each construction phase, and would not add to the daily traffic volume in the project vicinity. As shown in Table 4.10.G (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.10-12), there would be a relatively high single-event noise exposure potential at a maximum level of 84 dBA Lmax with trucks passing at 50 ft. Project construction would consist of site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. During construction activities, building construction, paving, and architectural-coating phases would overlap, which would result in a temporary trip generation of 281 average daily trips (ADT), with 10 trips occurring in the a.m. peak hour and 4 7 trips occurring in the p.m. peak hour for up to 7 months. However, the effect on longer-term (hourly or daily) ambient noise levels would be small when compared to existing hourly and daily traffic volumes of 166/1,655 (hourly/daily) vehicles on Calle Arroyo and 680/6,795 (hourly/daily) vehicles on Rancho Viejo Road. Calle Arroyo and Rancho Viejo Road would be used to access the project site. Based on the information above, construction­ related traffic would increase noise by up to 1.1 dBA. A noise level increase of less than 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment. Therefore, short-term, construction-related impacts associated with worker commute and equipment transport to the project site would be less than significant. The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and 123 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 129 of 184 architectural coating on the project site. Construction is performed in discrete steps, or phases, each with its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on site. Therefore, the noise levels vary as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction­ related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table 4.1 0.G (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.10-12) lists maximum noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments for typical construction equipment included in the FHWA's 2006 Construction Noise Handbook, based on a distance of 50 ft between the equipment and a noise receptor. Typical maximum noise levels range up to 88 dBA Lmax at 50 ft during the noisiest construction phases. The site preparation phase, including excavation and grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels because earthmoving machinery is the noisiest construction equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery such as backfillers, bulldozers, draglines, and front loaders. Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings. Project construction is expected to require the use of scrapers, bulldozers, and water trucks/pickup trucks. Noise associated with the use of each piece of construction equipment for the grading phase is estimated to be between 55 dBA Lmax and 85 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 ft from the active construction area. As shown in Table 4.10.G (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.10-12), the maximum noise level generated by each scraper is assumed to be approximately 85 dBA Lmax at 50 ft. Each bulldozer would generate approximately 85 dBA Lmax at 50 ft. The maximum noise level generated by water trucks/pickup trucks is approximately 55 dBA Lmax at 50 ft from these vehicles. Each doubling of the sound sources with equal strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA. Assuming that each piece of construction equipment operates at some distance from the other equipment, the worst-case combined noise level during this phase of construction would be 88 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 ft from the active construction area. Based on a usage factor of 40 percent, the worst-case combined noise level during this phase of construction would be 84 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 ft from the active construction area. The closest residence is located approximately 220 ft from the project construction boundary and may be subject to short-term construction noise reaching 75 dBA Lmax (71 dBA Leq) generated by construction activities in the project area. Ambient noise levels at the closest residences are approximately 63.5 dBA Leq, based on the short-term noise level measurement at ST-1 shown in Table 4.10.A (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.10- 124 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 130 of 184 5). Although noise levels generated by project construction would be higher than ambient noise levels, increases in ambient noise levels would be minimal and would no longer occur once project construction is completed. The implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would be required to minimize construction noise impacts at the nearest sensitive receptors to a less-than-significant level. Long-Term Noise Impacts. Operation of the proposed project would result in the generation of noise levels above Existing conditions. Noise­generating uses associated with residential uses typically include vehicle traffic and operational noise, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HV AC) equipment and typical motor vehicle/parking area activities. Traffic Noise Impacts. Traffic noise levels under the existing and General Plan Buildout were assessed using the FHW A Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHW A RD 77-108). This model uses a typical vehicle mix for urban/suburban areas in California and requires parameters, including traffic volumes, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry, to compute typical equivalent noise levels during daytime, evening, and nighttime hours. The resultant noise levels are weighted and summed over 24-hour periods to determine the CNEL values. Existing traffic volumeswere obtained from the proposed project's TIA.The standard vehicle mix for Orange County roadways was used for traffic on these roadway segments. Existing and General Plan Buildout without and with project traffic noise levels at 50 ft from the centerline of the outermost travel lane for each roadway segment in the project vicinity are shown in Table 4.10.H (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.10-15). These noise levels represent the worst-case scenario, which assumes that no shielding is provided between traffic and the location where the noise contours are drawn. Appendix G provides the specific assumptions used in developing these noise levels and model printouts. As shown in Table 4.1 0.H, the project-related traffic noise increase would reach up to 2.2 dBA. Noise level increases below 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment. Therefore, traffic noise impacts from project-related traffic on off-site sensitive receptors would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. Operational Noise Impacts. As identified above, the proposed project would generate operational noise, such as from HV AC equipment. Noise generated from HV AC equipment could affect off-site noise-sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. HVAC quipment. The proposed residential project would include ground-floor HV AC equipment. Ground-floor HV AC equipment would generate noise levels of 43 dBA at 50 ft. It is assumed that 125 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 131 of 184 HV AC equipment would operate 24 hours a day as a worst-case scenario. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are multifamily residences located approximately 220 ft northeast of the project site, across Calle Arroyo. At a distance of 220 ft, noise would be attenuated by 13 dBA compared to the noise level measured at 50 ft from the source. Noise levels from HV AC at the closest residence would be 30 dBA Leq (43 dBA -13 dBA = 30 dBA). This noise level would be lower than existing noise levels at the project site. In addition, this noise level would not exceed the City's day (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.), and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) exterior noise level standards of 65, 55, and 45 dBA, respectively. In addition, this noise level would not exceed the City's interior noise standard of 45 dBA for residences. Therefore, noise generated from on-site HVAC equipment would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-11 through 4.10-15.) The land use compatibility of the project site was assessed based on the City's exterior and interior noise standards shown in Table 4.10.E (found at Draft EIR, p.4.10-9). As shown in Table 4.1 0.E (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.10-9), the City's exterior and interior noise standards are 65 dBA CNEL and 45 dBA CNEL, respectively, for single-family and multifamily residences. The FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) was used to evaluate the proposed on-site uses, which would be exposed to traffic noise on 1-5. Traffic noise on Calle Arroyo and Paseo Tirador were not evaluated for the proposed on-site uses because traffic noise on these roadways is low and its contribution to the noise environment is small. Traffic volumes on 1-5 were obtained from Caltrans7 and were adjusted to 2019 traffic using a 1 percent growth each year (total 2 percent growth) and a project trip generation of 890 ADT for the proposed on-site noise assessment. As noted above, under the description of the CBIA v. BAAQMD decision, impacts of the environment on a project are not subject to CEQA review. However, based on the noise analysis conducted for the project in order to comply with the City of San Juan Capistrano, the exterior noise level at the common outdoor areas shall not exceed 65 dBA CNEL and that interior noise levels in habitable rooms shall not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. The following recommendations are based on broad assumptions for typical residential uses. The recommendations should be considered preliminary and confirmed upon final plan approval. Exterior Noise Assessment. For the purposes of this analysis, the noise­ sensitive areas which are required to meet the City's exterior standard of 65 dBA CNEL include the private rear yards of the single-family homes and the common use areas such as the tot lot and gathering areas. The first-floor courtyard areas of the multi-family residences serve as a point 126 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 132 of 184 of access to the units which are not typically considered private and therefore noise-sensitive; furthermore, solid noise barriers are not feasible as they would limit access. Lastly, the City exempts balconies of multi­ family uses from the 65 dBA CNEL standard. To assess potential exterior noise level impacts at the noise-sensitive areas within the proposed project, receptor locations were evaluated. Single-Family Homes. Due to the orientation of the rear-yards associated with the single-family homes on the eastern portion of the project site, the noise reduction associated with distance propagation, the 6 ft high property line wall, and the noise reduction provided by intervening buildings, exterior noise levels would range from 57.1 dBA CNEL to 59.2 dBA CNEL. With noise levels below 65 dBA CNEL at these single-family home rear-yards, no further noise reduction measures are necessary. Tot Lot and Gathering Areas. Noise levels at the proposed tot lot and gathering areas are projected to results in noise levels ranging from 56.9 dBA CNEL to 73.5 dBA CNEL with the incorporation of the 6 ft high property line wall along the western property line and perimeter of the fitness center parking lot. Noise levels at the tot lot will exceed the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard; therefore, an increased height of the perimeter wall is necessary. With the incorporation of a minimum 14 ft high wall near the proposed tot lot, noise levels would be reduced to 64.7 dBA CNEL and all noise-sensitive receptors would be below the City's exterior noise level standard for playground and park uses. Figure 4.10.1 (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.10-19) shows the location and limitations of the increased wall height along with the tot lot and gathering area locations. Interior Noise Assessment. In order to assess the interior noise levels throughout the proposed project, noise levels at both first and third floor heights for various fa9ade locations were calculated to determine which buildings would need upgraded buikling components. Ilased on the EPA Protective Noise Levels, with a combination of exterior walls, doors, and windows, standard construction for Southern California (warm climate) buildings would provide approximately 24 dBA in exterior-to-interior noise reduction with windows and doors closed. Table 4.1 0.J (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.10-21) shows the fa9ade noise levels with a 6 ft high wall at the western property line along I-5 and, where applicable, the reduction provided by intervening buildings is incorporated. Details of the interior noise calculations at each receptor location and at each floor are provided in Appendix B. The results of the analysis show that some of the buildings on the western portion of the project site would need to upgrade the exterior fa9ades in order to achieve adequate noise reduction. This can be accomplished by 127 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 133 of 184 MMNOI-1 MMNOI-2 installing upgraded windows, improving wall construction, or a combo of both. Figure 4.10.1 (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.10-19) shows the locations at which fa9ade upgrades are required. Once final architectural plans are available with the exterior wall details and window types, a Final Acoustic Report shall be prepared to confirm that the interior living spaces of residential dwelling units would meet the City's interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL with windows and doors closed. Mechanical ventilation such as air conditioning would be required for all residential dwelling units so that windows and doors can remain closed for a prolonged period of time. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2, on-site interior noise levels would be consistent with the City's Noise Element standards for residential interior areas. The project contractor shall implement the following measures during construction of the proposed project: •Limit construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Mondays through Fridays and between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction noise is prohibited on Sundays and national holidays. •Equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards. •Place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the active project site. •Locate equipment staging in areas that would create the greatest possible distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the active project site during all construction activities. •Designate a "disturbance coordinator" at the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early or a bad muffler) and would determine and implement reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. Prior to the approval of final building plans for the project, the City shall confirm that the project plans include a 14-foot-high soundwall along the western boundary of the project site adjacent to the tot lot. The Project Applicant shall prepare an acoustic study 128 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 134 of 184 for approval by the Director of Development Services, or designee, that demonstrates that the exterior noise level at the common outdoor areas (tot lot and gathering areas) shall not exceed the 65 A-weighted decibel Community Noise Equivalent Level (dBA CNEL) and that interior noise levels in habitable rooms shall not exceed 45 dBA CNEL, as defined by the California Building Code. Acoustical design features shall be incorporated into the proposed project design, which may include a combination of exterior features to reduce noise, such as berms/walls and/or architectural features such as Sound Transmission Class (STC) rated windows and doors. All STC ratings shall be shown on the building plans and incorporated into the construction of the proposed project. Once final architectural plans with the exterior-wall details and window types are available, a Final Acoustic Report shall be prepared by a qualified consultant to confirm that the interior living spaces of residential dwelling units would meet the City interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL with windows and doors closed. If interior noise level thresholds are still exceeded after the Final Acoustic Report is completed, additional acoustical design features, including fa�ade and window upgrades, shall be incorporated in the building plans in order to meet the interior noise standard. E.TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 1.Tribal Cultural Resources Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in Public Resources Code section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-8.) Explanation: An SLF through the NAHC and AB 52 Native American consultation were conducted for the proposed project. The purpose of these efforts was to identify known tribal cultural resources on or near the project site. The request for a search of the SLF with the NAHC (December 2018) resulted in positive findings. However, no responses were received from Native 129 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 135 of 184 MMCUL-1 American representatives with regard to AB 52 consultation and outreach. However, as stated previously, two comment letters were received during the public review period for the IS/NOP, but after the AB 52 consultation period had concluded. Further, one prehistoric site, CA-ORA-1672, is located within the project site. However, a subsequent testing program at the prehistoric site established that it does not appear to qualify as a significant cultural resource because it lacks integrity and does not contain the data to answer important research questions in prehistory. Due to the presence of cultural resources within the project site and the location of the project site in an area near the San Juan Creek, the project area is considered potentially sensitive for tribal cultural resources. In addition, the City requires monitoring for development projects in culturally sensitive areas. As such, monitoring by an archaeological monitor under the supervision of an Orange County Certified Archaeologist and by a Native American representative is required (see Mitigation Measure CUL-1). Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce any potential impacts to previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level. In addition, in the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during project grading, the County Coroner would be notified immediately, and no further disturbance would occur until the County Coroner makes a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner would notify the NAHC, which would then determine and notify the MLD. With permission from the City, the MLD would complete inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC (see Mitigation Measure CUL-2). Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would reduce potential impacts related to the discovery of unknown Native American human remains on the project site to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-7 through 4.12-8.) Cultural Resources Monitoring and Accidental Discovery. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall retain, with approval of the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) Development Services Director, or designee, a qualified archaeological monitor. A monitoring plan should be prepared by the archaeologist and implemented upon approval by the City. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant, with City approval, shall also retain a Native American monitor after consultation with interested tribal and Native American representatives. Both monitors shall be present on the project site during ground-disturbing activities to monitor rough and finish grading, excavation, and other ground-disturbing activities in the native soils. Because cultural resources were previously identified on the project site, both monitors are required to be present on a full-time basis during initial site preparation and initial ground­ disturbing activities. Further, each monitor shall spot check any ground-disturbing activities ( e.g., finish grading) to ensure that no 130 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 136 of 184 MMCUL-2 cultural resources are impacted during construction activities. If cultural materials are discovered during site preparation, grading, or excavation, the construction contractor shall divert all earthmoving activity within and around the immediate discovery area until a qualified archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the find. Project personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials or human remains and associated materials. To the extent feasible, project activities shall avoid these deposits. Where avoidance is not feasible, the archaeological deposits shall be evaluated for their eligibility for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. If the deposits are not eligible, avoidance is not necessary. If the deposits are eligible, adverse effects on the deposits must be avoided, or such effects must be mitigated. Mitigation can include, but is not necessarily limited to: excavation of the deposit in accordance with a data recovery plan (see California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14(3) Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C)) and standard archaeological field methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials; production of a report detailing the methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials; curation of archaeological materials at an appropriate facility for future research and/or display; an interpretive display of recovered archaeological materials at a local school, museum, or library; and public lectures at local schools and/or historical societies on the findings and significance of the site and recovered archaeological materials. The City Development Services Director, or designee, shall be responsible for reviewing any reports produced by the archaeologist to determine the appropriateness and adequacy of the findings and recommendations. Human Remains. Consistent with the requirements of CCR Section 15064.5( e ), if human remains are encountered during site disturbance, grading, or other construction activities on the projecl site, the construction contractor shall halt work within 25 feet of the discovery; all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the Orange County (County) Coroner notified immediately. No further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the City, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific 131 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 137 of 184 removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Consistent with CCR Section 15064.S(d), if the remains are determined to be Native American and an MLD is notified, the City shall consult with the MLD identified by the NAHC to develop an agreement for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Upon completion of the assessment, the consulting archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results and provide recommendations regarding the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate, and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report shall be submitted to the City Development Services Director, or designee, and the South Central Coastal Information Center. The City Development Services Director, or designee, shall be responsible for reviewing any reports produced by the archaeologist to determine the appropriateness and adequacy of the findings and recommendations. SECTION IV IMPACTS THAN CANNOT BE FULLY MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL The City Council hereby finds that all environmental impacts can be fully mitigated to a less than significant level. 132 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 138 of 184 SECTIONV CUMULATIVE IMP ACTS Regarding the Project's potential to result in cumulative impacts, the City hereby finds as follows: A.AESTHETICS As defined in Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects within the cumulative impact area for aesthetics. The cumulative impact area for aesthetics related to the proposed project is the City of San Juan Capistrano. Several residential and commercial development projects are approved and/or pending within the City. Each of these projects, as well as all proposed development in the City, would be subject to its own consistency analysis for policies and regulations governing scenic quality and would be reviewed for consistency with General Plan goals and policies and Zoning Code development standards applicable to each site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to aesthetics. The proposed project and all related projects are required to adhere to City and State regulations designed to reduce and/or avoid impacts related to aesthetics. With compliance with these regulations, impacts related to aesthetics would be less than cumulatively significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to aesthetics. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-15.) B.AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES There are no designated Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmlands, or Farmlands of Statewide Importance on the project site or in the project's immediate vicinity, and thus the proposed project would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use. Because the project site is not located within an area covered under a Williamson Act contract, nor is it zoned for agricultural use and not currently used for agricultural production, the Project would have no impact on agriculture and forestry resources. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-13 through 4-15.) As a result, no cumulative impact would occur. C.AIR QUALITY As defined in Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects within the cumulative impact area for air quality. The cumulative impact area for air quality related to the proposed project is the Basin. Air pollution is inherently a cumulative impact measured across an air basin. The discussion under Threshold 4.2.2 in the Draft EIR, includes an analysis of the proposed project's contribution to cumulative air impacts. To summarize the conclusion with respect to that 133 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 139 of 184 analysis, the incremental effect of projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively considerable per SCAQMD guidelines: The proposed project's construction-and operation-related regional daily emissions are less than the SCAQMD significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants. In addition, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations on a project-by-project basis would substantially reduce potential impacts associated with the related cumulative projects and basin-wide air pollutant emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions, and the proposed project's cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-21.) D.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES As defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects within the cumulative impact area for biological resources. The project site is undeveloped and is located in the City of San Juan Capistrano; therefore, the cumulative area for biological impacts is the City. The project site is located within lands covered by the MSAA/HCP, which designates a preservation area totaling 32,818 acres. The project site is has designations of Developed and Supplemental Open Space, which are land use categories not considered permanently protected and which do not receive regulatory coverage under the MSAA/HCP. Additionally, the project site is not located within a designated habitat reserve, and therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to the loss of natural habitat in the City. The development of the proposed project would not result in the removal of any sensitive habitat species identified in the MSAA/HCP. Additionally, as part of the proposed project, portions of San Juan Creek and El Homo Creek (5.55 acres) within the MSAA/HCP Planning Area that are not currently protected under the MSAA/HCP would be dedicated as conservation lands as part of the project. This would contribute to the conservation of resources covered under the MSAA/HCP and permanently conserve important portions of the MSAA/HCP Planning Area that are currently subject to impacts based on decisions by local jurisdictions. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to the cumulative loss of biological resources, and impacts on biological resources would be less than cumulatively significant. No mitigation would be required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-25.) E.CULTURAL RESOURCES As defined in Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects within the cumulative impact area for cultural resources. The cumulative impact area for cultural resources for the proposed project is the City of San Juan Capistrano. Potential impacts of the proposed project to unknown cultural resources, when combined with the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the City of San Juan Capistrano, could contribute to a cumulatively significant impact due to the overall loss of archaeological artifacts and cultural remains unique to the region. However, each development proposal received by the City is required to undergo environmental review pursuant to CEQA. If there were any potential for significant impacts to archaeological resources, an investigation would be required to determine the nature and extent of the resources and identify appropriate 134 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 140 of 184 mitigation measures. When resources are assessed and/or protected as they are discovered, impacts to these resources are less than significant. As such, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would ensure that the proposed project, together with cumulative projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact to unique archaeological resources and previously undiscovered buried human remains. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-9 through 4.4-10.) F.ENERGY The geographic area for electricity and natural gas is that of the SDG&E boundaries. The proposed project would result in an increased services demand in electricity and natural gas. Although the proposed project would result in a net increase in electricity, this increase would not require SDG&E to expand or construct infrastructure that could cause substantial environmental impacts. As discussed previously, the total annual electricity consumption the SDG&E service area in 2018 was 18,767.0 GWh (6,359.0 GWh for the residential sector). By 2030, consumption is anticipated to decrease by approximately 2,000 GWh for the low­ demand scenario and increase by 4,000 GWh for the high-demand scenario. While this forecast represents a large increase in electricity consumption, the proposed project's percent of cumulative consumption would negligible. The proposed project, in combination with cumulative development, is well within SDG&E's system-wide net annual increase in electricity supplies over the 2018 to 2030 period, and there are sufficient planned electricity supplies in the region for estimated net increases in energy demands. Similarly, additional natural gas infrastructure is not required to accommodate cumulative development. Total natural gas consumption in the SDG&E service area in 2018 was 482.5 million therms (264.5 million therms for the residential sector). I Between 2018 and 2030, total natural gas consumption in the SDG&E service area is forecast to remain steady for the low-and mid-demand scenarios and to increase by approximately 100 million therms in the high-demand scenario due to intense energy efficiency efforts. The proposed project's percent of cumulative consumption of natural gas in the SDG&E service area would be negligible. It is anticipated that SDG&E would be able to meet the natural gas demand of the related projects without additional facilities. In addition, SDG&E demand forecasts include the growth contemplated by the proposed project and the related projects. Increased energy efficiency to comply with building energy efficiency standards will reduce energy consumption on a per-square-foot basis. In addition, utility companies are required to increase their renewable energy sources to meet the Renewable Portfolio Standards mandate of 60 percent renewable supplies by 2030. SDG&E plans to continue to provide reliable service to its customers and upgrade their distribution systems as necessary to meet future demand. Transportation energy use would also increase; however, this transportation energy use would not represent a major amount of energy use when compared to the amount of existing development and to the total number of vehicle trips and VMT throughout Orange County and the region. The proposed project and related projects are required to comply with various federal and State government legislation to improve energy efficiency in buildings, equipment, and 135 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 141 of 184 appliances, and reduce VMT. Compliance with Regulatory Compliance Measure ENG-1 would ensure that the proposed project does not result in an inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, the proposed project's contribution to impacts related to the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy would not be cumulatively considerable, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-11 through 4.5-12.) G.GEOLOGY AND SOILS As defined in Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probably future projects within the cumulative impact area for geology and soils. For geology and soils, the cumulative study area consists of the area that could be affected by the proposed project activities and the areas affected by other projects whose activities could directly or indirectly affect the geology and soils of the project site. The analysis above indicated no rare or special geological features or soil types on the project site that would be affected by project activities and no other known activities or projects with activities that affect the geology and soils of this site. In addition, the proposed project, as with all foreseeable projects, would be required to comply with the applicable state and local requirements, including the City of San Juan Capistrano Building Code. Therefore, the project's contribution to cumulative geotechnical and soil impacts is less than cumulatively significant. For paleontological resources, the cumulative study area is the geographical area of the City, which is the geographical area covered by the City's General Plan, including all goals and policies included therein. Future development in the City could include excavation and grading that could potentially affect paleontological resources. The cumulative effect of the proposed project is the continued loss of these resources. The proposed project, in conjunction with other development in the City, has the potential to cumulatively impact paleontological resources; however, it should be noted that each development proposal received by the City that requires discretionary approval would be required to undergo environmental review pursuant to CEQA. If there is a potential for significant impacts to paleontological resources, an investigation would be required to determine the nature and extent of the resources and identify appropriate mitigation measures. If subsurface cultural resources are assessed and/or protected as they are discovered, impacts to these resources would be less than cumulatively significant. In addition, the City's General Plan policies would be implemented as appropriate to reduce the effects of additional development within the City. Therefore, the project's contribution to the destruction of known and unknown paleontological resources throughout the City would be less than cumulatively significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-25 through 4.6-26.) 136 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 142 of 184 H.GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS As defined in Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects within the cumulative impact area for GHG emissions. GHG emissions are global pollutants, and therefore, result in cumulative impacts by nature. Consequently, it is speculative to determine how an individual project's GHG emissions would impact California. As such, impacts identified under Section 4.7.6, Project Impacts, are not project-specific impacts to GCC, but are the proposed project's contribution to this cumulative impact. The impact of project-related GHG emissions would not result in a reasonably foreseeable cumulatively considerable contribution to GCC. Additionally, the proposed project, in conjunction with other cumulative projects, would be subject to all applicable regulatory requirements which would further reduce GHG emissions. Further, the proposed project would not conflict with SCAG's 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. Therefore, the project's cumulative contribution of GHG emissions would be less than significant and the project's cumulative GHG impacts would also be less than cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-17.) I.HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Hazardous substances associated with the proposed residential uses would be limited in both the amount and use such that they can be contained (stored or confined within a specific area) without impacting the environment. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-29 through 4-35.) No cumulative impacts would occur. J.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The cumulative study area for hydrology and water quality is the San Juan Creek Watershed. Cumulative development in the San Juan Creek Watershed is a continuation of the existing urban pattern of development that has already resulted in extensive modifications to watercourses in the area. The area's watercourses have been channelized and drainage systems have been put into place to respond to the past urbanization that has occurred in this area. For the cumulative analysis related to hydrology and water quality, the cumulative projects being considered include the related projects, which all discharge to the same watershed as the proposed project (i.e., the San Juan Creek Watershed). Each of these related projects could potentially increase the volume of stormwater runoff and contribute to pollutant loading in stormwater runoff reaching both the City's storm drain system and the San Juan Creek Watershed, thereby resulting in cumulative impacts to hydrology and surface water quality. New development and redevelopment can result in increased stormwater runoff and increased urban pollutants in storm water runoff from project sites. Each related project must include BMPs to reduce impacts to water quality and hydrology in compliance with local ordinances and plans adopted to comply with requirements of the various NPDES permits. Specifically, all projects that disturb 1 acre or more of soil must comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit, the South Orange County MS4 Permit, and the City of San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code. The preparation and approval of a SWPPP and pollution control plan, construction BMP plan, and/or erosion and sediment control plan (for construction), and a 137 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 143 of 184 WQMP (for operation) would be required for each related project to determine appropriate BMPs to minimize water quality impacts. In addition, the preparation and approval of a hydrology study would be required to determine the hydrologic control required to minimize increases in runoff from each site so they do not exceed regulatory requirements or exceed the capacity of downstream stormdrain systems. In addition, the City's Building Official reviews all development projects on a case-by-case basis to ensure that sufficient local and regional drainage capacity is available. Each related project must consider impaired receiving waters and TMDLs for receiving waters. The TMDL program is designed to identify all constituents that adversely affect the beneficial uses of water bodies and then identify appropriate reductions in pollutant loads or concentrations from all sources so that the receiving waters can maintain/attain the beneficial uses in the Basin Plan. Thus, by complying with TMDLs, a project's contribution to overall water quality improvement in the San Juan Creek Watershed in the context of the regulatory program is designed to account for cumulative impacts. Regional programs and BMPs such as TMDL programs and the MS4 Permit Program have been designed under an assumption that the San Juan Creek Watershed would continue their pattern of urbanization. The regional control measures contemplate the cumulative effects of proposed development. The proposed project would be required to comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and the South Orange County MS4 Permit and implement construction and operational BMPs to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff. Compliance with these regional programs and permits constitutes compliance with programs intended to address cumulative water quality impacts. As stated above, each related project would be required to develop a SWPPP; pollution control plan, construction BMP plan, and/or erosion and sediment control plan; a WQMP; and a hydrology study, and would be evaluated individually to determine appropriate BMPs and treatment measures to reduce impacts to surface water quality and hydrology. Because the proposed project and other related projects would comply with applicable NPDES requirements and would include BMPs to reduce the volume of stormwater runoff and pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff, the cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts of the proposed project and the related projects would be less than significant. In addition, the cumulative projects do not encroach in the 100-year floodplain of the project, so there is no cumulative impact from placement of developments within the floodplain. Therefore, the proposed project's incremental hydrology and water quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-20 through 4.8-21.) K.LAND USE AND PLANNING As defined in Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects within the cumulative impact area for land use. The cumulative impact area for land use for the proposed project is the City of San Juan Capistrano. Several residential and commercial development projects are approved and/or pending within the City. Each of these projects, as well as all proposed development in the City, would be subject to its own General Plan consistency analysis and would be reviewed for consistency with adopted land use plans and policies. The City of San Juan Capistrano is an urbanized area with a wide variety of established land 138 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 144 of 184 uses. The land around the project site has been developed with a variety of residential, business park, open space, commercial, and equestrian uses. The area immediately south of the project site contains the San Juan Creek channel and a hillside area, and is primarily undeveloped. As previously stated, the project site is designated for Planned Community uses on the City's General Plan Land Use Map. There are also small portions of the project site designated as General Open Space and Community Park. The proposed land uses are consistent with these designations, and no General Plan Amendment or zoning changes would be required to implement the proposed project. While the proposed project does not require a Zone Change, the Project Applicant would request a concession and waivers to development standards in exchange for providing affordable units restricted to households of moderate income. In total, 14 of the townhomes, or approximately 10.6 percent of the total units, would be designated affordable and would allow the Project Applicant to apply for a concession and waivers to development standards. Following approval of the requested concession and waivers, the project would be consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance, and cumulative land use impacts would be considered less than significant. The proposed project would include land uses that are consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods, and therefore would not contribute to a pattern of development that adversely impacts adjacent land uses or conflicts with existing or planned development. As discussed further above, proposed on-site improvements would be consistent with the long-range planning goals of local and regional governing plans and policies for the surrounding area. There are no incompatibilities between the proposed project and planned future projects in the City, which primarily include residential and commercial developments. All identified City­ related projects would be reviewed for consistency with adopted land use plans and policies by the City. For this reason, the related projects are anticipated to be consistent with applicable General Plan and zoning requirements, or would be subject to allowable exceptions; further, they would be subject to CEQA, mitigation requirements, and design review as applicable. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant land use compatibility impact in the study area, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-32 through 4.9-33.) L.MINERAL RESOURCES The Project would have no impact on mineral resources because the Project site has not historically or is currently utilized for mineral resource extraction. No cumulative impacts would occur. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-49 through 4-51.) M.NOISE As defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects. A cumulative noise or vibration impact would occur if multiple sources of noise and vibration combine to create impacts in close proximity to a sensitive receptor. Therefore, the cumulative area for noise impacts is the project site and any sensitive receptors in the immediately surrounding. Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. 139 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 145 of 184 Construction Noise. Construction activities associated with the proposed project and other construction projects in the area may overlap, resulting in construction noise in the area. However, construction noise impacts primarily affect the areas immediately adjacent to each construction site. Construction noise for the proposed project was determined to be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, which requires compliance with the construction hour restrictions in the City's Municipal Code. Cumulative development in the vicinity of the project site could result in elevated construction noise levels at sensitive receptors in the project area. However, each project would be required to comply with the applicable City's Municipal Code limitations on construction. Therefore, cumulative construction noise impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1. Less Than Significant Impact. Long-Term Traffic Noise Impacts. According to the EPA, cumulative noise impacts represent the combined and incremental effects of human activities that accumulate over time. While the incremental impacts may be insignificant by themselves, the combined effect may result in a significant impact. Conversely, although there may be a significant noise increase due to the proposed project in combination with other related projects (combined effects), it must also be demonstrated that the project has an incremental effect. In other words, a significant portion of the noise increase must be due to the proposed project. Cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to operation of the project and other projects in the vicinity. A project's contribution to a cumulative traffic noise increase could be considered significant when the combined effect exceeds the perception level (i.e., auditory level increase) threshold. The combined effect compares the General Plan Buildout With Project condition to Existing conditions. This comparison accounts for the traffic noise increase generated by a project combined with the traffic noise increase generated by projects in the area. The incremental effect compares the General Plan Buildout With Project condition to the General Plan Buildout Without Project condition. The following combined effect and incremental effect criteria have been utilized to evaluate the overall effect of the cumulative noise mcrease. •Combined Effect. The General Plan Buildout With Project noise level would cause a significant cumulative impact if a 3 .0 dB increase over Existing conditions occurs and the resulting noise level exceeds the applicable exterior standard at a sensitive use. Although there may be a significant noise increase due to the proposed project in combination with other related projects (combined effects), it must also be demonstrated that the project has an incremental effect. In other words, a significant portion of the noise increase must be due to the proposed project. and 140 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 146 of 184 •Incremental Effects. The General Plan Buildout With Project noise level causes a 1.0 dBA increase in noise over the General Plan Buildout Without Project noise level. A significant impact would result only if both the combined and incremental effects criteria have been exceeded at a single roadway segment, since such an occurrence would indicate that there is a significant noise increase due to the proposed project in combination with other related projects and a significant portion of the noise increase is due to the proposed project. Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon and reduces as distance from the source increases. Consequently, only the proposed project and growth due to occur in the project site's general vicinity would contribute to cumulative noise impacts. Table 4.10.K (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.10-26) lists the traffic noise effects along roadway segments in the project vicinity for existing and General Plan buildout traffic noise levels without and with proposed project, including incremental and net cumulative impacts. As shown in Table 4.1 0.K (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.10-26), Calle Arroyo between Paseo Tirador and Rancho Viejo Road would surpass the combined effect threshold of 3.0 dBA over Existing conditions and incremental effect threshold of 1.0 dBA over General Plan No Project conditions; however, the resulting noise level would be 59.4 dBA CNEL at the closest sensitive receptors. In addition, this noise level would not exceed the City's daytime (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.), and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) exterior noise level standards of 65, 55, and 45 dBA, respectively. In addition, this noise level would not exceed the City's interior noise standard of 45 dBA for residences. Therefore, no significant cumulative traffic noise impact would result. In addition, while traffic noise at the segments of Calle Arroyo east of Rancho Viejo Road, Rancho Viejo Road between Calle Arroyo and Paseo Espada, and San Juan Creek Road east of Valle Road would surpass the combined effect threshold of 3.0 dBA over Existing conditions, there is no significant increase in noise beyond the General Plan No Project scenario as a result of the project, and thus no incremental effect. Furthermore, while traffic noise at the segments of Calle Arroyo west of Paseo Tirador and Calle Arroyo between Paseo Tirador and Rancho Viejo Road would surpass the incremental effect threshold of 1.0 dBA over General Plan No Project conditions, there is no significant incremental effect increase. Therefore, cumulative operational mobile source noise impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Long-Term Operational Noise Impacts. Long-term stationary noise sources associated with the development at the proposed project, combined with other cumulative projects, could cause local noise level increases. Noise levels associated with the proposed project and related cumulative projects together 141 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 147 of 184 could result in higher noise levels than considered separately. As previously described, on-site noise sources associated with the proposed project would not exceed any applicable noise standards. Additionally, related cumulative projects would be required to comply with the City's noise level standards and include mitigation measures if standards are exceeded. Therefore, cumulative noise impacts from stationary noise sources would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-24 through 4.10-26.) N.POPULATION AND HOUSING The Project will have less than significant impacts on population and housing. The addition of 132 residential units as a result of the Project would result in approximately 410 additional residents, which would be an increase of 1.08 percent of the City's projected population of 38,100 for the year 2020. Thus, the Project would not have significant unplanned population growth. Moreover, development of the Project would occur on a vacant site, and as such there would be no loss of housing or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-54 through 4-55) As such, no cumulative impacts would occur. 0.PUBLIC SERVICES The Project will have less than significant impacts on public services. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-56 through 4-62.) Although implementation of the Project in conjunction with other related projects in the area would increase the demand for public services, the Project alone would marginally increase the necessity of public services. Moreover, each cumulative project, when adopted, would be consistent with state and local regulations and would require the payment of fees for public services such as police, school, and library services. Similar to the Project, the related projects would be required to demonstrate the availability of services or mitigate accordingly; as such no cumulative impacts would occur. P.RECREATION The Project would provide on-site recreation areas and require the payment of in-lieu park fees, thus making impacts to recreation requirements less than significant. In addition, the Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreation facilities such that substantial deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-63 through 4-64.) As such, no cumulative impacts would occur. Q.TRANSPORTATION As defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects. The cumulative impact area for transportation is the City of San Juan Capistrano. A list of approved/pending projects provided by the City was reviewed to determine whether projects in the vicinity of the project site (if any) should be included in the cumulative condition. With concurrence from the City, the approved/pending projects listed in Table Hin the TIA were identified as cumulative projects. 142 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 148 of 184 Project Plus Cumulative (Opening Year 2021) Condition Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Project Applicant, the project will open in 2021. To develop a Year 2021 condition, an ambient growth rate of 0.5 percent per year (i.e., 1.5 percent total growth) was applied to the existing 2018 traffic counts. This condition also included the proposed project trips and manually assigned trips generated by approved/pending (cumulative) projects. Application of a 0.5 percent per year growth rate to the existing traffic volumes is considered conservative and would account for any additional future development in the project vicinity. Refer to Table H in the TIA for the list of approved/pending projects provided by City staff. This list was reviewed to identify projects in the vicinity of the project site that would contribute traffic in the study area beyond the ambient growth already assumed. Tables 4.11.M and 4.11.N of the Draft EIR summarize the results of the Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative peak hour LOS analysis for the study area intersections using the ICU and HCM methodologies, respectively. As shown in Tables 4.11.M and 4.11.N (found at Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-26 through 4.11-29), all study area intersections, including the hot spot intersections, are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS, with the exception of Rancho Viejo Road/Ortega Highway (LOS E in the p.m. peak hour based on the HCM methodology). However, the delay does not increase by 1.0 second or greater. Therefore, consistent with City Administrative Policy No. 310, a significant project or cumulative impact would not occur at any study area intersection based on the ICU and HCM methodologies. Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative roadway segment ADT volumes, v/c ratios, and LOS are presented in Table 4.11.0 (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.11-31). As Table 4.11.0 indicates, all study area roadway segments, including the hot spot roadways, are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS, with the exception of the following roadway segments: •Camino Capistrano between Ortega Highway and Del Obispo Street (LOS E) •San Juan Creek Road between Valle Road and Camino Capistrano (LOS E) •Valle Road between San Juan Creek Road and I-5 northbound ramps (LOS F) However, the v/c ratio does not increase by 0.01 or greater at these roadway segments. As such, consistent with City Administrative Policy No. 310, a significant project or cumulative impact would not occur at any study area roadway segment. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project under Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative conditions would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to transportation. No mitigation is required. General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) Condition 143 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 149 of 184 Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Buildout (2040) condition includes all planned circulation improvements consistent with the City's General Plan and all known cumulative projects in the project vicinity. Tables 4.11.P and 4.11.Q (found at Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-32 through 4.11-35) summarize the results of the General Plan Buildout (2040) peak-hour LOS analysis for the study area intersections using the ICU and HCM methodologies, respectively. As shown in Table 4.11.P, all study area intersections, including the hot spot intersections, are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS based on the ICU methodology, with the exception of La Novia Avenue/Ortega Highway (LOS E in the p.m. peak hour) and Rancho Viejo Road/Ortega Highway (LOS F in the p.m. peak hour). However, the v/c ratio does not increase by 0.01 or greater. Therefore, consistent with City Administrative Policy No. 310, a significant project or buildout impact would not occur at any study area intersection based on the ICU methodology. As shown in Table 4.11.Q (found at Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-34 through 4.11-35), all study area intersections, including the hot spot intersections, are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS based on the HCM methodology, with the exception of the following intersections: •1-5 southbound ramps/Junipero Serra Road (LOSE in the a.m. peak hour) •Rancho Viejo Road/Ortega Highway (LOS E in the a.m. peak hour and LOS F in the p.m. peak hour) •La Novia Avenue/Calle Arroyo (LOS Fin the a.m. and p.m. peak hour) However, the delay does not increase by 1.0 second or greater at these intersections. Therefore, consistent with City Administrative Policy No. 310, a significant project or buildout impact would not occur at any study area intersection based on the HCM methodology. Buildout roadway segment ADT volumes, v/c ratios, and LOS are presented in Table 4.11.R (found at Draft EIR, p. 4.11-37). As this table indicates, all study area roadway segments, including the hot spot roadways, are forecast to operate at satisfactory LOS, with the exception of the following roadway segments: •Ortega Highway between La Novia Avenue and Rancho Viejo Road (LOS F) •Ortega Highway between Rancho Viejo Road and 1-5 northbound ramps LOS F) •Camino Capistrano between Ortega Highway and Del Obispo Street (LOS E) •San Juan Creek Road between Valle Road and Camino Capistrano (LOS E) 144 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 150 of 184 •Valle Road between San Juan Creek Road and I-5 northbound ramps (LOS F) However, the v/c ratio does not increase by 0.01 or greater at these roadway segments. As such, consistent with City Administrative Policy No. 310, a significant project or buildout impact would not occur at any study area roadway segment. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project under General Plan Buildout conditions would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to transportation. No mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-25 through 4.11-37.) R.TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES As defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects within the cumulative impact area for tribal cultural resources. The cumulative study area for tribal cultural resources is the geographical area of the City of San Juan Capistrano, which is the geographical area covered by the City's General Plan, including all goals and policies therein. Future development in the City could include excavation and grading that could potentially impact tribal cultural resources. The cumulative effect of the proposed project would be the continued loss of these resources. The proposed project, in conjunction with other development in the City, has the potential to cumulatively impact tribal cultural resources; however, it should be noted that each development proposal requiring a discretionary approval received by the City would undergo environmental review pursuant to CEQA. If there is a potential for significant impacts to tribal cultural resources, an investigation would be required to determine the nature and extent of the resources and to identify appropriate mitigation measures. If subsurface cultural resources are assessed and/ or protected as they are discovered, impacts to these resources would be less than significant. In addition, applicable City ordinances and General Plan policies would be implemented as appropriate to reduce the effects of additional development to tribal cultural resources within the City. The proposed project would result in less than cumulatively significant impacts with respect to tribal cultural resources following implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-10.) s.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Although implementation of the Project in conjunction with other related projects in the area would increase the demand for utilities and service systems, the Project alone would marginally increase the necessity of the relocation or construction of such utilities and service systems. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp. 4-70 through 4-78.) Moreover, each cumulative project, when adopted, would be consistent with state and local regulations and undergo its own environmental review. Similar to the Project, the related projects would be required to demonstrate the availability of services or mitigate accordingly; as such no cumulative impacts would occur. T.WILDFIRE The Project would have less than significant impacts on wildfire risks, and therefore the Project would not be cumulatively considerable. (Appendix A [Initial Study], pp.4-79 through 4-82.) SECTION VI 145 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 151 of 184 FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES Sections 15126(c) and 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, require that an EIR address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur should the project be implemented. Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if any of the following would occur: •The project would involve a large commitment of non-renewable resources; •The primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future generations to similar uses; •The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents; or •The proposed consumption of resources is not justified. The types and level of development associated with the proposed project would consume limited, slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources. This consumption would occur during construction of the proposed project and would continue throughout the operational lifetime of the proposed project. The development of the proposed project would require a commitment of resources that would include (1) building materials, (2) fuel and operational materials/resources, and (3) the transportation of goods and people to and from the project site. Construction of the proposed project would require consumption of resources that are not replenishable or that may renew so slowly as to be considered nonrenewable. These resources would include certain types of lumber and other forest products (e.g., hardwood lumber), aggregate materials used in concrete and asphalt (e.g., sand, gravel, and stone), metals (e.g., steel, copper, and lead), petrochemical construction materials (e.g., plastics), and water. Fossil fuels ( e.g., gasoline and oil) would also be consumed in the use of construction vehicles and equipment. Water, which is a limited, slowly renewable resource, would also be consumed during construction of the proposed project. However, given the temporary nature of construction activities, water consumption during construction would result in a less than significant impact on water supplies. Furthermore, the use of construction vehicles and equipment would require the consumption of nonrenewable fossil fuels such as natural gas and oil. As with other resources consumed during construction, the consumption of nonrenewable fossil fuels for energy use would occur on a temporary basis during construction of the proposed project. Operation of the proposed project would continue to expend similar nonrenewable resources that are currently consumed within San Juan Capistrano. These include energy resources such as electricity, petroleum-based fuels, fossil fuels, and water. Energy resources would be used for heating and cooling buildings, transportation within the project site, and building lighting. Fossil fuels are primary energy sources for project operation. This existing, finite energy source would thus be incrementally reduced. Under Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), conservation practices limiting the amount of energy consumed by the proposed project would be required during operation. Additionally, the 146 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 152 of 184 proposed project would include the implementation of conservation and sustainability features as listed in the EIR, Section 3.3.9, Conservation and Sustainability Features, in Chapter 3.0, Project Description. Nevertheless, the use of such resources would continue to represent a long-term commitment of essentially nonrenewable resources. The proposed project would result in the limited use of potentially hazardous materials during project operation typical of residential uses ( e.g., cleaning solvents, fertilizers, and pesticides). Such materials would be used, handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with manufacturers' instructions and handled in compliance with applicable government regulations and standards that would serve to protect against a significant and irreversible environmental change resulting from the accidental release of hazardous materials. In summary, construction and operation of the proposed project would commit the use of slowly renewable and nonrenewable resources and would limit the availability of these resources on the project site for future generations or for other uses during the life of the proposed project. However, the continued use of such resources during operation would be typical of other residential uses and consistent with regional and local urban design and development goals for the area, including the City's General Plan. As a result, the use of nonrenewable resources in this manner would not result in significant irreversible changes to the environment under the proposed project. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-4 through 6-5.) SECTION VII GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS Sections 15126( d) and 15126.2( e) of the State CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR analyze growth-inducing impacts and discuss the ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth or construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2( d) also requires a discussion of the characteristics of projects that may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. To address these issues, potential growth-inducing effects were examined through analysis of the following questions: •Would the project remove obstacles to, or otherwise foster, population growth (e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development)? •Would the project foster economic growth? •Would approval of the project involve some characteristic that may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? Growth-inducing effects are not to be construed as necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2(e)). This issue is presented to provide additional information on ways in which the proposed project could 147 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 153 of 184 contribute to significant changes in the environment beyond the direct consequences of developing the proposed land uses as described in earlier sections of this Draft EIR. Removal of Obstacles to, or Otherwise Foster, Population Growth The area surrounding the project site is already urbanized and developed with a mix of office, commercial, religious, residential, and open space uses, so limited population growth is feasible within the vicinity of the project site. ln any event, the proposed project would not remove impediments to population growth in the area surrounding the project site. While the proposed project may require water, sewer, electricity, and natural gas lines on site and in the immediate vicinity of the project site, such improvements would be intended primarily to meet project-related demand through connections to existing utility facilities in the area, and would not necessitate substantial utility infrastructure improvements. In addition, the 20-foot wide multi-purposed pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian trail proposed along the southern boundary of the project site is intended to facilitate active transportation, and would not foster off-site population growth. Although businesses that provide construction related services may hire a small amount of additional employees to perform construction work for the proposed project, the construction of the proposed project would not generate a substantial number of construction-related jobs because it is expected that local and regional construction workers would be available to meet the proposed project's construction needs. Additionally, short-term construction activities would be temporary in nature and would cease upon completion of project construction. Further, the proposed project would not induce material population growth because most of these employees are not expected to change their place of residence as a direct consequence of working on the proposed project. The work requirements of most construction projects are highly specialized so construction workers remain at a job site only for the limited time in which their specific skills are needed to complete a particular phase of the construction process. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce material population growth from a short-term employment perspective. Upon completion of the proposed project, the development of 132 residential units is anticipated to generate approximately 410 additional residents on the project site. While this direct growth would increase the demand for neighborhood-servicing commercial uses in the area surrounding the project site, the proposed project would be located in a built-out developed area of the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) that is already served by neighborhood-serving retail and service uses. Although some local businesses that provide goods and services to nearby residents could hire a small number of additional employees to accommodate the minor increase in clientele associated with the proposed project, the additional hiring is not expected to induce material population growth because most of these new employees hired by local businesses are not expected to change their place of residence. With regard to project operation, the proposed project is residential and does not include the development of employment-generating uses. As such, the proposed project would not create an indirect demand for additional housing or households in the area. Therefore, given that the employment opportunities generated by the construction of the proposed project would be filled by people who would commute to the project site and operation of the proposed project would 148 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 154 of 184 not result in employment generation, the potential population growth associated with project employees would be minimal. Foster Economic Growth In its existing condition, the project site is undeveloped and vacant and is primarily characterized by dirt and scattered ruderal vegetation. Therefore, the project site currently does not generate revenue for the City. The proposed project would provide a new source of property tax revenues to the City, thereby increasing the local property tax base. Because the proposed project does not include sales tax generating uses, the proposed project would not result in a change in the City's sales tax revenues. The construction of the proposed project would generate construction-related jobs in San Juan Capistrano during the construction period. However, the proposed project does not contain employment-generating uses, and therefore, would not provide long-term employment opportunities. The 410 additional residents generated by implementation of the proposed project could, however, foster economic growth associated with the sales tax receipts of local businesses who would serve the new residents. Other Characteristics The proposed project includes the construction of a 132-unit residential development consisting of 43 two-story detached single-family units and 89 three-story attached townhome units. The project site is zoned as a Planned Community District associated with the adopted Ortega Planned Community Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP 78-01). There are also small portions of the project site designated as General Open Space and Community Park. The proposed land uses are consistent with these designations and no General Plan Amendment or zoning changes would be required to implement the proposed project. Therefore, the approval of the proposed project does not involve any characteristics that would encourage or facilitate other development projects. It should be noted that the project site is identified in the City's General Plan 2014-2021 Housing Element (Adopted January 21, 2014, Revised September 19, 2017) as accommodating 230 very-low-income units. The proposed project includes 118 market-rate units and 14 moderate-income affordable unils on lhe site. As such, the project would result in 216 fewer affordable housing units for the site than identified in the City's Housing Element. Senate Bill (SB) 166, which went into effect on January 1, 2018, requires a local jurisdiction to ensure that its Housing Element inventory can accommodate at all times its remaining unmet Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Therefore, to ensure compliance with SB 166, the City has identified an alternative site which includes 9.3 acres designated as Very High Density Residential Land Use. This site, identified as Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 121-070-57, is entitled to be developed at a density of 30 dwelling units per acre, or 279 units. The 219 units, which are no longer able to be accommodated with the proposed development on the project site, can be accommodated on this alternative site. The City will notify the State Department of Housing and Community Development regarding the alternative site identified to accommodate the replacement housing should the proposed project be approved. 149 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 155 of 184 Because the future development of the 230 very-low-income units was already required regardless of whether or not the proposed project is approved, the proposed project would not directly increase the City's population beyond the number of residents who would live in the 132 on-site residential units. Therefore, the approval of the proposed project does not involve any characteristics that would encourage or facilitate other growth that was not anticipated in the City's General Plan. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-1 through 6-4.) A.BACKGROUND SECTION VIII ALTERNATIVES The Draft EIR analyzed three alternatives to the Project as proposed and evaluated these alternatives for their ability to avoid or reduce the Project's significant environmental effects while also meeting the majority of the Project's objectives. The City finds that it has considered and rejected as infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR and described below. This section sets forth the potential alternatives to the Project analyzed in the EIR and evaluates them in light of the Project objectives, as required by CEQA. Where significant impacts are identified, section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to consider and discuss alternatives to the proposed actions. Subsection (a) states: (a)An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. Subsection 15126.6(6) states the purpose of the alternatives analysis: (b)Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1 ), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. In subsection 15126.6( c ), the State CEQA Guidelines describe the selection process for a range of reasonable alternatives: 150 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 156 of 184 ( c)The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the Project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's determination. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. The range of alternatives required is governed by a "rule of reason" that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed Project. Alternatives are limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project. B.PROJECT OBJECTIVES The following objectives have been established for the Project (Draft EIR, pp. 5-2 through 5-.3) 1.Develop a residential development to increase the City's market-rate and affordable housing stock. 2.Develop a project that balances the development potential of the project site with environmental considerations. 3.Revitalize the vacant site with a well-designed and landscaped residential project that is compatible with the surrounding community. 4.Increase the City's tax base by generating revenue for the City through property taxes. 5.Provide non-traditional home ownership opportunities through the provision of townhomes and affordable units. 6.Provide recreational opportunities for the surrounding community with incorporation of a multi-purpose pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian trail and associated amenities. 7.Dedicate approximately 5.6 acres of the project site adjacent to the San Juan Creek as a conservation area. 8.Locate housing adjacent to available infrastructure to serve the project. 9.Implement the City's General Plan. 151 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 157 of 184 C.ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines specifies that an EIR should (1) identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were eliminated from detailed consideration because they were determined to be infeasible during the scoping process; and (2) briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's determination. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives; (ii) infeasibility; and/or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. The following alternative was considered but rejected as part of the environmental analysis for the Project: •Alternative Project Site (Draft EIR, pp. 5-4 through 5-5.) Finding: The City Council rejects the Alternative Project Site alternative, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative would likely not further reduce any of the proposed project's significant impacts, all of which have been mitigated to less than significant levels; (2) the alternative is infeasible given that the Project Applicant does not own or control any other property within the City that would be suitable for development of the proposed project, nor can the Project Applicant reasonably acquire or control an alternative site in the City in a timely fashion that would allow for the implementation of a project with similar uses and square footage; and (3) the alternative would fail to achieve several of the project objectives. Therefore, this alternative is eliminated from further consideration. D.EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS The alternatives selected for further detailed review within the EIR focus on alternatives that could reduce significant environmental impacts, while still meeting most of the basic Project objectives. Those alternatives include: •Alternative 1: No Project/No Development Alternative (Draft EIR, pp. 5-8 through 5-9.) •Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative (Draft EIR, pp. 5-9 through 5-17.) 1.Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative Description: Consistent with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the No Project/No Development Alternative assumes the existing land uses and condition of the project site at the time the NOP was published (November 7, 2019) would continue to exist without any changes. The setting of the project site at the time the NOP was published is described throughout Chapter 4.0 of the Draft EIR with respect to individual environmental issues, and forms the baseline of the impact assessment of the proposed project. The No Project/No Development Alternative represents the environmental conditions that would exist if no new development of any kind were to occur on the 152 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 158 of 184 project site. The No Project/No Development Alternative anticipates that the project site would remain primarily as a vacant and undeveloped lot, with no improvements to the existing condition of the San Juan Creek Trail. Although there would be no improvements implemented on the project site as proposed by the project, the General Plan land use designation of Planned Community, General Open Space, and Community Park, and the Zoning Designation of Planned Community District, would still be applicable to the project site. Under those designations, future residential development at density of up to 30 du/acre, or 483 units, could occur. The No Project/No Development Alternative would allow existing conditions on the project site to remain unchanged. (Draft EIR, p. 5-8.) Impacts: The project site is currently undeveloped and vacant. In its existing condition, the San Juan Creek Trail is publicly accessible from the project site; the trail begins at the intersection of Calle Arroyo and Paseo Tirador, traverses the project site in a southwest direction, and terminates at the Pacific Ocean in the City of Dana Point. This alternative assumes that the existing use of the San Juan Creek Trail would continue to operate into the future. It is assumed that no improvements or new construction would occur at the project site. Under the No Project Alternative, the visual setting of the project site would not be altered. No new air pollutant emissions or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would be generated by short-term construction since no new construction is proposed, and new residents and the residential development would not be present to result in operational emissions. There would be no impacts related to biological resources or geology and soils because the project site would remain undisturbed and undeveloped. Unknown potential archaeological, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources would remain undisturbed. No changes in energy usage would result because the site would remain undeveloped. There would be no change to the project site with regard to the percentage of the site that would remain pervious or the volume of runoff during a storm event and runoff treatment from best management practices (BMPs) that are included in the proposed project. The project site would remain designated for very-low income affordable housing units in the City's General Plan Housing Element, and the site's use would be consistent with the General Plan and zoning documents. No short-term construction noise impacts or long­ term operational noise impacts would occur to the surrounding area. Further, no additional vehicle trips would be generated by construction or operations at the site. The No Project Alternative would not result in any physical changes to the project site and there would not be a potential for new environmental impacts to occur. Overall, the No Project Alternative would result in fewer environmental impacts than the proposed project because no construction or development would take place. (Draft EIR, p. 5-8.) Attainment of Project Objectives: The No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the Project Objectives. Without the proposed project, the project site would not be developed with a 132-unit residential development (including 14 affordable units), amenities, and a multi-purpose pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian trail. In addition, 153 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 159 of 184 although the project site would remain undeveloped, a 5 .6 acre portion of the project site would not be dedicated as a conservation area. The No Project/No Development Alternative would not do any of the following: develop a residential development to increase the City's market-rate and affordable housing stock (Project Objective 1); develop a project that balances the development potential of the project site with environmental considerations (Project Objective 2); revitalize the vacant site with a well­ designed and landscaped residential project that is compatible with the surrounding community (Project Objective 3); increase the City's tax base by generating revenue for the City through property taxes (Project Objective 4); provide non-traditional home ownership opportunities through the provision of townhomes and affordable units (Project Objective 5); provide recreational opportunities for the surrounding community with incorporation of a multi-purpose pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian trail and associated amenities (Project Objective 6); dedicate approximately 5.6 acres of the project site adjacent to the San Juan Creek as a conservation area (Project Objective 7); locate housing adjacent to available infrastructure to serve the project (Project Objective 8); nor would it implement the City's General Plan (Project Objective 9). (Draft EIR, p. 5-9.) Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative, on the following ground, which provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1)the alternative would not achieve any of the Project objectives. 2.Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative De cription: Alternative 2 would include a reduced intensity residential development consisting of 100 dwelling units. The Reduced Project Alternative would include 32 two­ story detached single-family units and 68 three-story attached townhome units, which is the same ratio of detached single-family and attached townhomes as the proposed project. This alternative would include 11 affordable units, which is 11 percent of the total units, and a similar percentage of affordable units as provided by the proposed project. The project site would be divided by unit type, with single-family units and townhomes constructed on the eastern and western portions of the site, respectively, similar to the proposed project. The residential density of Alternative 2 would total 6.2 du/ac, which is substantially lower than the maximum density of 30.0 du/ac allowed on the site, and lower than the density (8.2 du/acre) proposed under the Proposed Project. Alternative 2 would also include a 20-foot (ft)-wide multi-purpose pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian trail along the project site's southern boundary. Fewer amenities would be proposed with Alternative 2, although a gathering area with barbeques, seating, a tot lot, an equestrian hitching post, bicycle racks, drinking fountains, and trash receptacles would be provided within the development. This alternative would dedicate approximately 4.2 acres of the project site adjacent to the San Juan Creek as a conservation area, which is a smaller acreage dedicated than under the proposed project. For purposes of the alternative analysis, it is assumed that the architectural design, landscaping, and lighting characteristics for Alternative 2 would be similar to the Proposed Project. 154 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 160 of 184 This alternative would be consistent with the site's General Plan land use designation of Planned Community. There are also small portions of the project site designated as General Open Space and Community Park. The land uses proposed under Alternative 2 would be consistent with the existing land use designations. The project site is zoned as a Planned Community District associated with the adopted Ortega Planned Community Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP 78-01). Alternative 2 would also be consistent with the existing zoning. Therefore, no General Plan Amendment (GPA) or zoning changes would be required to implement Alternative 2. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-9 through 5-10.) Impacts: As stated previously, the project site is currently undeveloped and vacant. The following sections describe potential environmental impacts that would occur upon implementation of Alternative 2, Reduced Project Alternative. Aesthetics. Under Alternative 2, the visual setting of the project site would be altered to a similar, although lesser, degree as compared to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would have less than significant impacts related to scenic resources, light, glare, and the existing visual character of the project site and its surroundings. Under Alternative 2, 11 of the townhomes, or approximately 11 percent of the total units, would be designated affordable and would allow the Project Applicant to apply for a concession and waivers of development standards. Upon approval of the concession and waivers requested as part of the project, both the proposed project and Alternative 2 would be consistent with all applicable General Plan and zoning regulations governing aesthetics and scenic quality on the property. Additionally, both the proposed project and Alternative 2 would have no impact associated with State Scenic Highways because no official State Scenic Highways are located in the vicinity of the project. Overall, impacts to aesthetics under Alternative 2 are reduced, but similar to impacts associated with the proposed project. No mitigation is required. Because impacts related to aesthetics for Alternative 2 would be similar to those associated with the proposed project, cumulative impacts would also be less than cumulatively significant, and no mitigation would be required. Air Quality. Due to the reduced size of the project, it can be assumed that construction­ related criteria air pollutant emissions generated under Alternative 2 would be similar, but slightly less, than emissions expected under the proposed project. Further, Regulatory Compliance Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3 would be applicable to Alternative 2 and would ensure compliance with SCAQMD standard conditions, including Rule 402 (Nuisance) to control nuisance emissions, Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) to control fugitive dust, and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) to control VOC emissions from paint. Overall, construction impacts related to air quality would be less than significant and would be similar, but slightly less than impacts generated by the proposed project. Under Alternative 2, fewer new residents and a reduced residential development would result in reduced operational emissions as compared to the proposed project. Alternative 155 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 161 of 184 2 would result in fewer operational criteria air pollutants than the proposed project. As such, because Alternative 2 results in fewer operational emissions as compared to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would not exceed the significance thresholds of criteria pollutants for which the project region is nonattainment under the CAAQS or NAAQS. Further, both the proposed project and Alternative 2 are not anticipated to produce emissions that could lead to objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people because implementation of both projects involves the development of a residential community, which do not typically produce odorous emissions. Overall, operational impacts related to air quality would be less than significant and would be less than impacts generated by the proposed project. Alternative 2, similar to the proposed project, is consistent with the current General Plan land use designations on the project site and would not exceed the growth assumptions in the AQMP, is consistent with land use planning strategies set forth by SCAQMD, and includes implementation of all feasible air quality rules to reduce emissions. Therefore, Alternative 2, similar to the proposed project, would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2016 AQMP because the construction and operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds. Alternative 2 would have less than significant impacts with respect to air quality, and impacts would be further reduced with the incorporation of Regulatory Compliance Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3. Overall, impacts to air quality under Alternative 2 are reduced as compared to impacts associated with the proposed project. No mitigation is required. Because impacts related to air quality for Alternative 2 would be less than those associated with the proposed project, cumulative impacts would also be less than cumulatively significant, and no mitigation would be required. Biological Resources. Similar to the proposed project, the project site under Alternative 2 would be cleared, excavated, graded, and paved, and the area of disturbance would be similar to that of the proposed project. Therefore, Mitigation Measures BI0-1 through BI0-7 would still be applicable under Alternative 2 to ensure that potential impacts to biological resources are reduced to a less than significant level. Further, Regulatory Compliance Measure BI0-1 would also be applicable to Alternative 2 to ensure trail maintenance during project operation. As such, biological impacts associated with Alternative 2 are considered to be less than significant with mitigation and similar to those of the proposed project. However, overall impacts related to biological resources would be greater under Alternative 2 because a reduced amount of land would be preserved as conservation area (approximately 4.2 acres as compared to 5.6 acres under the proposed project). Although this area is not currently developed, a reduction in conservation area could allow for future development to occur on the 1.4 acres that would not be conserved under Alternative 2. Overall, Alternative 2 would have less than significant impacts with respect to biological resources with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure BI0-1 through BI0-7 and Regulatory Compliance Measure BI0-1. Although impacts related to biological resources for Alternative 2 would be greater than those associated with the proposed project due to smaller area dedicated for conservation, 156 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 162 of 184 cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively significant, and no mitigation would be required. Cultural Resources. Under Alternative 2, impacts to potential archaeological and paleontological resources would be similar to the proposed project because the project site boundaries and disturbance area would be essentially the same as under the proposed project. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would still be applicable under Alternative 2 in order to protect any unknown archaeological resources and previously undiscovered buried human remains. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, Alternative 2 would have less than significant impacts to archaeological resources and previously undiscovered buried human remains. Overall, impacts to cultural resources under Alternative 2 would be similar to the proposed project's impacts because the area of disturbance would remain the same. Because impacts related to cultural resources for Alternative 2 would be similar to those associated with the proposed project, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would also ensure that Alternative 2, together with cumulative projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact to unique archaeological resources and previously undiscovered buried human remains. Energy. Under Alternative 2, less energy would be used during project construction because of the reduced size of the residential development and other components as compared to the proposed project. Similarly, less energy would be used during project operation because the project would accommodate fewer residents under Alternative 2. Specifically, electricity, natural gas, and construction-and operation-related fuel consumption would be reduced under Alternative 2. Regulatory Compliance Measure ENG-1 would still be applicable under Alternative 2 in order to ensure that the project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction and operation. With incorporation of Regulatory Compliance Measure ENG-1, Alternative 2 would have less than significant impacts with respect to energy. Overall, impacts to energy under Alternative 2 would be less than significant and would be less than impacts generated by the proposed project. No mitigation is required. Because impacts related to energy for Alternative 2 would be less than those associated with the proposed project, cumulative impacts would also be less than cumulatively significant, and no mitigation would be required. Geology and Soils. Under Alternative 2, similar impacts would occur to geology and soils as compared to the proposed project because the project site boundaries and the area of disturbance would remain essentially the same as under the proposed project. Although Alternative 2 would construct fewer residential units than the proposed project, the project would be located on the same soils with the same geological conditions, and therefore, would result in potentially significant impacts with respect to strong seismic ground shaking, ground failure (including liquefaction), slope stability, corrosive soils, ground settlement, expansive soils, and the destruction of paleontological resources, similar to the proposed project. As such, Mitigation Measures GE0-1 through GE0-5 157 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 163 of 184 and Regulatory Compliance Measures GE0-1 through GE0-3 would be applicable to Alternative 2, similar to the proposed project. With the implementation of the mitigation measures and regulatory compliance measures, potential impacts for Alternative 2 with respect to geology and soils would be less than significant and similar to those of the proposed project. Overall, impacts to geology and soils under Alternative 2 are similar to impacts associated with the proposed project. Because impacts related to geology and soils for Alternative 2 would similar to those associated with the proposed project, implementation of Mitigation Measures GE0-1 through GE0-5 and Regulatory Compliance Measures GE0-1 through GE0-3 would also ensure that Alternative 2, together with cumulative projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Due to the reduced size, it can be assumed that construction-related GHG emissions generated under Alternative 2 would be similar, but slightly less, than emissions expected under the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, GHG emissions generated during construction of Alternative 2 would be temporary, would cease upon project completion, and would not result in a permanent increase in emissions. As such, construction-related impacts related to GHG emission would be less than significant. It is reasonable to conclude that operational impacts related to GHG emissions would be less that the proposed project due to the reduction in new residents and fewer residential units constructed Alternative 2. Consequently, GHG emissions generated under Alternative 2 would also fall under the SCAQMD interim screening-level bright-line threshold of 3,500 MT of CO2e per year for residential developments and would be less than significant. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would not conflict with the goals of the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Further, Alternative 2 would not be considered regionally significant per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15206. Thus, the project would not conflict with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS targets because those targets were established and are applicable on a regional level. Overall, impacts to GHG emissions under Alternative 2 are less than impacts associated with the proposed project and are less than significant No mitigation is required. Because impacts related to GHG emissions for Alternative 2 would be less than those associated with the proposed project, cumulative impacts would also be less than cumulatively significant. Hydrology and Water Quality. The modification and installation of existing and new utilities and infrastructure associated with the proposed project would still occur under Alternative 2. Similar to the proposed project, the project site under Alternative 2 would be cleared, excavated, graded, and paved, and the area of disturbance would be approximately the same. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would change the use on the project site, increase impervious surface area, increase stormwater runoff, and change the pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff. Alternative 2 would be required to comply with all National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and City 158 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 164 of 184 regulations governing hydrology and water quality. In compliance with these requirements, drainage facilitates to accommodate stormwater runoff and BMPs to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff would be implemented. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, impacts related to surface and groundwater quality, groundwater supplies, erosion and siltation, flooding, storm drain capacity, polluted runoff, release of pollutants, and conflict with water quality and groundwater plans under Alterative 2 would be less than significant. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would be constructed within a 100-year floodplain Zone AE. Alternative 2, similar to the proposed project, would be designed in compliance with the design requirements of Section 8-11.115 of the City's Municipal Code, which specifies design requirements for developments within the 100-year floodplain. The project under Alternative 2 would be required to obtain an Elevation certificate, as outlined in Regulatory Compliance Measure WQ-1. In addition, as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure WQ-2, the project under Alternative 2 would be required to process a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) or Conditional Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (CLOMR-F) during final design and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) or Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (LOMR-F) upon project completion through the City, the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). With compliance with Regulatory Compliance Measures WQ-1 and WQ-2, Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Overall, impacts to hydrology and water quality under Alternative 2 would be similar to those of the proposed project. No mitigation is required. Because impacts related to hydrology and water quality for Alternative 2 would be similar to those associated with the proposed project, cumulative impacts would also be less than cumulatively significant, and no mitigation would be required. Land Use and Planning. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would have less than significant impacts related to land use and planning. Under Alternative 2, as well as the proposed project, there would be no impacts related to the division of an existing community. Though Alternative 2 would represent a reduced project with fewer residential units, the proposed uses would be the same under the proposed project and Alternative 2. As such, Alternative 2 would still be consistent with both the existing General Plan land use designations of Planned Community, General Open Space, and Community Park and zoning designation of Planned Community District associated with the adopted Ortega Planned Community Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) 78-01. As under the proposed project, the implementation of Alternative 2 would not require a General Plan Amendment or Zoning Amendment. Alternative 2 would be consistent with the policies contained in the City's General Plan, SCAG's 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan, and SCAG's 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. Under Alternative 2, 11 of the townhomes, or approximately 11 percent of the total units, would be designated affordable and would allow the Project Applicant to apply for a concession and waivers to development standards. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would be entitled to one incentive or concession under the State density 159 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 165 of 184 bonus law and the City's affordable housing ordinance. Additionally, Alternative 2 would be entitled to waivers of development standards as necessary to prevent physical preclusion of the project alternative. It is reasonable to assume that these affordable housing waivers would be approved, unless the City were to find that the waiver to the development standard would have a specific adverse impact as defined in Section 9- 3 .505( d)(3)(L) of the City's Municipal Code, and would result in an adverse impact upon health, safety, the physical environment, or a designated historical resource. Following approval of the requested concession and waivers, Alternative 2 would be consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance. As such, impacts related to land use under Alternative 2 are considered to be less than significant and predominantly similar to those associated with the proposed project. However, under Alternative 2, greater impacts would occur because fewer residential units would be constructed to meet the City's housing needs, including both market-rate and affordable units. No mitigation is required. Although impacts related to land use and planning for Alternative 2 would be greater than those associated with the proposed project due to the provision of fewer residential units, cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively significant, and no mitigation would be required. Noise. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would encompass the same amount of acreage within the same proximity to noise receptors. Grading and site preparation activities are the loudest aspects of construction, and the grading and site preparation involved with Alternative 2 require a similar amount of, but slightly less, ground disturbance as the proposed project. However, Alternative 2 would result in the constr uction of less residential units and building area as compared to the proposed project. As such, construction-related noise generated under Alternative 2 would be produced for a slightly shorter period of time than the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would also implement Mitigation Measure NOI-1, which requires adherence to noise restrictions during project construction. Alternative 2 would result in a similar amount of, but slightly less, ground vibration during construction as the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, vibration levels under Alternative 2 at the closest commercial buildings would not exceed the United States Federal Transit Association (FTA) community annoyance threshold of 84 vibration velocity decibels (V dB) for land uses similar to office uses. In addition, this vibration level would not exceed the FTA damage threshold of 94 VdB (0.2 in/sec peak particle velocity [PPV]) for buildings constructed of non-engineered timber and masonry. Therefore, noise and ground-borne vibration generated from construction activities associated with Alternative 2 would be similar to impacts under the proposed project. Overall, construction-related noise and vibration impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than significant. The City's exterior and interior noise standards are 65 dBA CNEL and 45 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), respectively, for single-family and multifamily residences. Alternative 2 would result in the operation of fewer residential units and building area as compared to the proposed project. Because Alternative 2 is proposed on the same project site as the proposed project, exterior noise levels would be the same in both circumstances. Under Alternative 2, it is assumed that the tot lot and 160 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 166 of 184 gathering areas would be located in similar positions on the project site as compared to the proposed project. The noise sensitive areas under Alternative 2 which are required to meet the City's exterior standard of 65 dBA CNEL include the private rear yards of the single-family homes and the common use areas such as the tot lot and gathering areas. Similar to the proposed project, exterior noise levels would be below 65 dBA CNEL at the single-family home rear-yards, and no further noise reduction measures would be necessary. It is assumed that the tot lot and the gathering areas would be sited in a similar location under Alternative 2 as for the proposed project. Under the proposed project, noise levels at the proposed tot lot and gathering areas are projected to exceed the 65 A-weighted decibel Community Noise Equivalent Level (dBA CNEL) exterior noise standard; therefore, similar to the proposed project an increased height of the perimeter wall would be necessary under Alternative 2. Therefore, Alternative 2 would require Mitigation Measure NOI-2, which would incorporate a minimum 14-foot-high wall near the proposed tot lot, thereby reducing noise levels to 64. 7 dBA CNEL and all noise sensitive receptors below the City's exterior noise level standard for playground and park uses. Similar to the proposed project, under Alternative 2 some of the buildings on the western portion of the project site would need to upgrade the exterior fa9ades in order to achieve adequate interior noise reduction. This can be accomplished by installing upgraded windows, improving wall construction, or a combo of both. As in the proposed project, Alternative 2 would be required to implement Mitigation Measure NOI-2, which requires preparation of a Final Acoustic Report to confirm that the interior living spaces ofresidential dwelling units will meet the City's interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL with windows and doors closed. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2, on-site interior noise levels would be consistent with the City's Noise Element standards for residential interior areas under Alternative 2. It should be noted that due to the reduction in the number of units under Alternative 2, it is possible that the outdoor amenities and the residential buildings could be relocated further from noise sources and Mitigation Measure NOI-2 may not be required. Overall, impacts to operational noise under Alternative 2 would be similar to those of the proposed project, and mitigation would be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 would ensure that construction of Alternative 2, together with cumulative projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact as a result of construction-and operation-related noise. Although impacts related to noise for Alternative 2 would be similar to those associated with the proposed project, cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively significant. Transportation. Alternative 2 would result in the construction of less residential units and building area as compared to the proposed project, and therefore, a shorter construction schedule would be necessary. As such, construction-related traffic generated under Alternative 2 would occur for a shorter period of time than the proposed project, 161 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 167 of 184 and construction trips would be reduced. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts related to construction traffic. Operation of Alternative 2, similar to the proposed project, would generate more trips than during construction. The Level of Service (LOS) analyses prepared for the proposed project determined that the project would not result in any significant operational traffic impacts. The proposed project has the potential to generate approximately 890 average daily trips (ADT), including 64 trips (16 inbound and 48 outbound) in the a.m. peak hour and 82 trips (51 inbound and 31 outbound) in the p.m. peak hour. All study area intersections, including the hot-spot intersections, are anticipated to operate at satisfactory LOS based on the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) and Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies. Impacts under the proposed project were determined to be less than significant. Therefore, it can be concluded that traffic impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than significant because this alternative represents a reduced project that would result in fewer trips. Overall, operational traffic impacts under Alternative 2 would be less that impacts associated with the proposed project. No mitigation is required. Since Alternative 2 represents a reduced project that would result in fewer trips, it can be concluded that this alternative would also generate fewer vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita as compared to the regional VMT per capita. As such, based on the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory (TA) guidance and similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would not have a significant transportation impact. However, since the City does not currently have thresholds or standards in place for assessing potential VMT impacts, VMT information is provided for disclosure purposes only, and the analysis of traffic impacts in this Draft EIR for CEQA purposes are based on the City's LOS thresholds. No mitigation would be required. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would be required to comply with General Plan policies addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, as well as City Council Policy No. 310, which establishes metrics for determining traffic impacts, consistent transportation-related goals and policies in the City's General Plan, and the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) (2019). Because impacts related to traffic for Alternative 2 would be less than those associated with the proposed project, cumulative impacts would also be less than cumulatively significant. Tribal Cultural Resources. Under Alternative 2, impacts to potential tribal cultural resources would be similar to the proposed project because the project site boundaries and disturbance area would remain the same as under the proposed project. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would still be applicable under Alternative 2 to protect any unknown tribal cultural resources and previously undiscovered buried human remains. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, Alternative 2 would have less than significant impacts to tribal cultural resources and previously undiscovered buried human remains. Overall, impacts to tribal cultural 162 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 168 of 184 resources under Alternative 2 would be similar to the proposed project's impacts because the project site boundaries and area of disturbance would remain the same. Because impacts related to tribal cultural resources for Alternative 2 would be similar to those associated with the proposed project, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would also ensure that Alternative 2, together with cumulative projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact to unique tribal cultural resources and previously undiscovered buried human remains. Construction impacts would be incrementally reduced under Alternative 2 as fewer residential units would be constructed (approximately 25 percent fewer units). Similarly, fewer operational impacts would occur as fewer residents, traffic trips, emissions, and noise would result from a smaller development. Overall, physical impacts under this alternative would be incrementally reduced due to fewer housing units being constructed and occupied. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-9 through 5-17.) Attainment of Project Objectives: Alternative 2 would meet some, but not all of the project objectives. Alternative 2 would develop a residential development to increase the City's housing stock (Project Objective 1); develop a project that balances the development potential of the project site with environmental considerations (Project Objective 2); revitalize the vacant site with a well-designed and landscaped residential project that is compatible with the surrounding community (Project Objective 3); provide recreational opportunities for the surrounding community with incorporation of a multi­ purpose trail (Project Objective 7); locate housing adjacent to available infrastructure to serve the project (Project Objective 8); and implement the City's General Plan (Project Objective 9). However, this alternative would not achieve Project Objective 4, including increasing the City's tax base generating revenue for the City through property taxes, to the same extent as the proposed project because a smaller residential development would likely generate less property tax revenue. Additionally, a smaller residential development would result in the elimination of affordable units because they would no longer be economically feasible to construct. As such, this alternative would not meet Project Objectives 1 and 5 to the same extent as the proposed project, because a smaller residential development would not increase the City's affordable housing stock and providing non-traditional home ownership opportunities to the same extent as the proposed project. Furthermore, Alternative 2 would not dedicate as much acreage as the proposed project for a permanent conservation area adjacent to the San Juan Creek. Overall, this alternative would meet some of the project objectives, but not to the same degree as the proposed project. (Draft EIR, p. 5-17.) Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative would likely not further reduce the proposed project's significant impacts (which have been reduced to less than significant 163 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 169 of 184 levels) in biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, tribal and cultural resources; and (2) the alternative fails to meet all of the Project objectives. E.ENVIRONMENT ALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE Section 15126.6( e )(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives to a proposed Project shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives evaluated in an EIR. Based on the alternatives analysis contained within the Draft EIR, the Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative is identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. This alternative would either lessen environmental impacts or result in impacts similar to those associated with the proposed project in most environmental areas. However, similar to the No Project Alternative, impacts to biological resources and land use would be greater because the beneficial impacts of the proposed project would not occur, including increasing the City's housing stock and dedicating land for conservation to the same degree as under the proposed project. Although Alternative 2 would achieve some of the project objectives-specifically the project objectives aimed at providing a residential development to increase the City's housing stock (Project Objective 1 ); balancing the development potential of the project site with environmental considerations (Project Objective 2); revitalizing the vacant site with a well-designed and landscaped residential project that is compatible with the surrounding community (Project Objective 3); provide recreational opportunities for the surrounding community with incorporation of a multi-purpose trail (Project Objective 7); locate housing adjacent to available infrastructure to serve the project (Project Objective 8); and implement the City's General Plan(Project Objective 9) -this alternative would not maximize the potential to maximize the City's tax base generating revenue through property taxes (Project Objective 4) and would also conflict with Project Objectives 1 and 5, which involve developing a residential development to increase the City's affordable housing stock and providing non­ traditional home ownership opportunities through the provision of affordable units, respectively. Furthermore, Alternative 2 would not dedicate the same maximum acreage as the proposed project for a permanent conservation area adjacent to the San Juan Creek (Project Objective 7). Therefore, this alternative would meet some of the project objectives, but not to the same degree as the proposed project. SECTION IX ADOPTION OF STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section l 5093(a), the City Council must balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the specific benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those environmental effects may be considered acceptable. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any impacts that are considered significant, adverse, and unavoidable. All environmental issues were determined to result in less than significant impacts, or can be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Thus, City Council is not required to and will not adopt a statement of overriding considerations. 164 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 170 of 184 165 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 171 of 184 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 166 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 172 of 184 Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Timing for Mitigation Measures 4.1 Aesthetics There are no potentially significant impacts related to aesthetics; therefore, no mitigation is required. 4.2 Air Quality There are no potentially significant impacts related to air quality; therefore, no mitigation is required. 4.3 Biological Resources Mitigation Measure BI0-1: Springtime Botanical Survey. Prior to any project-related ground disturbance, the City of San Juan Prior to the start of Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist/botanist to conduct a botanical Capistrano ground disturbing survey during the typical springtime blooming season (April through May 2020) to Development Services activities confirm the absence of annual special-status plant species that bloom during this period. The results of the survey shall be documented and submitted to the Director of Director, or designee the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) Development Services Department, or designee. Should special-status plant species be found within the project disturbance limits, a compensatory mitig2tion plan must be prepared and approved by the City Development Services Department, or designee, prior to projed-related ground disturbance. If listed special-status plant species are found, the compensatory mitigation plan must also be approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or California Department of Fish and Wildlife, as applicable. Mitigation Measure BI0-2: Worker Environmental Awareness Training. Prior to initial groundbreaking, the City of San Juan Prior to the start of Director of the City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Department, or Capistrano ground disturbing designee, shall confirm that a Worker Environmental Awareness Training shall be Development Services activities conducted by a qualified biologist to educate all construction personnel on the relevant federal, state, and local laws related to regional special-status species known Director, or designee to occur in adjacent habitat types, particularly habitat associated with San Juan Creek. The training session shall include training on identification of species that may be found on or adjacent to the project site, the status of those species, and any legal protection afforded to those species. Measures that are being implemented to protect those species shall also be explained. Personnel shall be advised to report any special- status species promptly to the construction manager. The training session shall also include information regarding invasive shot hole borers (ISHB), how to recognize signs of infestation, and where to report observations. A fact sheet conveying this information shall be prepared for display or for distribution to anyone who may enter the project site. Mitigation Measure BI0-3: Construction Site Housekeeping. Impacts to habitat subject to permanent and Construction Manager During construction temporary construction disturbances and other types of ongoing project-related 1 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 173 of 184 Mitigation Measures disturbance activities shall be minimized by adhering to the following measures for the duration of construction activities: •The project disturbance limits shall be clearly marked with construction fencing (or other highly visible material), and construction/materials staging and vehicle/equipment maintenance and fueling areas shall be located at least 200 feet away from riparian habitat associated with San Juan Creek and El Homo Creek, where feasible. •To minimize temporary disturbances, all project-related vehicle traffic shall be restricted to established roads, construction areas, and other designated areas. •Project-related vehicles shall observe a daytime speed limit of 20 miles per hour (mph) throughout the site in all project sites, except on county roads and State and federal highways. Night-time construction shall be minimized to the extent possible. However if it does occur, then the speed limit shall be reduced to 10 mph. Off-road traffic outside of designated project sites shall be prohibited. •To prevent inadvertent entrapment of animals during the construction phase of a project, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 2 feet deep shall be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials. If the trenches cannot be closed, one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen-fill or wooden planks shall be installed. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they shall be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. In the case of trapped animals, escape ramps or structures shall be installed immediately to allow the animal(s) to escape. •For the duration of construction activities, all food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed of in securely closed containers and removed at least daily from the construction site. •Pets, such as dogs or cats, shall not be permitted on the project site during construction to prevent harassment, injury, or death of wildlife in the project vicinity. •Use of rodenticides and herbicides in project sites shall be restricted to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of predators and the depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such compounds shall observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other State and federal legislation Responsible Party Timing for Mitigation Measures activities Mitigation Measure B10-4: Erosion Control and Amphibian Exclusionary Fencing. Grading and construction I City_ of San Juan Prior to _ground 2 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 174 of 184 Mitigation Measures resulting in ground disturbance shall occur within the typical dry season (April 15 through October 15), as feasible, to avoid erosion and sedimentation impacts to nearby creeks and water quality. The Director of the City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Department, or designee, shall verify that project plans require the Project Contractor to install adequate erosion and sedimentation barriers (e.g., silt fencing, as described below) prior to ground disturbance to prevent any sediment-laden runoff or debris from entering adjacent waterways or the Pacific Ocean during the wet season or periods of rain. This silt fencing shall also serve as a temporary barrier to further minimize the potential for special-status amphibians and other wildlife from entering work areas during construction. The barriers shall consist of 3-foot-tall silt fencing buried to a depth of at least 6 inches below the soil surface along the outer limits of all work areas (or as otherwise required by the storm water pollution and prevention plan). These barriers shall be inspected daily by construction personnel and maintained and repaired as necessary for the duration of construction to ensure that they are functional and are npt a hazard to wildlife on the outer side of the fence. A qualified biologist shall monitor all fence installation. All barriers shall be removed following co-npletion of construction. Mitigation Measure B10-5: Nesting Bird Surveys. If vegetation removal, construction, or grading activities are planned to occur within the active nesting bird season (January 1 through September 15), the Director of the City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Department, or designee, shall confirm that the Project Applicant has retained a qualified biologist who shall conduct a preconstruction ne.stlng bird survey no more than 3 days prior to the start of such activities. If construction activities using heavy equipment (i.e., graders, bulldozers, and excavators, etc.) continue through the nesting season, weekly nesting bird surveys shall be conducted. Each nesting bird survey shall include the work area and areas adjacent to the site (within 500 feet, as feasible) that could potentially be affected by project-related activities such as noise, vibration, increased human activity, and dust, etc. For any active nest(s) identified, the qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer zone around the active nest(s). The appropriate buffer shall be determined by the qualified biologist based on species, location, and the nature of the proposed activities. Project activities shall be avoided within the buffer zone until the nest is deemed no longer active, as determined by the qualified blolo_g_lst. Mitigation Measure B10-6: Delineation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. During the construction period, the Director of the City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Department, or designee, shall confirm that construction plans require that temporary fencing be Installed along San Juan Creek that restricts access into the creek and adjacent habitats. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Director of the City's Development Se_rvices Department, or designee, shall confirm that permanent signage 3 Responsible Party Capistrano Development Services Director, or designee City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Director, or designee City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Director, or designee Timing for Mitigation Measures disturbing activities No more than 3 days prior to the start of site disturbing activities During construction activities and prior to the issuance of occupancy permits 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 175 of 184 Mitigation Measures has been installed that includes references to the environmentally sensitive nature of the creek and adjacent habitats. The Homeowners Association (HOA) shall fund annual signage monitoring and repairs, as needed. Mitigation Measure BI0-7: Invasive Shot Hole Borers. To prevent the spread of Invasive Shot Hole Borers (ISHB), the Project Applicant shall not install any ISHB-infected trees for landscaping, and installed trees shall be monitored once every 3 years for up to 9 years by an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist. The Worker Environmental Awareness Training, described in Mitigation Measure BI0-2, shall include a component to educate crews about ISHB and how to recognize signs of this species. A designated biologist familiar with the signs of ISHBs shall survey trees on the project site that are designated for removal or trimming. Surveys shall be conducted at least 30 days prior to removal or trimming activities. If any tree is determined to be infested/infected by ISHB, a control plan shall be prepared and submitted to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for review and approval. At a minimum, the control plan shall include methods of control, removal, and appropriate disposal techniques to prevent the spread of ISHB. The results of the tree survey, and if warranted, a copy of the CDFW-approved control plan shall be submitted to the City's Development Services Director, or designee, prior to issuance of grading p_ermits. 4.4 Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Cultural Resources Monitoring and Accidental Discovery. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall retain, with approval of the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) Development Services Director, or designee, a qualified archaeological monitor. A monitoring plan should be prepared by the archaeologist and implemented upon approval by the City. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant, with City approval, shall also retain a Native American monitor after consultation with interested tribal and Native American representatives. Both monitors shall be present on the project site during ground-disturbing activities to monitor rough and finish grading, excavation, and other ground-disturbing activities in the native soils. Because cultural resources were previously identified on the project site, both monitors are required to be present on a full-time basis during initial site preparation and initial ground-disturbing activities. Further, each monitor shall spot check any ground-disturbing activities (e.g., finish grading) to ensure that no cultural resources are impacted during construction activities. If cultural materials are discovered during site preparation, grading, or excavation, the construction contractor shall divert all earthmoving activity within and around the immediate discovery area until a qualified archaeologist can assess the nature and 4 Responsible Party City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Director, or designee City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Director, or designee Timing for Mitigation Measures During project operation, and at least 30 days prior to tree removal or trimming activities Prior to the issuance of grading permits 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 176 of 184 Mitigation Measures significance of the find. Project personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials or human remains and associated materials. To the extent feasible, project activities shall avoid these deposits. Where avoidance is not feasible, the archaeological deposits shall be evaluated for their eligibility for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. If the deposits are not eligible, avoidance is not necessary. If the deposits are eligible, adverse effects on the deposits must be avoided, or such effects must be mitigated. Mitigation can include, but is not necessarily limited to: excavation of the deposit in accordance with a data recovery plan (see California Code of Regulations [CCR) Title 14(3) Section 15126.4(b){3){C)) and standard archaeological field methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials; production of a report detailing the methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials; curation of archaeological materials at an appropriate facility for future research and/or display; an interpretive display of recovered archaeological materials at a local school, museum, or library; and public lectures at local schools and/or historical societies on the findings and significance of the site and recovered archaeological materials. The City Development Services Director, or designee, shall be responsible for reviewing any reports produced by the archaeologist to determine the appropriateness and adequacy of the findings and recommendations. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Human Remains. Consistent with the requirements of CCR Section 15064.S{e), if human remains are encountered during site disturbance, grading, or other construction activities on the project site, the construction contractor shall halt work within 25 feet of the discovery; all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the Orange County {County) Coroner notified immediately. No further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission {NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant {MLD). With the permission of the City, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Consistent with CCR Section 15064.S{d), if the remains are determined to be Native American and an MLD is notified, the City shall consult with the MLD identified by the NAHC to develop an agreement for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Upon completion of the assessment, the consulting archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results and provide recommendations regarding the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as 5 Responsible Party City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Director, or designee Timing for Mitigation Measures During site disturbance, grading, or other construction activities 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 177 of 184 Mitigation Measures 4.5 Energy appropriate, and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report shall be submitted to the City Development Services Director, or designee, and the South Central Coastal Information Center. The City Development Services Director, or designee, shall be responsible for reviewing any reports produced by the archaeologist to determine the appropriateness and adequacy of the findings and recommendations. Responsible Party Timing for Mitigation Measures There are no potentially significant impacts related to energy; therefore, no mitigation is required. 4.6 Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure GE0-1: Incorporation of and Compliance with the Recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation. All grading operations and construction shall be conducted in conformance with the recommendations included in the project-specific geotechnical investigation report prepared by GeoSoils Consultants Inc. (July 10, 2017). Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) Building Code and the California Building Code (CBC) applicable at the time of grading, appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the Director of the City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Department, or designee, prior to issuance of grading permits. Recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation are summarized below. •Site Grading/Earthwork. Prior to grading activities on the site, organics and debris shall be removed and hauled off-site. Undocumented fill within the project limits shall be over-excavated to a minimum depth of 12 feet (ft). The bottom of the excavated area shall be underlain by a layer of filter fabric (which will prevent contamination of crushed aggregate from underlying fine soils) and overlain by a minimum of 2 ft of crushed rock and a geogrid layer(which will minimize the manifestation of vertical settlements to the surface). The excavated layer shall be backfilled with engineered fill, which shall be compacted to at least 90 percent. Compaction shall be verified by observation, probing, and testing by a Geotechnical Consultant. •Fill Material. On-site soils with an Expansion Index (El) less than 35 and free of organic materials, debris, and cobbles larger than 3 inches may be used for backfilling. Imported granular soils may be used in compacted fills within the project limits. All imported soil shall contain binder material. Imported materials shall also be non-expansive and free of organic materials, debris,6 City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Director, or designee Prior to commencement of grading activities 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 178 of 184 Mitigation Measures and cobbles larger than 3 inches, with no more than 25 percent passing No. 200 Sieve. All fill materials within the upper 2 ft shall be free of particles greater than 2 inches in size. A bulk sample of import material, weighing at least 30 pounds, shall be submitted to the Geotechnical Consultant for approval at least 48 hours prior to fill operations. •Utility Trenching. Bedding materials consisting of sand, gravel, or crushed aggregate shall be used to backfill around utility pipes. On-site soils having a Sand Equivalent (SE) of 30 or greater can also be used as bedding material. Prior to placing pipes, the pipe trench subgrade shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant. If exposed subgrade is loose or unstable, unsuitable subgrade shall be excavated and replaced with bedding material. Trenches in pavement areas shall be capped with at least 1 ft of compacted, on-site soil and shall be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. •Temporary Excavations. All temporary excavations shall be properly sloped or shored. Excavation of 3.5 ft or less in depth may be performed with vertical sidewalls. Deeper excavations up to a depth of 10 ft can be accomplished with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements for Type C soils and may be laid back lH:1.SV gradient, or lH:lV upon review by the Geotechnical Consultant. •Shoring. Shoring systems feasible for the site are expected to include cantilever shoring, such as soldier piles. All shoring shall be designed in accordance with the latest edition of the Trenching and Shoring Manual (Caltrans 2011), and shall be approved by the Geotechnical Consultant. A licensed surveyor shall be retained to establish monuments on the shoring and surrounding area. These monuments shall be monitored for movement during construction. •Spread/Strip Footing Foundations. Upon completion of the grading (cutting) required to establish the proposed building pad elevations, the proposed structures may be supported by a spread/strip footing foundation system. Spread/strip footings shall be at least 24 and 18 inches wide, respectively, and embedded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade in the engineered fill. The slab-on-grade should be at least 5 inches thick and reinforced with rebar. Footings shall be deepened as necessary in order to maintain adequate support for the foundations adjacent to utility trenches. •Matt Foundations. Upon completion of the grading (cutting) required to 7 Responsible Party Timing for Mitigation Measures 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 179 of 184 Mitigation Measures establish the proposed building pad elevations, the proposed structures may be supported by a matt foundation system in areas where settlements cannot be tolerated by spread/strip footings. The mat should be at least 10 inches thick and embedded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade in the engineered fill. •Concrete Flatworks. Frequent construction or control joints shall be provided in all concrete slabs where cracking is objectionable. Contraction or weakened plane joints shall extend deeper than one-quarter of the slab thickness. Control joints shall be spaced a minimum of 10 ft intervals. Exterior concrete slab-on-grade may be subjected to drying due to the fluctuation of moisture content in subgrade soils. Deepened edge sections will aid in reducing the potential for the shrinkage and swelling of underlying soils. •Retaining Walls. The proposed development is expected to require various types of earth-retaining structures: freestanding cantilever retaining wall, temporary shoring, and below grade walls for several of the proposed structures. In general, retaining structures planned at the site shall be backfilled with compacted soil and be constructed with a backdrain. •Corrosive Soils. A representative bulk sample of soils in contact with concrete and pipes shall be collected and tested or pH, minimum resistivity, soluble chloride content, and soluble sulfate content. The test results shall be used to determine the chemical properties of on-site soils and appropriate recommendations. Recommendations for corrosion protection may include, but are not limited to, sacrificial metal, the use of protective coatings, and/or cathodic protection. •Geotechnical Review and Future Testing. Additional site testing and final design evaluation shall be conducted by the project Geotechnical Consultant to refine and enhance these recommendations. Final design shall be based on testing and analyses of the near-surface soils following the completion of grading. Design, grading, and construction shall be conducted in accordance with the specifications of the Geotechnical Consultant as summarized in a final report based on the CBC applicable at the time of grading and building and the City of San Juan Capistrano Building Code.8 Responsible Party Timing for Mitigation Measures 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 180 of 184 Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure GE0-2: Grading Plan Review and On-Site Inspection. Grading plan review shall also be conducted by the Geotechnica/ Consultant and the Director of the City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Department, or designee, prior to the start of grading to verify that the recommendations developed during the geotechnical design evaluation have been appropriately incorporated into the project plans. On-site inspection during grading shall be conducted by the Geotechnical Consultant and the City Building Official, or designee, to ensure compliance with geotechnical sp_ecifications as incorporated into project plans. Mitigation Measure GE0-3: California Building Code Compliance and Seismic Standards. Structures and retaining walls shall be designed in accordance with the seismic parameters presented in the Geotechnical Investigation and applicable sections of Section 1613 of the 2016 California Building Code (CBC). Prior to issuance of building permits for planned structures, the project soils engineer and the Director of the San Juan Capistrano Development Services Department, or designee, shall review building plans to verify that structural desig, conforms to the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation and the City of San Juan Capistrano Building Code. Mitigation Measure GE0-4: Paleontological Resources Assessment. Prior to issuance of grading permits, and in accordance with City of San Juan Capistrano's Historical, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resource Management Guidelines (previously known as Council Policy 601), a paleontologist certified by the County of Orange shall prepare a Paleontological Resources Assessment that includes the following information: a clear map delineating the project boundaries, the results of a field survey of the project area, the results of background research and sources for that background information, criteria for evaluation of paleon:ologlcal sensitivity of the property, and a determination of whether development of the project has the potential to impact paleontological resources. If the Pateontological Resources Assessment determines that project activities will not impact paleontological resources, no further paleontological resource impact mitigation is required. If the Paleontological Resources Assessment determines that there is a low possibility for project activities to impact paleontological resources, the Project Applicant shall retain a paleontologist on an on­ call basis to address any unanticipated discoveries. If the Paleontological Resources Assessment determines that paleontological resources may be impacted by project development, a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program shall be prepared, and paleontological monitoring, fossil collection and treatment (if necessary), and preparation of a final monitoring report shall occur as described in Mitigation Measure GEO-5. 9 Responsible Party City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Director, or designee Project soils engineer and the City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Director, or designee Qualified paleontologist Timing for Mitigation Measures Prior to commencement of grading activities Prior to issuance of building permits Prior to commencement of site disturbance, grading, or other construction activities 7/21/2020 f I ATTACHMENT 4, Page 181 of 184 Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure GE0-5: Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program. In the event the project specific Paleontological Resources Assessment determines that paleontological resources may be impacted by project development, a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program {PRIMP) shall be prepared prior to commencement of any grading activity on site, and approved by the Director of Planning, or designee. The PRIMP shall be prepared by a paleontologist who is listed on the County of Orange list of certified paleontologists, and shall include the methods that will be used to protect paleontological resources that may exist within the project site, as well as procedures for monitoring, fossil preparation and identification, curation into a repository, and preparation of a report at the conclusion of grading. The PRIMP shall be consistent with the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010). The paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall attend one pre-construction meeting in order to explain the mitigation measures associated with the project, the potential for encountering paleontological resources, and the types of resources that may be found. Ground-disturbing activities in deposits with high paleontological sensitivity shall be monitored by a paleontological monitor following the PRIMP. Spot check monitoring is required for ground disturbance in deposits with low paleontological sensitivity, and no paleontological monitoring is required for ground disturbance in deposits with no paleontological sensitivity. The monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils and/or matrix samples as they are unearthed in order to avoid construction delays. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment in the area of the find in order to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. In the event that paleontological resources are encountered when a paleontological monitor is not present, work in the immediate area of the find shall be redirected and a paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the find for significance. Sediments shall occasionally be spot-screened through one-eighth to one-twentieth­ inch mesh screens to determine whether microfossils exist. If microfossils are encountered, additional sediment samples (up to 6,000 pounds) shall be collected and processed through one-twentieth-inch mesh screens to recover additional fossils. Collected resources shall be prepared to the point of identification, identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, cataloged, and curated into the permanent collections of a scientific institution. At the conclusion of the monitoring program, a report of findings shall be prepared to document the results of the monitoring program. When submitted to the City of San Juan Capistrano Director of Development Services, or designee, the report and 10 Responsible Party Qualified paleontologist and the City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Director, or designee Timing for Mitigation Measures Prior to commencement of grading activities 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 182 of 184 Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Timing for Mitigation Measures inventory would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources. 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions There are no potentially significant impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions; therefore, no mitigation is required. 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality There are no potentially significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality; therefore, no mitigation is required. 4.9 Land Use and Planning There are no potentially significant impacts related to land use and planning; therefore, no mitigation is required. 4.10 Noise Mitigation Measure NOl-1: The project contractor shall implement the following measures during construction of Construction Manager During construction the proposed project: Limit construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Mondays through Fridays and between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction noise is prohibited on Sundays and national holidays. Equip all constructio1l equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards. Place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the active project site. Locate equipment staging in areas that would create the greatest possible distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the active project site during all construction activities. Designate a "disturbance coordinator'' at the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early or a bad muffler) and would determine and implement reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. Mitigation Measure NOl-2: Prior to the approval of final building plans for the project, the City shall confirm that City of San Juan Prior to the approval of the project plans include a 14-foot-high soundwall along the western boundary of the Capistrano 11 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 183 of 184 Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Timing for Mitigation Measures project site adjacent to the tot lot. The Project Applicant shall prepare an acoustic Development Services final building plans study for approval by the Director of Development Services, or designee, that Director, or designee demonstrates that the exterior noise level at the common outdoor areas (tot lot and gathering areas) shall not exceed the 65 A-weighted decibel Community Noise Equivalent Level (dBA CNEL) and that interior noise levels in habitable rooms shall not exceed 45 dBA CNEL, as defined by the California Building Code. Acoustical design features shall be incorporated into the proposed project design, which may include a combination of exterior features to reduce noise, such as berms/walls and/or architectural features such as Sound Transmission Class (STC) rated windows and doors. All STC ratings shall be shown on the building plans and incorporated into the construction of the proposed project. Once final architectural plans with the exterior- wall details and window types are available, a Final Acoustic Report shall be prepared by a qualified consultant to confirm that the interior living spaces of residential dwelling units would meet the City interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL with windows and doors closed. If interior noise level thresholds are still exceeded after the Final Acoustic Report is completed, additional acoustical design features, including fa<;ade and window upgrades, shall be incorporated in the building plans in order to meet the interior noise standard. 4.11 Transportation There are no potentially significant impacts related to transportation; therefore, no mitigation is required. 4.12 Tribal Cultural Resources Refer to Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, which are provided above under Section 4.4, Cultural Resources. 12 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 4, Page 184 of 184 L lJ RESOLUTION NO. 20-07-21-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND CONVENIENCE REQUIRE THE SALE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY (0.14-ACRE PORTION OF 666-131-08), DECLARING ITS INTENT TO SELL SUCH PROPERTY, AND SETTING A HEARING DATE FOR CONSIDERATION OF PROTESTS WHEREAS, the City of San Juan Capistrano ("City") currently owns in fee that certain real property, APN 666-131-08, generally located at the southern terminus of Paseo Tirador, south of the western terminus of Calle Arroyo in the City of San Juan Capistrano and legally described in Exhibit "A" attached to this resolution and incorporated by reference herein (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the City desires to sell the Property by entering into a Purchase and Sale Agreement ("PSA") with Watt Communities, a California corporation for purposes of economic development (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, California Government Code Sections 37420 through 37430 authorize the City to dispose of property; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 37421 provides that when the legislative body of a city finds that the public interest and convenience require the sale of public buildings and sites, it must adopt a resolution so finding and giving notice of its intention to sell such property; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 37422 provides that such resolution shall fix a time for hearing protests to the property conveyance, provide for publication of notice of the hearing, fix the time when the City will take final action regarding the property conveyance; and contain an accurate description of the property to be conveyed; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 65402, the proposed disposition of the Property under the PSA must be and was presented to the City's Planning Commission ("Planning Commission"), and the Planning Commission found that the conveyance of the Property from City to Watt Communities is in conformance with the City's general plan; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to declare its intent to dispose of and convey the Property pursuant to the terms of the PSA, fix a time for the hearing of any protests to the disposition, provide for publication of the notice of said hearing, and fix the time for final action on the disposition of the Property and approval of the PSA. WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") that analyzed the proposed Project's environmental impacts in compliance with the provisions 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 5, Page 1 of 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The DEIR was made available to the public for review and comment for 45 days between March 4, 2020, and April 17, 2020. During and following the close of the public review period, the City received five ncomment letters and e-mails on the project. For those letters and e-mails that raised CEQA-related issues, the City has prepared Response to Comments as require d by CEQA, which are included in the Final EIR. The Final EIR determined that all environmental impacts could be reduced to a level of less than significant through the incorporation of mitigation measures. The Draft EIR and Final EIR for the project are available on the City's website at: http://sanjuancapistrano.org/Departments/Development-Services/Plann ing. The City Council certified the Final EIR prior to consideration of this resolution; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein and made an operative part of this Resolution. SECTION 2. Findings. The City Council of the City hereby finds and determines that public convenience and necessity require the sale of the Property. The factors demonstrating that the public convenience and necessity require the sale of the Property include, but are not limited to the following: for purposes of economic development, the Property will consist of roadway, parking, and landscape to support a 132-unit residential community, which will create jobs within the City, alleviate conditions n of economic and physical blight in the City, and create an increase in property taxes, all of which benefit the health, safety and welfare of the City. SECTION 3. Declaration of Intent to Sell: Fixing of Hearing. The City Council of the City hereby declares its intent to sell the Property pursuant to the PSA and fixes August 18, 2020, at 5:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter that the matter can be heard at the City of San Juan Capistrano, City Council Chambers, located at 32400 Paseo Adelanto, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 as the date, time and location for hearing any protests to the proposed sale of the Property, approval of the PSA, and the final action regarding conveyance of the Property. SECTION 4. Publication and Posting. In compliance with California Government Code Section 37423, the City Council of the City hereby directs City staff to publish this resolution at least once in a daily newspaper prior to August 18, 2020, and to post this Resolution for not less than ten ( 10) days in at least three (3) conspicuous places upon the Property prior to August 18, 2020. SECTION 5. CEQA. The City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") that analyzed the proposed Project's environmental impacts in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The DEIR was made available to the public for review and comment for 45 days between March 4, 2020, and nApril 17, 2020. During and following the close of the public review period, the City received five comment letters and e-mails on the project. For those letters and e-mails that raised 2 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 5, Page 2 of 6 L L ....... CEQA-related issues, the City has prepared Response to Comments as required by CEQA, which are included in the Final EIR. The Final EIR determined that all environmental impacts could be reduced to a level of less than significant through the incorporation of mitigation measures. The Draft EIR and Final EIR for the project are available on the City's website at: http://sanjuancapistrano.org/Departments/Development-Services/Planning. The City Council certified the Final EIR prior to consideration of this resolution. SECTION 6. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution is held invalid, the remainder of this Resolution shall not be affected by such invalidity, and the provisions of this Resolution are severable. SECTION 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. The City Clerk of the City of San Juan Capistrano shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED 21 st day of July 2020. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO ) TRO� I, Maria Morris, appointed City Clerk of the City of San Juan Capistrano, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 20-07-21-03 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of San Juan Capistrano at a Regular meeting thereof, held the 21 st 1 of July 2020, by the following vote: AYES: UNCIL MEMBERS: Reeve, Maryott, Farias, Taylor and Mayor Bourne NOES: UNCIL MEMBERS: None ASSEN UNCIL MEMBERS: 3 7/21/2020 ATTACHMENT 5, Page 3 of 6 EXHIBIT"A" TO RESOLUTION NO. 20-07-21-03 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 666-131-08 REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: [TO BE INSERTED] 4 7/21/2020 n n ATTACHMENT 5, Page 4 of 6 L L i I I ! ..J EXHIBIT "A 11 LEGAL DESCRIPTION GRANT DEED THAT REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF LOT 31 OF TRACT NO. 103, AS SHOWN ON MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 11, PAGES 29 TO 33 INCLUSIVE, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT, THENCE NORTH 88°17'41" WEST, ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT, A DISTANCE OF 129.83 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, NORTH 88°17'41" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 124.17 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF THAT QUITCLAIM DEED TO THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, PER DOCUMENT NO. 2002001029021, RECORDED NOVEMBER 15, 2002; THENCE SOUTH 01°42'19" WEST, ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 115.99 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE, NORTH 48°39'23" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 77.02 FEET; THENCE NORTH 41°20'37" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 15.50 FEET, TO THE BEGINNING OF A 2.50 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°00'00", A DISTANCE OF 3.93 FEET; THENCE NORTH 48°39'23" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 64.59 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A 2.50 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHERLY; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAD CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°00'00", A DISTANCE OF 3.93 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 41°20'37" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 15.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 48°39'23" EAST 23.31 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 31 AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 5951.52 SQUARE FEET/ 0.14 ACRES ALL AS MORE PARTICULARLY SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART THEREOF. SUBJECT TO All COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, RIGHT­ OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD, IF ANY. Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT 5, Page 5 of 6 THIS DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION. DALE KEITH BREWER, LS 5653 EXPIRES 09/30/21 JN 19-24 Page 2 of 2 06-07-2020 DATE n ATTACHMENT 5, Page 6 of 6 PC RESOLUTION NO. 20-06-09-01 Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 17-002 & Floodplain Land Use Permit (FP) 20-001 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, CERTIFY THE TIRADOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#2019110154) ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM) 17-002 AND FLOODPLAIN LAND USE PERMIT {FP) 20-001 FOR THE TIRADOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECT LOCATED AT 27000 CALLE ARROYO, CONTINGENT ON THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING THE FINAL EIR FOR THE PROJECT WHEREAS, Watt Communities (the "Applicant") is proposing the Tirador Residential Project ("Project"), a 16.1-acre residential project at 27000 Calle Arroyo, which is General Plan designated Planned Community and General Open Space and Zoned Planned Community, Comprehensive Development Plan 78-01, Sector B-3. The Project entitlements required for the Project include, among other approvals, Floodplain Land Use Permit (FP) 20-001 and Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 17-002 to develop a 132- unit residential community; and WHEREAS, Land Use Code Section 9-4.203 requires a tentative tract map for all subdivisions creating five or more lots. The proposed map entails subdividing the 16.1-acre site into three (3) lettered lots ranging in size from 20,119 (0.46 acres) to 217,334 (4.99 acres) square feet and two numbered lots ranging from 192,802 (4.43 acres) to 266,295 (6.11 acres) square feet. The lots have been designed to accommodate the proposed uses on the site; and WHEREAS, before the City Council may approve a tentative tract map, it must make the findings set forth in Land Use Code Section 9-4.223; and WHEREAS, before the City Council may approve a floodplain permit application, it must make the findings set forth in Land Use Code Section 9-2.321, subsection (e); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has authority to review and make recommendations to the City Council regarding approval of tentative tract maps and floodplain land use permits; and WHEREAS, the Commission may recommend approval of a tentative tract map or floodplain land use permit if the corresponding findings can be made; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") that analyzed the proposed Project's environmental impacts in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Draft EIR was made available to the public for review and comment for 45 days between March 4, 2020, and 61147.80018\32994672.1 ATTACHMENT 6, Page 1 of 27 PC Resolution 20-06-09-01 2 June 9. 2020 April 17, 2020; and, WHEREAS, a Final EIR ("Final EIR") is being prepared and includes the Draft EIR, all technical reports prepared in connection with the Draft EIR, comments on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, and all appropriate revisions to the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, on May 28, 2020, the City gave notice of the Planning Commission's public hearing by advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly-noticed public hearing on June 19, 2020, to consider the proposed Project and its environmental findings, the EIR, and all evidence presented before and during the hearing and contained in the administrative record, and afforded members of the public an opportunity to comment upon the proposed Project and the EIR; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has carefully considered the application, all the information submitted by the Applicant, the public, and city staff in connection with the Project, including the agenda report prepared by staff for these and other Project approvals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San Juan Capistrano does resolve, determine, find and order as follows: SECTION 1. RECITALS. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. FINDINGS. The San Juan Capistrano Planning Commission hereby finds, based on consideration of the whole record before it, including the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR, the Project, and testimony heard at the public hearing, as follows: 1.Review Period: The City provided a 45-day public review period for the Draft EIR; and 2.Compliance with Law: The Draft EIR was prepared, processed, and noticed in accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.) and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council certify the EIR; and 3.Independent Judgment: The Final EIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis; and 4.Mitigation Monitoring Program: The Draft EIR includes mitigation measures to 6114 7 .80018\32994672.1 ATTACHMENT 6, Page 2 of 27 PC Resolution 20-06-09-01 3 June 9 2020 reduce significant impacts of the Project. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15097. The MMRP shall be designed to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during Project implementation in that changes to the Project and/or mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Project and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other measures. SECTION 3. LOCATION OF DOCUMENTS. The Final EIR and Project-related documents are on file and available for public review at San Juan Capistrano City Hall, 32400 Paseo Adelanto, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675. The City Clerk is the custodian of these documents. SECTION 4. TENTATIVE MAP FINDINGS. After careful consideration of the agenda report, including its detailed discussion of these findings, and all the other evidence that was presented in connection with this Project, the Planning Commission of the City of San Juan Capistrano does hereby make the following findings as required by Section 9-4.223, Findings for approval of tentative maps, of Title 9, Land Use Code of the City of San Juan Capistrano: 1.The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan and the applicable specific plan and comprehensive development plan because the land uses proposed are allowed within the Ortega Planned Community, Comprehensive Development Plan 78-1, Sector B-3, and under the current General Plan land use designation of Planned Community and the Project is consistent with the Comprehensive Development Plan and General Plan goals, policies, and standards as discussed above in connection with the Planning Commission's approvals for the Project. Additionally, the project is not located within a specific plan area; and, 2.The design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and the applicable comprehensive development plan because the proposed subdivision has been designed to accommodate the Project, and the Project design itself is consistent with those policy and regulatory documents, The proposed project would establish a 132-unit residential community and has been designed to meet all applicable development standards and provisions of Title 9 of the San Juan Capistrano Municipal code including lot coverages, setbacks, height requirements, use regulations, and affordable housing requirements which allow for concessions and waivers to standards such as setbacks, floor to floor ratio, and RV parking requirements. Furthermore, the project's character, scale and quality of the architecture, site design and landscaping are consistent with the adopted Design Guidelines of the City because the project incorporates materials and colors consistent with the approved structures and signage on properties surrounding the site along Calle Arroyo and similar residential uses located within the City of San Juan Capistrano; and, 3.The site is physically suitable for the type of development because the General Plan land use designation would allow for the development with a density of up to 61147.80018\32994672.1 ATTACHMENT 6, Page 3 of 27 PC Resolution 20-06-09-01 4 June 9 2020 30 dwelling units per acre the applicant is proposing to develop individual parcels with a density of up to 14.6 dwelling units per acre. The project is an infill, previously graded, largely unused site, with convenient access to Calle Arroyo and located to provide a well-designed buffer between the proposed residential development and the adjacent creek and commercial area. Furthermore, the Ortega Planned Community, Comprehensive Development Plan 78-1, Sector B-3 would allow residential uses; and, 4.The site is physically suitable for the proposed intensity of development because the existing topography and infrastructure provides suitable conditions sufficient to accommodate the proposed improvements. Located generally along the same grade as Calle Arroyo, the site is relatively flat and large enough to accommodate the uses and development proposed. Additionally, the site will be served by existing or extension of utilities from adjacent sources; and, 5.The design of the subdivision for the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) includes an assessment of the Project's potentially significant biological resource impacts and concludes the Project's impacts to such resources would be sufficiently mitigated through the proposed mitigation measures established by the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP); and, 6.The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision because the Project proposes to honor or extend all public easements. SECTION 6. FLOODPLAIN LAND USE PERMIT FINDINGS. After careful consideration of the agenda report, including its detailed discussion of these findings, and all the other evidence that was presented in connection with this Project, the Planning Commission of the City of San Juan Capistrano does hereby make the following findings as required by Subsection (e) of Section 9-2.321, Floodplain land use permit, of Title 9, Land Use Code of the City of San Juan Capistrano: 1.The application complies with all the location and land use standards for uses or structures as set forth in Section 9-3.405 of the Land Use Code because the site will be graded to elevate the proposed buildings above the 100-year floodplain elevation, and the applicant will pursue a CLOMAR and LOMAR or a CLOMR-F and LOMR-F through the Federal Emergency Management Agency to adjust the FIRM Maps to reflect current and proposed grades. 2.Approval of the application will not result in a discernible net increase in water surface elevation, will not create or exacerbate erosive velocities within special flood hazard areas, and will not contribute to flooding of other properties not previously inundated by the 100-year storm event because in order to raise the existing grades above the 100-year floodplain elevation, the Project proposes to fill portions of the site with 61147.80018\32994672.1 ATTACHMENT 6, Page 4 of 27 PC Resolution 20-06-09-01 5 June 9 2020 approximately 17,950 cubic yards of import soil to raise levels one foot above the Base Flood Elevation. Although the Project site is within a 100-year floodplain, the proposed Project includes a Water Quality Management Plan specifying that proposed buildings would be elevated above flood depths anticipated for site development well as plans to process a CLOMAR and LOMAR or a CLOMR-F and LOMR-F through the Federal Emergency Management Agency to adjust the FIRM Maps to reflect current and proposed grades. 3.Development and use of the property as proposed are consistent with General Plan policies regarding flood control, public safety, aesthetics, and resource protection because the proposed Project will complement the existing aesthetics of the area and existing grade elevations of the adjacent properties, while consistent with the following General Plan Goals and Policies: Land Use Element, Policy 3.2: Limit density of development in the hillsides, floodplains, and other high-risk areas. The project is designed below the maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre. Conservation and Open Space Element, Policy 5.2: Ensure that new development integrates and preserves areas designated for scenic, historic, conservation, or public safety reasons. The project has been designed to elevate proposed buildings above the 100-year floodplain elevation and integrate an existing City trail along San Juan Creek. Floodplain Management Element, Goal 1: Protect life and property from floodwaters. The development of the site will assist in managing floodwaters from the public by raising the site above the 100-year plain elevation and providing best practices methods to collect and appropriately discharge runoff into the creek. 4.The proposed use and development of the property are consistent with all other applicable requirements of the Municipal Code and of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, California Fish and Game Department, United States Army Corps of Engineers, and Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements in effect at the time the application was deemed complete. The project is designed in compliance with Title 9, Land Use Code for new development projects. The proposed project is consistent with all other applicable requirements of the Municipal Code, California Fish and Wildlife Department, United States Army Corps of Engineers, and Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements in effect at the time the application was deemed complete. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant is conditioned to demonstrate that the proposed project complies with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. SECTION 6. ACTIONS. The Planning Commission of the City of San Juan Capistrano hereby recommends that the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 20-001 and Floodplain Land Use Permit (FP) 18-001 for the Project, subject to the Conditions of Approval established by Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, and contingent upon the City Council certifying the Final EIR for the Project. 61147.80018\32994672.1 ATTACHMENT 6, Page 5 of 27 PC Resolution 20-06-09-01 6 June 9 2020 SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE & FINAL APPROVAL: This resolution takes effect on the expiration of the 15-day appeal period if no appeal application has been filed. The appeal period expires at 5:30 pm, Wednesday, June 24, 2020. This project approval is valid for a period of 12 months from the effective date of approval of this resolution, and it expires on June 24, 2021, unless a time extension request or building permit application related to this approval is submitted to the City prior to that date. SECTION 8. PROTEST OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020, the applicant may protest the imposition of fees, dedications, reservations or other exactions imposed on this development project by taking the necessary steps and following the procedures established by Sections 66020 through 66022 of the California Government Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9 th day of June, 2020. Harri Sergio otz, AICP, Assistant Development Services Director/Secretary 61147.80018\32994672.1 ATTACHMENT 6, Page 6 of 27 EXHIBIT "A" P .C. RESOLUTION 20-06-09-01 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PROJECT LOG #: AC 17-033, SP 20-012, GPM 17-013, FP 18-001, and TTM 20-002 PROJECT NAME: Tirador Residential Project APPROVAL DATE: June 9, 2020 Architectural Control (AC) 17-033, Sign Permit (SP) 20-012, Grading Plan Modification (GPM) 17-013, Floodplain Land Use Permit (FP) 20-001, and Te ntative Tract Map (TTM) 17-002, are approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Development Services Department, with all applicable sections of the San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the California Building Standards Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by the above referenced approved applications. These conditions of approval apply to the above-referenced project application described in more detail below. For the purpose of these conditions, the term "applicant" shall also mean the developer, the owner or any successor(s) in interest to the terms of this approval. Approval of these applications is contingent upon the City Council approving the FP 20-001 and TTM 17-002. If FP 20-001 and TTM 17-002 are denied by the City Council, the approval of the above referenced applications is deemed null and void. General Conditions: 1.The applicant proposes to develop 132 residential units, comprised of single­ family and townhome units of which fourteen will be made affordable to moderate income households, on a 16.1-acre site at 27000 Calle Arroyo. This project approval is based on and subject to the application materials prepared by Withee Malcolm Architects, LLP, Summers/Murphy & Partners dated April 27, 2018, and X Engineering dated June 3, 2020, including building elevation(s), floor plan(s), grading, sign plans, landscaping, site plan and materials board plan. These plans and the proposed use of the project site are hereby incorporated by reference into this approval as submitted and conditioned herein and shall not be further altered unless reviewed and approved by the affected city departments. Minor modificatioris to this project approval may be approved by the Development Services Director pursuant to Section 9-2.303, Administrative approvals of Title 9, Land Use Code. 2.The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of San Juan Capistrano and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, ·action, or proceeding against the City of San Juan Capistrano, its officers, employees, or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or ATTACHMENT 6, Page 7 of 27 Resolution 20-06-09-01 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 2 of 21 condition of approval of the City of San Juan Capistrano concerning this project, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or Development Services Director. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 3.In the event that exhibits and written conditions are inconsistent, the written conditions shall prevail. If there are any disparities between these conditions and the plans or final revised plans that are approved for any subsequent phase, the conditions and/or plans as stipulated in the later approval shall prevail. 4.Pursuant to Section 8-2.04 of the Building Code, the applicant shall ensure that all construction activities, which includes the delivery and/or recovery of materials, supplies or construction equipment, shall be conducted in accordance with the prescribed hours of operation as follows: Monday through Friday Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 5.Construction activity is prohibited on Sundays and on any federal holiday unless waived by the Building Official for extenuating reasons. 6.The applicant shall comply with all requirements from the Building & Safety Division and all other City departments. 7.The applicant shall schedule a final inspection with the Development Services Department Public Works Department, and Utilities Department to inspect the final construction of improvements related to their department's discipline to ensure consistency with the approved plans and conditions of approval. 8.Compliance with Outside Requirements. Approval of this application does not relieve the applicant from complying with other applicable Federal, State, County, Santa Margarita Water District or City regulations or requirements. To the extent not precluded by Government Code Section 65961, the applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Municipal Code, all requirements of City ordinances, resolutions, and all applicable standards and policies that are in effect at the time that building permits are issued for the development. 9.Signed Plans. All plans, specifications, studies, reports, calculations, maps, notes, legal documents, and designs shall be prepared, stamped and signed, if required, only by those individuals legally authorized to do so. 10.Applicant Responsibilities. The applicant shall be responsible for informing all subcontractors, consultants, engineers, or other business entities providing services related to the project of their responsibilities to comply with these ATTACHMENT 6, Page 8 of 27 Resolution 20-06-09-01 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 3 of 21 conditions of approval and all pertinent requirements in the San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code, including the requirement that a business license be obtained by all entities doing business in the City. 11.Discrepancy Clause. In the event that exhibits, and written conditions are inconsistent, the written conditions shall prevail. If there are any disparities between these conditions and the plans or final revised plans that are approved for any subsequent phase, the conditions and/or plans as stipulated in the later approval shall prevail. 12.Fees. The applicant shall pay all fees at the time fees are determined payable and comply with all requirements of the applicable federal, state, and local agencies. The duty of inquiry as to such requirements shall be upon the applicant. 13.Final Tract Map. Final Tract Map shall be in substantial compliance with the Tentative Tract Map (TTM), Subdivision Map Act and submitted for review and approval to the City Engineer's satisfaction prior to issuance of any permits including but not limited to; grading, building, utility, and/or encroachments unless otherwise allowed by the City Engineer. At a minimum, Final Tract Map shall include information related to all existing and proposed easements, dedications, property lines, flood zones, utilities, ownership, lot sizes, legal descriptions, and site data as required by Public Works, Planning, and Utilities Departments. 14. Calle Arroyo Driveways. The developer shall construct new driveways at the access points on Calle Arroyo and install streetlights with Mission Bell luminaire along the Calle Arroyo project frontage. The developer is responsible for the replacement of any damaged curb and gutter, and sidewalks on Calle Arroyo. (PW) 15.Multiuse Trail Configuration. The developer shall construct the multiuse trail in the configuration identified in the landscape plan, and implement gentler turns where structures, easements and natural topography permit. Unless waived by the Director of Public Works, the trail shall meet the City's trail design specifications. (PLN) THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF ANY FINAL MAP AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT: 16.Street and Development Names. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall submit to the City's Development Services Director for review, and shall obtain approval of, the name of the development or developments and the names of all proposed streets within the tentative tract's boundaries. The Director shall confirm that said development names and street names do not ATTACHMENT 6, Page 9 of 27 Resolution 20-06-09-01 Tirador Residential Project Conditions of Approval Page 4 of 21 duplicate existing development and street names in the City and are consistent with City Council policy 417. All approved street names shall be indicated on the Final Map. 17.Compliance with Map Act and Municipal Code. Prior to approval of the final map, the tract map shall be prepared and submitted in full compliance with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and the City of San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code, except as authorized by the City Council and/or Planning Commission. (PW) 18.Payment of Fees. Prior to approval of the final map the applicant/sub-divider shall fulfill all applicable fee requirements in accordance with the City Municipal Code, as last revised and the City Schedules of Rates and Charges, as last revised. 19.Wastewater Study. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/sub-divider shall submit to the Assistant Utilities Director for review and shall obtain approval of, a Wastewater Feasibility Study, prepared by City Sewer Master Plan Consultant, Tetra Tech Engineering, which evaluates the proposed development project and mitigates its anticipated impact on the existing Wastewater facilities system. Said study shall be consistent with the City's Master Plan of Wastewater Facilities and the Special Provisions for the Construction of Sanitary Sewers. Any deviation from these requirements shall be subject to Assistant Utilities Director review and approval. (UD) 20.Sewer Improvement Plans. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/sub­ divider shall submit Sewer Improvement Plans prepared by a California State Registered Civil Engineer to the Assistant Utilities Director and City Engineer for review and approval. These plans shall be specific to the project and shall reflect consistency with the City's Sewer Master Plans, City standards, specifications, and City Municipal codes. (UD) The applicant/sub-divider shall design the off-site sewer main connections and pipelines in accordance with City sewer standards and American Public Works Association Standards, unless otherwise determined by the Assistant Utilities Director. The Sewer Improvement Plans shall include at minimum, a 20-foot wide easement, where it is applicable. The applicant/subdivider shall design the development gravity sewer system to connect to an existing City sewer manhole at Calle Arroyo. The Sewer Improvement Plans shall indicate that all proposed sewer manholes shall be lined with polyurethane, or equal approved material, at the applicant/subdivider's cost to the satisfaction of the Assistant Utilities Engineer Director and the City Engineer. Any deviation from these requirements shall be subject to prior Assistant Utilities Engineer Director and City Engineer review and approval. (PWD & UD) ATTACHMENT 6, Page 10 of 27 Resolution 20-06-09-01 Tirador Residential Project Conditions of Approval Page 5 of21 21.Water Improvement Plans. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/sub­ divider shall submit Water Improvement Plans, including a Water Improvement Phasing Plan, prepared by a California State Registered Civil Engineer to the Assistant Utilities Director for review and approval. These plans shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following water requirements: (UD) 22.Domestic Water Improvements: The applicant/sub-divider shall design the off­ site domestic water main connections and pipelines in accordance with City water standards and American Water Works Association Standards, unless otherwise determined by the Assistant Utilities Director. The applicant/sub­ divider shall connect to an existing water main in Calle Arroyo easement for the public segment of the proposed off-site water main including the fire line, domestic water meter, and backflow prevention devices on the project property. On site water facilities including fire hydrants shall be privately operated and maintained by the applicant/sub-divider. (UD) 23.Tirador Well Water Line: the existing well water line shall be replaced and relocated on the Street "A" in order to be connected in to the existing well line on Calle Arroyo or on to the segment of the existing line located along the westerly property line parallel to the 1-5 Freeway. (UD) 24.Recycled Water Line: The development will construct its recycled water meter to serve common HOA irrigation areas, at the intersection of Calle Arroyo and Paseo Tirador for future connection to planned recycled water facilities. 25.Well Water Meter: The existing domestic water meter for the Well site is off of the City main line which this segment after the proposed master meter for the development will become private water main. City will not pay more than actual water usage of the well site to the development once the City water meter is off of the development private water line. (UD) 26.Street Improvement Plans. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer for review, and shall obtain approval of, street improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. These plans shall show all existing and proposed improvements including, but not limited to, traffic calming devices, striping, signage, signalization, storm drain, sewer, water, and all related appurtenances. The street improvement plans shall co nform to the following requirements: (PW) a.Local Streets. All local streets within the project shall have a minimum curb-to­ curb width as specified by Municipal Code Section 9-4.527. b.Catch Basins and Gutters. For street sections with grades less than or equalto five percent, the maximum distance between catch basins shall not exceed one 1000 feet. For streets sections with grades greater than fivepercent, the maximum distance between catch basins shall not exceed 750 ATTACHMENT 6, Page 11 of 27 Resolution 20-06-09-01 Tirador Residential Project Conditions of Approval Page 6 of 21 feet. Catch basins shall be designed so that there is no driveway within 20 feet upstream of the catch basin and such that the basin will function as anticipated. Cross gutters shall not be allowed at street intersections if a storm drain is within 300 feet. Any deviation shall require the City Engineer's review and approval. c.Design Speeds for Streets. Street improvement plans shall be designed per City standards. Arterial streets shall be designed for a minimum design sp eed of 35 miles per hour (mph) and sight distances of 45 mph at all intersections. All other streets shall have design speeds and sight distances of 25 and 35 mph, respectively, and shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d.No Obstructions in Sidewalks. There shall be no obstruction in any sidewalk or parkway which reduces the width to less than four feet, in compliance with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. 27.Street Lights. Street lights shall be provided, with Mission Bell fixtures on marbelite poles. Any exception or deviation from the above requirements shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 28.Traffic Improvement Plans. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/subdivider shall submit a Traffic Improvement Plan (including at those locations outlined in the MMRP) for all streets within the subdivision prepared by a California State Registered Traffic Engineer or Civil Engineer to the City Engineer for review and approval. These plans shall show the striping, signage, signalization and all related appurtenances. Accompanying Traffic Control Plans shall be required prior to commencement of any street improvement work. Any exception or deviation to the above requirements shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. (PW&UD) 29.Construction Cost Estimates. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/subdivider shall submit an estimate of quantities and construction costs of all proposed Works of Improvements (e.g. Street/Sewer/Water/Drainage/Landscaping Irrigation etc.) associated with this development prepared by a California State Registered Civil Engineer pursuant to the City requirements to the City Engineer and Assistant Utilities Director for review and approval. Said estimates shall include, but not be limited to, the costs for construction of all on-site and off-site improvements for street, signing and striping, traffic signals, street lights, storm drains, water, sewer, landscape, irrigation systems, recreational trails, and the setting of survey monuments and centerline ties. Labor cost of all cost estimates of facilities that will be dedicated to the City for operation and maintenance shall comply with the California Labor Code Section 1720-1743 with respect to the prevailing wages. Any exception to or deviation from this condition shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and Assistant Utilities Director. (PW & UD) ATTACHMENT 6, Page 12 of 27 Resolution 20-06-09-01 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 7 of 21 30.Bonding and Securities. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/subdivider shall execute a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the City and shall provide performance bonds/securities for 100 percent of each estimated Works of Improvement costs, inclusive of soft costs (e.g. Materials Testing, Inspection, Construction Management, Surveying, etc.), as prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer, Assistant Utilities Director and City Attorney for all onsite and offsite improvements including, but not limited to, street improvements, signing, signalization, striping and street lights, storm drains, sewer, water, recreational trails, landscaping and irrigation in rights-of-way, private slopes, and open space. In addition, the applicant/subdivider shall provide labor and materials bonds/securities for 100 percent of the above estimated improvement costs, inclusive of the associated soft costs, as determined by the City Engineer. Labor cost of all improvements to be dedicated to City as public facilities to operate and maintain shall be per prevailing wages rate per California Labor Code Section 1720-17 43. An additional bond, as determined by the City Engineer, shall be required for street maintenance purposes to ensure the conditions of all local driveways/streets within the subdivision, including the offsite emergency access road, are acceptable to the City Engineer. (PW) 31.OCFA Flow Demands. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/sub­ divider shall obtain from the Orange County OCFA Authority (OCFA) the required fire flow demands and fire protection requirements to serve the development within that final map and shall provide evidence of satisfactory OCFA flow. (UD) 32.Dedication of Water Facilities and Water Rights. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/sub-divider shall dedicate on the final map, at no cost to the City, all public water facilities, water rights and 20 feet wide unencumbered lot (lettered lot), to the City for project improvements. (UD) 33.Public Facility Easements and Permits Obtained by Developer on Behalf of the City of San Juan Capistrano. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/sub-divider shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the public utilities purveyor that public facilities, such as drainage, sewer, and water, can be designed and constructed to serve the needs of the property. Public Facilities, to the extent practicable, shall be located within the right-of-way, or common roadways. Public Facilities on private property will be by Easement and use standard restrictions on the surface and subsurface use of the land articulated utilizing Utilities Division 2016 Easement Deed Template. Public Facilities not in roadway shall be in lettered lots dedicated to the City. In addition, easements shall be 20-foot wide, with a 12-foot wide all weather road (decomposed granite or better), without unpassable grade changes, and be connected to a road on public Right of Way; or linked to another similarly constructed easement. Any exception shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and Assistant Utilities Director. (PW & UD) ATTACHMENT 6, Page 13 of 27 Resolution 20-06-09-01 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 8 of 21 34.Tentative Map Compliance and Closure Calculations. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer and Assistant Utilities Director for review, and shall obtain approval/recordation of, a final map in substantial compliance with the approved tentative map. Said map shall be accompanied with traverse closure calculations and an updated Title Search Report. Any exception or deviation to the above requirements shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. (PW & UD) 35.Homeowners Association-Maintained Improvements. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/subdivider shall indicate on the final map that all improvements, including but not limited to, streets, drainage, street lights, street signage, striping improvements, the water quality best management practices identified in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), parks, graded slopes, landscaping, and irrigation facilities withi� the interior of the subdivision owned by the Association, shall be maintained by the master association and/or sub-association or shall make other provisions for maintenance to be approved by the City. (PW) 36.Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/subdivider shall submit a precise grading plan(s) prepared by a California State Registered Civil Engineer to the Development Services Director for City review and approval by the City Engineer, Assistant Utilities Director, and Building Official. The precise grading plan(s) shall be consistent with the approved rough grading plan and the approved Tentative Tract Map. 37.Dedications and Maintenance Responsibility. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/subdivider shall indicate on the final map, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, all appropriate dedication and access rights, stating their purposes and their maintenance responsibilities. (PW & UD) 38.CC&Rs. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/subdivider shall submit for review, and shall obtain the approval of, the Development Services Director, City Engineer, Public Works & Utilities Director, and City Attorney, a set of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Said CC&Rs shall be recorded with the final map and shall include, but not be limited to, the following: a.Creation of a Homeowners Association and/or a Sub-Association for the purpose of providing for control over the uniformity of boundary fencing, and the perpetual maintenance responsibility of areas including, but not limited to, all common areas, open space, project entries, slopes, fuel modification zones, private medians and greenbelts, private parks, irrigation systems, landscaped areas, walls, driveways, parking areas, structures, private streets, street lights, drainage facilities, and all other areas to be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association and/or Sub-association. All improvements, including but not limited to, streets, restoration of enhanced ATTACHMENT 6, Page 14 of 27 Resolution 20-06-09-01 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 9 of 21 pavement over the public water and sewer facilities after repairing of said facilities by the City, drainage, street lights, street signage, striping improvements, parks, graded slopes, landscaping, and irrigation facilities within the interior of the subdivision designated as private shall remain private and shall be maintained by the Homeowners Association and/or Sub-association, or shall make other provision for maintenance, as approved by the City Council.(PW) b.The establishment of setback and height requirements for additions and accessory structures that conform to the development standards of the San Juan Capistrano Land Use Code. (DSD) c.A statement indicating that proposed amendments to any of the CC&Rs which impact, change or modify any Conditions of Approval, or other City regulations or requirements, shall be submitted for review to the Development Services Director and that, if the Director determines that the amendment adversely affects any project conditions of approval or other City regulations or requirements, the amendment will then require City Council approval prior to the amendment becoming valid. (DSD) d.OCFA prevention and defense provisions including: 1) an OCFA lane map, if required by the OCFA Chief; 2) provisions which prohibit parking in OCFA lanes and a method of enforcement; 3) a method for keeping OCFA protection access easements unobstructed; and 4) ·a requirement for approval of the OCFA Chief for modifications such as installation of speed humps or bumps, control gate changes, or parking changes. (OCFA) e.Provisions for maintenance by the homeowners association of the water quality best management practices identified in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), of all private drainage facilities, including retention/detention basins, that are made a part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the City, and for inspection of basins annually. The HOA shall have a line item in the annual budget for the implementation of the required operations and maintenance identified in the approved Water Quality Management Plan. (PW) f.A provision that gives the City the right to assume inspection and maintenance of any NPDES facilities, if the City determines that the homeowners association has not maintained said facilities in accordance with the permit requirements, and that, in such event, the homeowners association shall be financially responsible to pay City for the costs the City incurs in such maintenance role. (PW) g.A provision that requires City approval of any amendment to the CC&Rs that will, in any manner, affect the maintenance, function, or integrity of NPDES facilities. (PW) ATTACHMENT 6, Page 15 of 27 Resolution 20-06-09-01 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 10 of 21 h.A statement indicating that by July first of every year, annual fiscal year reports will be furnished to the City in compliance with the reporting requirements of codes and ordinances adopted by the City with respect to the NPDES program. (PW) 1.A provision requiring that all landscape contractors properly train their field crews so as to prevent improper pruning/trimming or ornamental maintenance of the California native plants, and providing an enforceable penalty which the HOA may impose on the landscape contractor for violation of this provision including but not limited to replacement of plant material with comparably sized new plant material. (PW) j.A provision that the homeowners association (HOA) would be responsible for the cost of replacement and restoration of any enhanced paving or stamped­ concrete removed by the City for the purpose of maintaining, replacing, repairing, or otherwise conducting work on underground utilities including but not limited to waterlines, sanitary sewer lines, and storm drainage lines within the proposed private streets. (UD) k.A provision that the homeowners association (HOA) would be responsible for the cost of maintenance, replacement, and/or restoration of the multi-use trail along the southern boundary of the development. I.A provision that the homeowners association (HOA) will require that prior to completing any landscape improvements on the property, the applicant/owner shall submit a preliminary landscape plan to the homeowners association's Architectural Review Board for review and approval and shall meet the following standards: •The HOA Architectural Review Board shall encourage front yard and side yards visible from the street to be landscaped with a drought tolerant and California-friendly plant palette as approved by the City. •Failure of any lot owner to comply with these landscape provisions shall be deemed a violation of the Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions (CC&Rs) and shall be punishable accordingly under the violations & penalties section of the CC&Rs 39.Submission of Digital Map. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant/subdivider shall submit for review, and shall obtain approval from the Orange County surveyor, of a digitized map pursuant to Orange County Ordinance 3809 of January 28, 1991. The applicant/subdivider shall pay for all cost of said digital submittal, including supplying digital copies to the City, of the final County Surveyor approved digital map in DXF format. In addition, the applicant/subdivider shall provide the City with digitized copies of all improvement (as-built) plans. (PW&UD) ATTACHMENT 6, Page 16 of 27 Resolution 20-06-09-01 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 11 of 21 40.Dry Utilities (Electric, Telephone, Cable TV, Gas) Plans. Prior to approval of the final map, the· applicant/subdivider shall submit concurrently with the Street/Sewer/Water/Drainage Improvement Plans, all Electrical, Gas, Telephone and Cable Television installation plans to the City Engineer for review and approval, to ensure compatibility with existing and proposed improvements. All utility lines with junction structures shall be underground. Any deviation from these requirements shall be subject to prior City Engineer review and approval. (PW&UD) 41.Public Facility Easements to be in Lettered Lots Maintained by HOA. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/subdivider shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that public facilities, such as drainage, sewer, and water, are designed to be located within the right-of-way. Any deviation shall require prior authorization from the City Engineer and Utilities Engineer. If facilities are proposed in easements, said facilities shall be placed in lettered lots easements with minimum 20-foot wide paved maintenance road and their surfaces shall be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Any exception shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and Utilities Engineer. (PW&UD) 42.After transfer of a portion of APN 666-131-08, City property, per separate agreement, the developer's property and the acquired property shall be merged together to create one larger, developer's property. 43.The Tract Map shall identify "LOT 'B"' and "LOT 'A "' with clear indications of which area is designated the lot. 44.The tract map shall include the following labels: a.0.14-acre northern portion of APN 666-131-08 shall be identified as "PROPERTY OWNED BY CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO TO BE TRANSFERRED TO DEVELOPER PER SEPARATE AGREEEMNT" b.Proposed property line to separate 0.14-acre northern portion from APN 666-131-08 shall be identified as "LIMITS OF FUTURE FINAL TRACT (FUTURE TRACT BOUNDARY AFTER TRANSFER, PER SEPARATE AGREEMENT)" THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY GRADING AND/OR RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENT PERMIT(S): 45.Payment of Fees. Prior to issuance of grading or right-of-way improvement permits, the applicant/subdivider shall pay all applicable fee requirements in accordance with the City Municipal Code, as last revised and the City Schedules of Rates and Charges, as last revised. (PW&UD) 46.Permits Required. Prior to the commencement of any grading or construction activity not provided for in previously approved permits, a permit shall be ATTACHMENT 6, Page 17 of 27 Resolution 20-06-09-01 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 12 of 21 required. All improvement work, whether performed on-site or off-site, shall require a permit to ensure the integrity and safety of all existing and proposed improvements affected by construction activities. (PW & UD) 47.Public Trail Access. Prior to commencement of any grading or construction activity, the developer shall provide a trail closure plan, identifying the approximate dates when the trail cannot be accessed by the public, and the proposed signage which will be posted to notify the public of the closure and alternative route. The developer shall maintain accessibility through the site to the greatest extent possible. 48.Encroachment Permit Haul Route. A Public Encroachment Permit is required for a Haul Route for any import/export of earth material in excess of fifty (50) cubic yards to or from the site. Prior to the commencement of hauling earth to or from the site, applicant shall, if applicable, submit the Haul Route for review and approval by the City Engineer. (PW) 49.Grading Plans. Prior to issuance of grading or right-of-way improvement permits, the applicant/subdivider shall submit the required number of copies of grading plans prepared by a California State Registered Civil Engineer to the Development Services Director for City review and approval by the City Engineer for the entire project site. Such plan shall be in substantial conformance with the grading concept shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map. Following City approval of the rough grading plan, and prior to approval of the final map, the applicant/subdivider shall submit a precise grading plan(s) prepared by a California State Registered Civil Engineer to the Development Services Director for City review and approval by the City Engineer and Building Official. The precise grading plan(s) shall be consistent with the approved rough grading plan and the approved Tentative Tract Map. These plans shall conform to the City and Orange County grading plan standards and depict, at minimum, all existing features, the limits of grading, the drainage, retention/detention basins, sewer facilities, water facilities, existing easements and right-of-way boundaries, trails, parkways, streets and all appurtenant improvements. The extent of the topography shall be extended sufficiently beyond the tract's boundaries to determine the geological and drainage impacts to adjacent properties. The elevations shall correspond with the Orange County benchmark datum. All drainage design must depict proper conveyance to the on-site street or a City approved drainage facility with appropriate pre-treatment facilities or Best Management Practices (BMP) in place pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. All grading plans shall be subject to review by a third-party geotechnical ATTACHMENT 6, Page 18 of 27 Resolution 20-06-09-01 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 13 of 21 consultant retained by the City to ensure geotechnical stability to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (DSD, PW & UD) 50.Grading Access and Haul Route Plan. Prior to issuance of grading or right-of­ way improvement permits, the applicant/subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer for review, and shall obtain approval of: (PW) a.An on-site plan showing location of the access point, for the earth moving and grading equipment and for workers vehicles entering and exiting the site. b.An off-site haul route plan for soil importation/exportation circulation and for heavy construction related deliveries. The haul route plan shall specify the dates and times and headways for hauling activities in compliance with all applicable City standards. The City Engineer may require a security deposit in conjunction with approval of the haul route plan. c.Prior to commencement of haul activities, the applicant shall obtain a Haul Route Permit and pay required fees. 51.All existing and proposed easements as listed on the TTM shall be shown on grading plans and disposition of the existing easements in respect to the proposed development shall be determined. If an easement is to be quitclaimed, a copy of the quitclaimed document shall be provided to the City Engineer. 52.Erosion & Sediment Control Plans, Prior to issuance of grading or right-of-way improvement permits, the applicant/subdivider shall submit an Erosion/Sediment Control Plan for the regulation and control of pollutant run-off by using Best Management Practices (BMPs), prepared by a California State Registered Civil Engineer to the City Engineer for review and approval. The plan shall show all temporary and permanent erosion control devices, effective planting of graded slopes, practical accessibility for maintenance purposes and proper precautions and fences to prevent public trespass onto certain areas where impounded water may create a hazardous condition. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared by a certified QSD and the project shall be issued a WDID number through the Regional Water Resources Control Board and the project downloaded into the SMARTS program. In order to control pollutant run-off, the applicant/sub-divider shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that all water quality best management practices shall be designed in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards, and the requirements of California Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Diego Region) Order No. R9-2009- 0009 (As amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ) and City guidelines and regulations, and shall show evidence satisfactory to the City Engineer that a permit has been obtained. (PW) ATTACHMENT 6, Page 19 of 27 Resolution 20-06-09-01 Tirador Residential Pro;ect Conditions of Approval Page 14 of 21 53.General Construction Permit. Prior to issuance of grading or right-of-way improvement permits, the applicant/subdivider shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOi) to the California State Water Resource Control Board for coverage under the State Natlonal Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program (NPDES) General Permit for storm water discharges associated with development/ construction activity in excess of one acre of land. Evidence that this requirement has been met shall be submitted to the City Engineer. (PW&UD) 54.Water Quality Management Program. a.Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant/subdivider shall submit concurrently with the grading plans, erosion control plans, and drainage plans a Final Water Quality Management Program (WQMP), as prepared by a California State Registered Civil Engineer, to the City Engineer for review and approval. All erosion and sediment control measures as specified in said approved WQMP shall be implemented during the grading operation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (PW) b.Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant/subdivider shall submit a final WQMP as prepared by a California State Registered Civil Engineer to the City Engineer for review approval. (PW) 55.Drainage Improvement Plans. Prior to issuance of grading or right-of-way improvement permits, the applicant/subdivider shall submit Drainage Improvement Plans as prepared by a California State Registered Civil Engineer to the City Engineer for review and approval. The Drainage Improvement Plans shall be specific to the project, and be consistent with the City's Drainage Master Plan. These plans shall show locations of all existing and proposed facilities. Detention/retention basins shall be designed to accommodate the 100-year storm flow with engineered secondary overflow devices. An engineered secondary overflow shall also be provided for storm drain systems designed with sump conditions to preclude flooding of private properties. All drainage must be conveyed to the on-site street or a City approved drainage facility. If an existing downstream drainage facility, whether it is a storm drain pipe, an open drainage channel, or an inlet basin, is inadequate or does not meet current City standards or, in the opinion of the City Engineer, is unsafe to properly carry the existing discharge and the proposed discharge generated by this project, the applicant/subdivider shall then, at applicant/subdivider's cost, design and implement alternative methods of improvement for properly conveying such discharge, free of debris, in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. Any deviation from these requirements shall be subject to City Engineer review and approval. Every proposed drainage system shall be placed within its proper easement and appropriately dedicated. ATTACHMENT 6, Page 20 of 27 Resolution 20-06-09-01 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 15 of 21 The base of all slopes over ten feet in height located within 20 feet of a street section or which are adjacent to another lot shall be provided with toe drains or other drainage devices approved by the City Engineer, in order to prevent water, mud or debris from damaging or flowing onto such streets or lots. (PW) 56.Trash Enclosure and Waste Management. Prior to issuance of a grading permit applicant shall submit plans and details showing enclosed and covered (Solid Roof) trash and waste management areas/bins. Trash enclosure space shall accommodate refuse, recycling, and organic waste collection containers and meet requirements per CalRecycle AB 1826 SB 1383, and CalGreen Building Code Chapter 5, Section 5.410. Trash enclosures shall have a drain connected directly to the sanitary sewer system. Trash and waste and asbestos management plans shall be approved by the Utilities Department, Solid Waste and Recycling Division. Applicant shall also provide a written approval letter from CR&R for trash and waste and asbestos management areas and haul off plans. Sufficient access shall be provided to allow solid waste handling truck access and turning radii. 57.Connection to Public Drains must be Documented and Filed. Prior to issuance of grading or right-of-way improvement permits, the applicant/subdivider shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that any proposed connections to an existing public drainage system, from on-site drains, must be approved by the City Engineer and Orange County Flood Control District (as applicable). All documentation and revisions to existing plans, where points of connections are permitted, shall be provided and submitted by the applicant's engineer at applicant's expense, prior to acceptance to improvements and release of performance securities. (PW&UD) 58.Recycling/Reduce Debris Act of 1989 (CIWMA). Prior to issuance of grading or right-of-way improvement permits, the applicant/subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer for review, and shall obtain approval of, a program complying with the requirements of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 to reduce construction and demolition debris through recycling. (PW) 59.Soils/Geology. Prior to issuance of grading or right-of-way improvement permits, the applicant/subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer, Assistant Utilities Director, and Building Official for their review, and shall obtain approval of, a Soils Report/Geotechnical Feasibility Study prepared by a Registered Geologist and Soils Engineer to determine the seismic safety and soils stability of all proposed development improvements for the project and any affected adjacent properties and to provide preliminary pavement sections and substructure bedding/backfill recommendations. (PW&UD) ATTACHMENT 6, Page 21 of 27 Resolution 20-06-09-01 Tirador Residential Pro;ect Conditions of Approval Page 16 of 21 60.Mitigation of Drainage and Grading Problems. Prior to issuance of grading or right-of-way improvement permits, the applicant/subdivider shall adhere to the following conditions during the entire grading and construction operation: (PW) a.If any drainage problem is anticipated or occurs during construction, the applicant/subdivider shall provide and implement a solution acceptable to the City Engineer, at no cost to the City, and shall submit a recorded instrument to insure the durability of the solution. b.Any grading work beyond the limits of grading shown on the approved grading plans shall require a written approval from the City Engineer and shall be subject to a supplemental Geotechnical Soils Report and additional fees. 61.Stormwater Management/Drainage Plan. Hydraulic/Hydrologic Calculations. Prior to issuance of grading or right-of-way improvement permits, the applicant/subdivider shall submit a Drainage Plan which includes the Hydraulic /Hydrology calculations as prepared by a California State Registered Civil Engineer to the City Engineer for review and approval. The Drainage Plan shall show existing and proposed facilities, provide for acceptance of historic drainage from adjacent upstream properties, show hydraulic and hydrology studies and calculations and the methods of draining on-site and tributary areas without exceeding the capacity of any impacted street or facility and without affecting existing downstream drainage system. Said study shall be consistent with the City's Master Drainage Plan and in accordance with all applicable City regulations, Orange County Hydrology and Orange County Public Works design criteria and requirements. (PW) 62.Construction Phasing and Mitigation Program. Prior to issuance of grading or right-of-way improvement permits, the applicant/subdivider shall prepare and adhere to a Construction Phasing and Mitigation program, approved by the Development Services Director and Building Official containing, but not limited to, the following controls: (PW & DSD) a.Grading: 1.Comply with California Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 1529. Asbestos, for removal and disposal of existing waterline on the site. (UD) 2.Haul route for the movement of on and off-site of heavy earth-moving equipment. 3.Location of assembly and storage/service areas for heavy earth-moving equipment and limits of hours of operation. 4.Control of worker access to site, including hours of work, limits on noise sources, and dust and soil import/export. 5.Compliance with environmental mitigation measures, including stockpiles and dust impacts. ATTACHMENT 6, Page 22 of 27 Resolution 20-06-09-01 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 17 of 21 6.A schedule and the method of performing the grading, stockpiling and construction of all improvements in each phase. b.Enforcement: 1.The Development Services Director and City Engineer may modify the Construction Phasing and Mitigation Program as they deem necessary if on-site observations indicate that construction activities are creating a nuisance to adjacent property. 2.The applicant/subdivider shall hire a project enforcement person approved by the City Engineer to ensure compliance with the Construction Phasing and Mitigation Program. 3.Violation of the City-approved "Construction Phasing and Mitigation Program" shall be subject to enforcement action pursuant to Section 9- 1.201, Violations and Penalties of the Title 9, Land Use Code. 63.Design of Water Facilities. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant/subdivider shall design all domestic and non-domestic water facilities in compliance with City water standard specifications. If a water improvement phasing plan is to be implemented, the phasing plan shall be submitted with the improvement plans to the Assistant Utilities Director for review and approval. (UD) 64.Property Transfer: Developer shall execute all documents to obtain ownership of the northern portion of APN 666-131-08 as depicted in the approved Purchase and Sales Agreement and the acquired property shall be incorporated into the project's grading plan. (PW) THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT(S): 65.Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Compliance. Prior to the issuance of any Building Permits applicant shall receive approval from FEMA for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision based on Fill (CLOMR-F) or a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) whichever is applicable and required per FEMA. Architectural and structural plans shall be prepared in accordance with the most recent version of the City of San Juan Capistrano Floodplain Management regulations, all NFIP and FEMA floodplain requirements, and FEMA Title 44 Chapter I Part 60 requirements including but not limited to Subparagraphs 60.3(c)(3)(ii) and 60.3(c)(4) of the NFIP regulations. (PW) 66.Development Plans. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each development phase, the applicant/subdivider shall submit development plans to the Development Services Director for City review and approval. Plans to be reviewed shall be as applicable to the particular development phase under ATTACHMENT 6, Page 23 of 27 Resolution 20-06-09-01 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 18 of 21 review and, in general, shall include grading plans (unless previously approved by the City), final site and landscape plans, park plans (if applicable to the development phase), architectural elevations, wall/fence plans, project entry and gate plans, sample material boards, and other plans as specified by the Development Services Director. Landscaping plans shall provide at least one street tree per residential lot. Final plans shall be in substantial compliance with preliminary plans approved as part of the development review process. (DSD) 67.Capistrano Circulation Fee Program (CCFP). Except as otherwise set out in accordance with a schedule in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement to be executed in conjunction with City approval of the first final map, the applicant/subdivider shall pay fees, in the amount prescribed by the City Council at the time of issuance, as required by the CCFP, at issuance of each building permit. (PW) 68.Public Water and Sewer Plans. The applicant/subdivider shall submit Public Water and Sewer improvement Plans to Utilities Department for City review and approval. (UD) 69.Water Availability. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits by the Development Services Department, the applicant/developer shall consult with the Utilities Department to determine the availability of water for their project and will secure a final "will serve" water capacity allocation. (UD) 70.Completion of Water Facilities. Prior to issuance of building permits for each building phase, the applicant/subdivider shall complete the construction of all domestic and non-domestic water (irrigation) facilities as indicated and required to serve the subject project in compliance with the City Municipal Code and the City water standards, and American Water Works Association Standards. Any exception to, or deviation from this condition shall be subject to review and approval by the Assistant Utilities Director. (UD) THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE SPECIFIED CERTIFICATE(S) OF OCCUPANCY: 71.Affordable Housing Requirement. The applicant/subdivider shall meet the General Plan Housing Element's affordable housing requirement by either (1) prior to the issuance of a "Certificate of Occupancy" for each market rate dwelling unit, paying an in-lieu housing fee to the City pursuant to Section 9- 5.103, "Housing in-lieu fee" of Title 9, Land Use Code in effect at that time; or, (2)prior to the issuance of the 1st building permit for a market rate dwelling unit, providing for the development of a minimum of 10% of the total number of units, totaling fourteen (14) units as affordable housing units subject to a City­ approved and recorded Affordability Agreement restricting the rental and/or sale of such units to qualifying "low income" and/or "very-low income" households for a period of not less than ten (10) years. The applicant/subdivider shall be ATTACHMENT 6, Page 24 of 27 Resolution 20-06-09-01 Tirador Residential Proiect Conditions of Approval Page 19 of 21 responsible for securing the required planning application approvals for the development of such affordable housing, and shall secure the required building permits prior to the issuance of the 1st building permit for any market rate housing units, and shall complete construction and secure all "Certificates of Occupancy" for the affordable housing units prior to the issuance of any "Certificates of Occupancy" for the market rate units. (DSD) 72.Monumentation. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the 1st home within the project (other than model homes), the applicant/subdivider's surveyor shall set monuments related to the subject property(ies) and re-establish any damaged or destroyed monumentation during construction. Monumentation, street centerline ties and appropriate corner records shall be submitted to the City Engineer and filed with the County Surveyor in compliance with AB 1414 and Sec. 8771 of the Business and Professions Code. (PW&UD) 73.Completion of All Improvements to the City's Satisfaction. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the 1 st home within the project (other than model homes), or prior to acceptance of the Works of Improvements and release of the performance and labor and materials securities by the City, whichever occurs first, the applicant/subdivider shall complete, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, all Works of Improvements as defined within the Subdivision Improvement Agreement and related plans required of this development and necessary to serve the development, including any required off-site improvements, in accordance with the City approved Construction Phasing and Mitigation Program, the approved Improvement Plans, and approved exceptions, and at the sole cost of applicant. (PW&UD) 74.Installation of Landscaping and Irrigation System. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first home within each development phase (other than model homes), the applicant/subdivider shall submit a letter to the Development Services Director, signed by a Registered Landscape Architect, stating that all materials for all landscaped areas have been installed in accordance with the approved plans for each development phase, and shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director that all landscaped areas have been landscaped per the approved landscape and irrigation plans. The applicant shall provide as-built landscape and irrigation plans that identify all deltas (changes) to the Utilities Engineering and Development Services. (DSD & UD) 75.Water Quality Management Plan Operations and Maintenance Recordation. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first home, the applicant/subdivider shall provide proof of recordation of the WQMP Operations and Maintenance section of the Water Quality Management Plan. (UD) THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS AND RELEASE OF SURETY/PERFORMANCE SECURITIES: ATTACHMENT 6, Page 25 of 27 Resolution 20-06-09-01 Tirador Residential .Pro/ect Conditions of Approval Page 20 of 21 76.Provide "Record Drawing"/"As-Built" Mylars. Prior to acceptance of the Works of Improvements and release of performance securities, the applicant/subdivider shall submit Record Drawings of all on-site and off-site Works of Improvements (e.g. Water/Sewer/Drainage/Street/Irrigation/ Landscape, etc.) to the City Engineer and Utilities Engineer for review and obtain approval for the reproducible "Record Drawing"/'As-Built" mylar plans that call out any deviations from the approved signed plans of all the improvement works constructed and completed. Said "Record Drawings"/'As­ Built" mylar plans shall be prepared by a California State Registered Civil Engineer. Also, the applicant/subdivider shall submit digital copies of all Record Drawings, at no cost to the City, in accordance with the latest edition of the "City of San Juan Capistrano Digital Submission Standards". (PW&UD) 77.Videotape of Sewers and Storm Drain Pipes. Prior to acceptance of Works of Improvements and release of performance and materials and labor securities, the applicant/subdivider shall submit a videotape, or video file, filmed in the presence of a City Staff representative/inspector, of all sewer and drainage improvements to the City Engineer & Assistant Utilities Director for review and approval. The videotape/video file shall become the property of the City. (PW&UD) 78.Private fire hydrants within the development shall be painted in RED color. (UD) THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET CONTINUOUSLY DURING CONSTRUCTION AND PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: 79.Compliance With Mitigation and Monitoring Program. At all times relevant, Applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program ("MMRP") adopted in connection with FEIR SCH No. SCH# 2019050015 in connection with the Project. _ 68. Compliance with OCFA protection conditions. The applicant or responsible party shall submit the plan(s) listed below to the Orange County Fire Authority for review. Approval shall be obtained on each plan prior to the event specified. Prior to issuance of a precise grading permit: •fuel modification plan (service code PR124) •fire master plan (service code PR145) o Note: Determine the required fire flow and provide a current water availability form signed by a water district representative showing that the available fire flow is greater than or equal to the required fire flow. o Note: The fire access roads may not exceed a 10% (5.7 degree) grade. ATTACHMENT 6, Page 26 of 27 Resolution 20-06-09-01 Tirador Residential Proiect Prior to issuance of a building permit: Conditions of Approval Page 21 of 21 •fire sprinkler system (service codes PR405) Responsible Departments/Agencies: DSD: Development Services Department DSD-B&S: DSD-Building & Safety Division PW: Public Works Department UD: Utilities Department OCFA: Orange County Fire Authority Applicant Acceptance of Conditions of Approval: Signature-Authorized Representative Watt Communities Print Name & Title: Date: -------- ------------------------- ATTACHMENT 6, Page 27 of 27 PC RESOLUTION NO. 20-06-09-02 Architectural Control (AC) 17-033, Grading Plan Modification (GPM) 17-013 & Sign Program (SP) 20-012 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY· OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL (AC) 17- 033, GRADING PLAN MODIFICATION (GPM) 17-013, AND SIGN PROGRAM (SP) 20- 012, FOR THE TIRADOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECT LOCATED AT 27000 CALLE ARROYO, CONTINGENT UPON THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING THE FINAL EIR FOR THE PROJECT WHEREAS, Watt Communities (the "Applicant") is proposing the Tirador Residential Project ("Project"), a 16.1-acre residential project at 27000 Calle Arroyo, which is General Plan designated Planned Community and General Open Space and Zoned Planned Community, Comprehensive Development Plan 78-01, Sector 8-3. The Project entitlements required for the Project include, among other approvals, Architectural Control (AC) 17-033, Sign Program (SP) 20-012 and Grading Plan Modification (GPM) 17-013 to develop a 132-unit residential community; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") that analyzed the proposed Project's environmental impacts in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The DEIR was made available to the public for review and comment for 45 days between March 4, 2020, and February 17, 2020. During and following the close of the public review period, the City received five comment letters and e-mails on the project. For those letters and e-mails that raised CEQA-related issues, the City has prepared Response to Comments as required by CEQA, which are included in the Final EIR. The EIR determined that all environmental impacts could be reduced to a level of less than significant through the incorporation of mitigation measures. The Draft EIR and Final EIR for the project are available on the City's website at: http://sanjuancapistrano.org/Departments/Development -Services/Planning; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has carefully considered the application, all the information submitted by the Applicant, the public, and city staff in connection with the Project, including the agenda report prepared by staff for these and other Project approvals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the recitals above are incorporated herein by reference as findings of the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San Juan Capistrano does hereby make the following findings as established by Section 9-3.505, Affordable Housing Requirements, of Title 9, Land Use Code of the City of San Juan Capistrano: ATTACHMENT 7, Page 1 of 8 PC Resolution 20-06-09-02 2 June 9 2020 1.The proposed project is entitled to concessions under the City's density bonus program because 10.6% of the units will be restricted to households earning a moderate income, qualifying the development for up to one concession. 2.The proposed project is entitled to waivers to development standards under the City's density bonus program because a site analysis with all Very High-Density residential district development standards applied, demonstrates that the development would result in a loss of 25 units. 3.The project applicant requests one concession, a floor-to-floor ratio of up to 93%, exceeding the 80% maximum floor-to-floor requirement. 4.The project applicant requests four waivers: 1) Minimum 8'-0" separation between buildings where 20'-0" is required; 2) 0'-0" setback from City owned well property where 20'-0' is required; 3) 10'-0" setback from 24 Hour Fitness property where 20'-0" is required, and 4) elimin·ate requirement to provide one RV parking stall for every seven units. 5.The one concession and four waivers will not result in a cost reduction, will not have an adverse impact on public health and safety, and will not be contrary to state or federal law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San Juan Capistrano does hereby make the following findings as established by Section 9-3.505(e), Affordable Housing Requirements, of Title 9, Land Use Code of the City of San Juan Capistrano: 1.The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element, including Land Use Goal 2 of the General Plan, which directs the City to "control and direct future growth within the City to preserve the rural village like character of the community". Policy 2.2 of Land Use Plan Goal 2 further states that the City will "assure that new development is consistent and compatible with the existing character of the City". As the City of San Juan Capistrano is almost entirely built out, the proposed 132-unit residential community development uses an infill vacant lot with structures which are compatible with the neighboring developments and uses. Locating the project at this infill property here ensures other more appropriate open space lands remain undisturbed and preserve the predominantly rural village-like character of the City while adding housing stock for the City. Moreover, Land Use Policy 7.2 of the General Plan states that the City will "ensure that new development is compatible with the physical characteristics of its site, surrounding land uses, and available public infrastructure". The proposed 132-unit residential community is surrounded by a commercial gym, office development and equestrian facility which are compatible with the proposed single family and townhome residences, and the Spanish or early California architecture influenced architecture on the surrounding buildings is compatible with the Spanish and Farmhouse architecture proposed. ATTACHMENT 7, Page 2 of 8 PC Resolution 20-06-09-02 3 June 9 2020 In addition, the proposed single family and townhome buildings are consistent with the Goals and Policies of the Community Design Element. The project is consistent with Policy 1.2 because the residential buildings have been designed with high-quality materials and at a human scale, with resident and guest-oriented recreational space and entryways and the density of the development is less than the maximum permitted for the district which would permit up to 30 dwelling units per acre. It is consistent with Policy 2.1 because the proposed building incorporates Spanish and Farmhouse architecture, and California native landscape features which complements the City's traditional historic character. 2.The detached and attached single-family residences and multi-family townhomes are permitted within the Ortega Planned Community, Comprehensive Development Plan 78-1, Sector B-3 zoning district. The proposed project would establish a 132-unit residential community and has been designed to meet all applicable development standards and provisions of Title 9 of the San Juan Capistrano Municipal code including lot coverages, setbacks, height requirements, use regulations, and affordable housing requirements which allow for concessions and waivers to standards such as setbacks, floor to floor ratio, and RV parking requirements. 3.The project has been analyzed through a Environmental Impact Report and determined that all environmental impacts could be reduced to a level of less than significant through the incorporation of mitigation measures. 4.The project includes a condition of approval that Affordability Covenants restricting 14 units to be made available to moderate income households for a period of ten years will be recorded against the property prior to finalizing the Final Tract Map. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, after careful consideration of the agenda report and all the evidence that was presented in connection with this Project, the Planning Commission of the City of San Juan Capistrano does hereby make the following findings as required by Subsection (c) of Section 9-2.313 Architectural Control Review of Title 9, Land Use Code of the City of San Juan Capistrano: 1.Detached and attached single-family residences and multi-family townhomes are permitted within the Ortega Planned Community, Comprehensive Development Plan 78-1, Sector B-3 zoning district. The proposed project would establish a 132-unit residential community and has been designed to meet all applicable development standards and provisions of Title 9 of the San Juan Capistrano Municipal code including lot coverages, setbacks, height requirements, use regulations, and affordable housing requirements which allow for concessions and waivers to standards such as setbacks, floor to floor ratio, and RV parking requirements. Furthermore, the project requires approval of a Sign Permit, Grading Plan Modification, Floodplain Land Use Permit, and Tentative Tract Map concurrently with the architectural control application, and the applicant has concurrently applied for these entitlements. These permits are subject to separate findings which are ATTACHMENT 7, Page 3 of 8 PC Resolution 20-06-09-02 4 June 9 2020 discussed separately under each permit application. The findings for the other permits can be met and substantial evidence supports those findings. 2.The project is consistent with the Land Use Element, including Land Use Goal 2 of the General Plan, which directs the City to "control and direct future growth within the City to preserve the rural village like character of the community". Policy 2.2 of Land Use Plan Goal 2 further states that the City will "assure that new development is consistent and compatible with the existing character of the City". As the City of San Juan Capistrano is almost entirely built out, the proposed 132-unit residential community development uses an infill vacant lot with structures which are compatible with the neighboring developments and uses. Neighboring residential developments within the Ortega Planned Community, Comprehensive Development Plan 78-1 include the Capistrano Del Oro detached condos at a density of seven dwelling units per acre, located to the east of the property , and the Vitia Paloma and Season's apartment complexes at an average density of 35 dwelling units per acre, located to the north of the property. Locating the project at this infill property here ensures other more appropriate open space lands remain undisturbed and preserve the predominantly rural village-like character of the City while adding housing stock for the City. Moreover, Land Use Policy 7.2 of the General Plan states that the City will "ensure that new development is compatible with the physical characteristics of its site, surrounding land uses, and available public infrastructure". The proposed 132-unit residential community is surrounded by a commercial gy m, office development and equestrian facility which are compatible with the proposed single family and townhome residences, and the Spanish or early California architecture influenced architecture on the surrounding buildings is compatible with the Spanish and Farmhouse architecture proposed. In addition, the proposed single family and townhome buildings are consistent with the Goals and Policies of the Community Design Element. The project is consistent with Policy 1.2 because the residential buildings have been designed with high-quality materials and at a human scale, with resident and guest-oriented recreational space and entryways. It is consistent with Policy 2.1 because the proposed building incorporates Spanish and Farmhouse architecture, and California native landscape features which complements the City's traditional historic character. Furthermore, the project is consistent with the Housing Element, which specified that the site could accommodate at least 230 residential units for lower income households, because the project will provide 14 residential units for moderate income households, 118-units for above moderate income households, and there are alternative sites in the City to accommodate the 216 affordable units not being provided at the project site. Specifically, applicant has identified a 44.83-acre alternative site within the Oso Planned Community, of which 30% is designated for Very High Density, and would accommodate up to 403 units for lower income households, which aligns with Policy 1.3 by encouraging private sector developers to produce housing affordable. The Housing Element Annual Report for the 2020 ATTACHMENT 7, Page 4 of 8 PC Resolution 20-06-09-02 5 June 9 2020 calendar year would identify the development of 118-units for above moderate income households and 14-units for moderate income households at this property, and the replacement site which would accommodate the 216 units which are no longer anticipated to be developed within the Tirador project. Additionally, the provision of affordable housing, as required by the 10% inclusionary housing requirement, within the project is consistent with Policies 2.1 and 2.2 of the Housing Element, because the project would provide 14-units for moderate income households and the City would be approving a concession and five waivers to development standards as an incentive to development of affordable housing. 3.The project meets the lot coverage ratios, and 35' height limit, with only architectural projections encroaching beyond the maximum height, as allowed by the City's Municipal Code's definition of Architectural Projection. The front, rear, and side yard setbacks are proposed to be met except the side setbacks to the property lines shared with the 24-hour Fitness and City-owned well property, which is a part of the applicant's waiver request. The applicant has proposed to provide all necessary residential and guest parking, with a waiver request for the RV parking associated with multi-family developments. The proposed development is entitled to concessions from the floor-to-floor ratio, and waiver from the minimum building separation. The development incorporates appropriate vehicular access, including 24'-wide drive aisles from Calle Arroyo and 20'-wide alley driveways. 4.The project's character, scale and quality of the architecture, site design and landscaping are consistent with the adopted Design Guidelines of the City because the project incorporates materials and colors consistent with the approved structures and signage on properties surrounding the site along Calle Arroyo and similar residential uses located within the City of San Juan Capistrano. Furthermore, the City's Design Review Committee has reviewed the design of the proposed building, site design, landscaping, and monument sign and recommended approval. 5.The project's site plan provides functional and safe vehicular and pedestrian access and circulation because the project is accessible from the public right-of-way into the site and provides safe vehicular access. These proposed means of access have been reviewed by the City Engineer who determined that the new use, driveways, and roadway modifications would not have a negative impact to vehicular traffic on Calle Arroyo. 6.The proposed use and design of the project are compatible with surrounding existing and proposed land uses and community character, including scale, intensity, massing, architectural design, landscape design, and other development characteristics because the proposed building will use colors and materials that are found throughout San Juan Capistrano, and are similar to the colors and materials of the buildings on adjacent parcels. Finally, the architectural design, landscape, and proposed parking lot features were reviewed by the Design Review Committee, which recommended approval of the designs. ATTACHMENT 7, Page 5 of 8 PC Resolution 20-06-09-02 6 June 9, 2020 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, after careful consideration of the agenda report and all the evidence that was presented in connection with this Project, the Planning Commission of the City of San Juan Capistrano does hereby make the following findings as required by Subsection (f) of Section 9-2.323 Grading Plan Review and Modification of Title 9, Land Use Code of the City of San Juan Capistrano: 1.The proposed grading modifications are consistent with the General Plan, Land Use Code and Design Guidelines, because the project allows for the development of a use which is permitted by the General Plan and Land Use Code on the property and is proposed in locations which ensure a structure can be built outside of floodplains, and which meets all required development standards established by the Ortega Planned Community, Comprehensive Development Plan 78-1, Sector B-3 or qualifies for concessions and waivers to the standards due to provision of affordable housing. While the existing topography needs to be modified in order to facilitate development, the proposed final grade maintain as much of the natural topography as possible and ensures a safe development outside of any flood way. Additionally, the exposed walls due to retaining will be no taller than 7' and be screened by existing natural landscaping between the property and the 1-5 freeway. 2.The proposed grading modifications are generally consistent with the approved site plan, preliminary grading plan, grading standards, and design concepts of the original industrial complex previously approved for the site through AC07-001, and the unimproved portions of the vacant lot. The proposed design is consistent because the development is primarily located in the same location as the previously approved industrial buildings, and the vacant lot is proposed to be built up to accommodate development, utilizing the natural topography to establish the residential community. 3.The proposed grading will remain consistent and compatible with immediately adjacent lots . Grading which takes place adjacent to property lines is proposed to tie in directly to the adjacent properties, by creating retaining walls, along the same lines as existing retaining walls, and maintaining in place, or replacing in-kind existing grades on the site so that the new development does not impact the adjacent properties. 4.The proposed grading plan shows the location of all proposed building footprints which meet the required minimum setbacks for structures within the Ortega Planned Community, Comprehensive Development Plan 78-1, Sector B-3, or qualify for a waiver to the standard. 5.The proposed modified grading will not cause adverse impacts to other properties, including but not limited to potential impacts on hydrology, water quality, views, trail easements, or other aspects of development because the proposed grading is subject to Plan Check review by the City's Engineering Division to ensure that grading will not result in any negative impacts to hydrology, water quality as required by local and state laws. Prior to issuance of grading or building permit, the applicant must demonstrate ATTACHMENT 7, Page 6 of 8 PC Resolution 20-06-09-02 7 June 9 2020 to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director that the proposed grading will not result in any negative impacts to hydrology, and water quality as required by local and state laws. The grading modifications do not impact views or trail easements because the site is adjacent to San Juan Creek and the 1-5 Freeway, and is a substantially level site with building which would be within the maximum height allowances and the applicant proposes to incorporate and enhance the existing City trail into and alongside the residential project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, after careful consideration of the agenda report and all the evidence that was presented in connection with this Project, the Planning Commission of the City of San Juan Capistrano does hereby make the following findings as required by Subsection (c)(3) of Section 9-2.343 Sign Permits and Sign Programs of Title 9, Land Use Code of the City of San Juan Capistrano: 1.The proposed subdivision monument signs meet all design criteria within Municipal Section 9-3.543, because the signs consist of materials and colors to match the earth tone colors of the proposed buildings and the existing signage within subdivisions throughout the City. Additionally, the signs meets the Community Design Element Policy 1.2 Encourage high quality and human scale design in development to maintain the character of the City, because the signs are designed with high quality materials, designed for vehicular traffic and circulation orientation, and maintain the similar design of the signage approved for similarly zoned properties within the City. 2.The proposed subdivision monument signs meet all size, height, illumination, and location requirements for a subdivision sign within a residential zone because the 5'- 6" tall, 12 square foot area sign does not exceed the maximum 6' height or 24 square foot maximum area. Additionally, the signs propose up-lighting which is one of the permitted illumination types for signs in the City. 3.The proposed signs are not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare; will not have adverse impacts on adjacent properties or rights-of-way; or obstruct the view of other legal signs, and be compatible with surrounding areas because the signs are proposed to be located within landscaped areas outside of the visibility triangle necessary for safe vehicular travel, which ensures that the signs do not create a hazard to adjacent properties, and is generally consistent with the Design Guidelines, which require the signs to be complementary to the architecture and design of the project site. 4.The signs are appropriate within the context of the project and compatible with the surrounding area due to the massing of the signage being compatible with the overall massing of the site. Furthermore, the City's Design Review Committee has reviewed the proposed monument signs has recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San Juan Capistrano hereby approves Architectural Control ATTACHMENT 7, Page 7 of 8 PC Resolution 20-06-09-02 8 June 9 2020 (AC) 17-033, Sign Permit (SP) 20-012, and Grading Plan Modification (GPM) 17-013 for the Project, subject to the Conditions of Approval established by Planning Commission Resolution 20-06-09-01 for FP20-001 and TTM 17-002, and contingent upon the City Council certifying the Final EIR for the Project. EFFECTIVE DATE & FINAL APPROVAL: This project approval shall become effective following expiration of the fifteen (15) day appeal period without filing of an appeal application. The appeal period shall expire at 5:30 pm, Wednesday, June 24, 2020. This project approval shall be valid for a period of 12 mqnths from the effective date of approval of this resolution and shall expire on June 24, 2021 unless a time extension request or building permit application related to this discretionary approval is submitted to the City prior to that date. PROTEST OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020, the applicant may protest the imposition of fees, dedications, reservations or other exactions imposed on this development project by taking the necessary steps and following the procedures established by Sections 66020 through 66022 of the California Government Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of June, 2020. Sergio Klotz, AICP, Assistant Development Services Director/Secretary ATTACHMENT 7, Page 8 of 8 PC RESOLUTION NO. 20-06-09-03 Sale Consistent with General Plan A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT THE SALE OF THE 0.14-ACRES OF 666-131-08, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE TERMINUS OF PASEO TIRADOR TO WATT COMMUNITIES FOR THE TIRADOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, Watt Communities (the "Applicant") is proposing the Tirador Residential ("Project"), an approximately 16.1-acre 132-unit residential project at 27000 Calle Arroyo; and WHEREAS. the City owns an adjacent property to the Project site, identified as APN 666-131-18, and intends to sell 0.14-acres of 666-131-08 (the "Property") to the Applicant so that the Applicant may develop the Project in accordance with Project entitlements approved by the City; and WHEREAS, when the City Council considers the entitlement applications for the Project, the Council will also consider approval of a Purchase and Sale Agreement ("PSA") between the City and Applicant. The PSA is the negotiated sales contract between the City and Watt Communities that establishes the terms, purchase price, escrow instructions and other matters specific to the transfer of title of the Property to the Applicant. The PSA is under final negotiations between the City and Watt Communities; and WHEREAS, under California Government Code section 65402(c), if a General Plan has been adopted, the City may not dispose of real property until the location, purpose, and extent of the disposition has been submitted to and reported on by the planning agency as to the conformity of the proposed disposition with the General Plan. Therefore, as required by state Law, the Planning Commission has been asked to determine whether the purpose of the proposed sale of the Property for the Project is consistent with the City's General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") that analyzed the proposed Project's environmental impacts in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The DEIR was made available to the public for review and comment for 45 days between March 4, 2020, and April 17, 2020. During and following the close of the public review period, the City received five comment letters and e-mails on the project. For those letters and e-mails that raised CEQA-related issues, the City has prepared Response to Comments as required by CEQA, which are included in the Final EIR. The Final EIR determined that the proposed Project could be reduced to a level of less than significant through the incorporation of mitigation measures. A Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program has been prepare for the Tirador Residential Project. The Draft EIR and Final EIR for the project are available on the City's website at: http://sanjuancapistrano.org/Departments/Development - ATTACHMENT 8, Page 1 of 3 PC Resolution 20-06-09-03 2 June 9 2020 Services/Planning; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has carefully considered all the information submitted by the Applicant, the public, and city staff in connection with the Project, including the agenda report prepared by staff, which explains in detail how the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the recitals above are incorporated herein by reference as findings of the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, after careful consideration of the agenda report and all the evidence that' was presented in connection with this Project, the Planning Commission of the City of San Juan Capistrano does hereby find that the sale of the Property to the Applicant for development of the Project is consistent with the General Plan in the following ways: 1.The project is consistent with the Land Use Element, including Land Use Goal 2 of the General Plan, which directs the City to "control and direct future growth within the City to preserve the rural village like character of the community". Policy 2.2 of Land Use Plan Goal 2 further states that the City will "assure that new development is consistent and compatible with the existing character of the City". As the City of San Juan Capistrano is almost entirely built out, the proposed 132-unit residential community development uses an infill vacant lot with structures which are compatible with the neighboring developments and uses. Locating the project at this infill property here ensures other more appropriate open space lands remain undisturbed and preserve the predominantly rural village-like character of the City while adding housing stock for the City. 2.Moreover, Land Use Policy 7 .2 of the General Plan states that the City will "ensure that new development is compatible with the physical characteristics of its site, surrounding land uses, and available public infrastructure". The proposed 132-unit residential community is surrounded by a commercial gym, office development and equestrian facility which are compatible with the proposed single family and townhome residences, and the Spanish or early California architecture influenced architecture on the surrounding buildings is compatible with the Spanish and Farmhouse architecture proposed. 3.In addition, the proposed single family and townhome buildings are consistent with the Goals and Policies of the Community Design Element. The project is consistent with Policy 1.2 because the residential buildings have been designed with high-quality materials and at a human scale, with resident and guest-oriented recreational space and entryways. It is consistent with Policy 2.1 because the proposed building incorporates Spanish and Farmhouse architecture, and California native landscape features which complements the City's traditional historic character. ATTACHMENT 8, Page 2 of 3 PC Resolution 20-06-09-03 3 June 9, 2020 4.Furthermore, the project is consistent with the Housing Element, which specified that the site could accommodate at least 230 residential units for lower income households, because the project will provide 14 residential units for moderate income households, 118-units for above moderate income households, and there are alternative sites in the City to accommodate the 216 affordable units not being provided at the project site. Additionally, the provision of affordable housing, as required by the 10% inclusionary housing requirement, within the project is consistent with Policies 2.1 and 2.2 of the Housing Element, because the 14 unit for moderate income households and the City would be approving a concession and five waivers to development standards as an incentive to development of affordable housing. EFFECTIVE DATE & FINAL APPROVAL: This resolution takes effect on the expiration of the 15-day appeal period if no appeal application has been filed. The appeal period expires at 5:30 pm, Wednesday, June 24, 2020. This project approval is valid for a period of 12 months from the effective date of approval of this resolution, and it expires on June 24, 2021, unless a time extension request or building permit application related to this approval is submitted to the City prior to that date. PROTEST OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020, the applicant may protest the imposition of fees, dedications, reservations or other exactions imposed on this development project by taking the necessary steps and following the procedures established by Sections 66020 through 66022 of the California Government Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9 th day of June, 2020. Sergio otz, AICP, Assistant Development Services Director/Secretary ATTACHMENT 8, Page 3 of 3