PC Resolution-23-12-13-01PC RESOLUTION NO. 23-12-13-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE # 2021110267) FOR THE SAN JUAN
CAPISTRANO SKATEPARK AND TRAIL PROJECT;
ADOPT ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS, A STATEMENT
OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; AND ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE APPROVING CODE AMENDMENT (CA) 22-
007 TO AMEND THE KINOSHITA FARM SPECIFIC PLAN
(SP) 85-01, REZONE (RZ) 22-005 AND THE SK.ATEPARK
AND TRAIL PROJECT (CIP 21201)
WHEREAS, there has been long-standing demand in the City of San Juan Capistrano
("City") for a skatepark facility to be developed within the City; and
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2021, the City Council initiated a Code Amendment to amend the
Kinoshita Farm Specific Plan (SP 85-01) to allow a public skatepark and trail as allowed uses
("Code Amendment") and a Rezone (RZ) to change the property's current zoning from
Agriculture/Specific Plan to Specific Plan ("Rezone"); and
WHEREAS, plans have been developed for a City Skatepark and Trail Project (CIP
21201) that would include a 42,575 square foot public skatepark, playground, restroom building,
raised berm seating, and landscaping on the southwest comer of the Kinoshita Farm property, as
well as a new multi-use public trail that would connect The Farm residential development to the
proposed skatepark and Camino Del A vion ("City Skatepark and Trail Project," "Code
Amendment," and "Rezone" referred to collectively herein as the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Project is proposed to be located on approximately 1.75 acres ofland at
32681 Alipaz Street (APN 121-190-57), San Juan Capistrano, California (hereafter referred to as
"Project site") that is part of the larger City-owned, 28-acre property known as the Kinoshita Farm
property; and
WHEREAS, the Project requires various approvals from the City, including Code
Amendment (CA) 22-007 to amend the Kinoshita Farm Specific Plan (SP) 85-01 to allow a public
skatepark and trail as allowed uses and Rezone (RZ) 22-005 to rezone the Project site from Agri-
Business (A)/Specific Plan (SP) to Specific Plan (SP); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21067 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA"), Section 15367 of
1
the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), and the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines, the City is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City determined that
an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") should be prepared to analyze all potential adverse
environmental impacts of the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the Draft EIR on
February 2, 2023, which was sent to each responsible agency, trustee agency, the Office of
Planning and Research ("OPR"), and interested parties, including members of the public who had
requested such notice; and
WHEREAS, the City held a virtual public scoping meeting on February 23, 2023 to further
solicit comments on the scope of the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2023, the City initiated a 45-day public review and comment
period of the Draft EIR for the proposed Project and released the Draft EIR for public review and
comment; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086, the City consulted with
and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and
others during the 45-day public review and comment period; and
WHEREAS, the City received one letter from a public agency, two letters from
organizations, and sixteen letters from community members during the 45-day public review and
commentperiod;and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Final EIR, which includes comments received during
the 45-day public review and comment period on the Draft EIR, written responses to those
comments, and revisions to the Draft EIR. For the purposes of this Resolution, the "EIR" shall
refer to the Draft EIR, as revised by the Final EIR, together with the other sections of the Final
EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared 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 is
incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR as less than significant
and do not require mitigation are described in Section 2 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR that are less than
significant with incorporation of mitigation measures are described in Section 3 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the EIR as significant and unavoidable
even with the implementation of feasible mitigation are described in Section 4 of Exhibit A; and
2
WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the Project, identified in the EIR and set forth
herein, are described in Section 5 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the project will not result in any significant growth-inducing impacts as set
forth in the EIR and further discussed in Section 6 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, an analysis of alternatives to the proposed Project as set forth in the EIR is
further discussed in Section 7 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, all the mitigation measures identified in the EIR to substantially lessen the
potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program (MMRP) included as Exhibit B to this Resolution, attached hereto and
incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the Planning Commission has heard, been presented
with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record,
including the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings
relating to the Project; and
WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission and
is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City has not received any comments or additional information that
constituted substantial new information requiring recirculation of the EIR under Public Resources
Code section 21092.1 or State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's
Local CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed
so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed Project have been
adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a duly-noticed
public hearing on the Project, at which all persons wishing to testify were heard; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred,
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission finds that the EIR reflects the
independent judgment and analysis of the City. The Planning Commission declares that
3
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 Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certify the
EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.
SECTION 3. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council consider and
adopt the CEQA Findings of Fact pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15091, and
the Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section
15093, both of which are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this
reference.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the Planning
Commission recommends that City Council adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference,
and make implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program 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. The Planning Commission has hereby considered Code Amendment (CA)
22-007, consistent with Exhibit C attached hereto, pursuant to Title 9, Section 9-2.309 of
the Land Use Code of the City of San Juan Capistrano. The Planning Commission has
found that the following findings can be made, and the Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving Code Amendment 22-007 and making
the following :findings:
1. Code Amendment 22-007 conforms with the goals and policies of the General Plan.
Notably, Code Amendment 22-007 provides for the fulfilment of the General Plan's
goals and policies, including Parks and Recreation Goal 1, which states: "Provide,
develop, and maintain ample park and recreation facilities that provide a diversity of
recreational activities;" Parks and Recreation Goal 2, which states: "Develop and
expand the existing bicycle, hiking, and equestrian trail system and facilities;" and
Circulation Goal 3, which states: "Provide an extensive public bicycle, pedestrian, and
equestrian trails network."
2. Code Amendment 22-007 is necessary to implement the General Plan and to provide
for public safety, convenience and/or general welfare because the proposed amendment
achieves the goals and polices of the General Plan for the reasons listed above.
3. Code Amendment 22-007 conforms with the intent of the Development Code and is
consistent with other related provisions thereof. Notably, Code Amendment 22-007
provides that the existing and future land uses must conform to the Specific Plan.
4
4. Code Amendment 22-007 is reasonable and beneficial at this time. Notably, Code
Amendment 22-007 would allow for the forthcoming City Skatepark and Trail Project
(CIP 21202) public improvements.
SECTION 6. The Planning Commission has hereby considered Rezone 22-005,
consistent with Exhibit D attached hereto, pursuant to Title 9, Section 9-2.315, of the Land
Use Code of the City of San Juan Capistrano. The Planning Commission determines that
Rezone 22-005 is consistent with the below findings, and the Planning Commission thus
recommends the City Council adopt an ordinance granting Rezone 22-005 and making the
following findings:
1. The proposed zone change is consistent with the General Plan land use map and
applicable goals and policies. Notably, the proposed zone change retains all current
allowed uses on the subject property. The subject property currently has a dual zoning
of Agriculture and Specific Plan. As farming and agricultural uses are currently allowed
under the Specific Plan zoning, the zone change would remove the property's
Agriculture zoning so that the zoning would only be Specific Plan.
2. The proposed zone change is consistent with the Land Use Code, including Article 1
General Plan Review and Table 2-1, Zoning Consistency Matrix. Notably, the
proposed amendment to the Official Zoning Map is consistent with the Title 9, Land
Use Code provisions established by Article 1 and Table 2-1. Practically speaking, the
proposed zone change maintains the existing allowed uses as agriculture uses are
currently allowed under the Specific Plan.
3. The site of the proposed zone change is suitable for any of the land uses permitted
within the proposed zone district pending approval of the recommended Code
Amendment to allow a skatepark and public trail as permitted uses. All existing uses
on the site of the proposed zone change comply with the land uses outlined in the
Specific Plan. Any future development on the site will be required to comply with the
Specific Plan.
4. The uses allowed by the proposed zone change are compatible with existing and
planned uses on surrounding properties and the community in general because the
existing and proposed land uses will be compatible with the land uses outlined in the
Specific Plan, pending approval of the recommended Code Amendment.
5. The proposed zone change is reasonable and beneficial at this time because it will avoid
confusion resulting from dual zoning designations on the same property while
preserving farming and agriculture as primary uses allowed on the property.
SECTION 7. The Planning Commission has considered the Project (CIP 21201) and
reviewed project plans for conformity with the General Plan and consistency with the Land
Use Code, surrounding community and Design Guidelines, and other applicable City
5
requirements pursuant to Title 9, Section 9-2.337 of the Land Use Code of the City of San
Juan Capistrano. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve
the Project and make the following findings:
1. The Project is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan,
including the Parks and Recreation Element and Circulation Element, because the goals
and policies of these Elements are substantially implemented through the Project. The
Project is consistent with the following policies and objectives:
Parks and Recreation Goal #1: Provide, develop, and maintain ample park and
recreation facilities that provide a diversity ofrecreational activities.
Policy 1.4: "Develop and maintain a balanced system of public and private
recreational lands, facilities, and programs to meet the needs of the community."
Policy 1.7: "Provide parkland improvements and facilities that are durable and
economical to maintain."
Parks and Recreation Goal #2: Develop and expand the existing bicycle, hiking,
and equestrian trail system and facilities.
Policy 2.1: "Develop and expand the existing trails network that supports bicycles,
pedestrians, and horses, and coordinate linkages with those networks of adjacent
jurisdictions."
Circulation Element Goal #3: Provide an extensive public bicycle, pedestrian, and
equestrian trails network.
Policy 3.1: "Provide and maintain an extensive trails network that supports
bicycles, pedestrians, and horses and is coordinated with those networks of adjacent
jurisdictions."
The Project conforms to the General Plan Parks and Recreation Element because the
project would deliver a new skatepark amenity, which was identified as a community
priority as part of a citywide recreation needs assessment conducted in 2007.
Moreover, the Project conforms with the General Plan Circulation Element because it
includes a multiuse trail that would connect The Farm residential development to the
project site, providing trail connection from Del Obispo Street to Camino Del A vion.
Moreover, the Project conforms to the General Plan Parks and Recreation Element
because of the high-quality, durable materials proposed to be used for the Project's
construction. Additionally, the Project will be economical to maintain; notably, the
City entered into a Cost Sharing and Cooperative Agreement with the City of Dana
Point which states that Dana Point will contribute $25,000 annually to the maintenance
costs of the future skatepark, once operational.
6
2. The City Skatepark and Trail Project plans are consistent with the Land Use Code,
surrounding community and Design Guidelines, and other applicable City requirements
as follows:
General Design Issue/Principal 6: Richness of Details and Materials, which provides:
"Building materials, surfaces, finishes, lighting and landscaping should be high quality.
They should be designed and executed with a high degree of craftsmanship. Design
features should be subtle, not ostentatious. High quality design standards should apply
to all private as well as public projects ... "
• The Project is consistent with General Design Issue/Principal 6 because it
includes an agrarian themed color palette, seating areas, citrus trees and
landscaping, durable concrete skatepark elements, and a playground structure
that convey a sense of richness in materials and craftsmanship.
General Design Issue/Principal 8: Linkages and Connections, which provides: "Site
planning should maximize linkages and connections to surrounding public uses,
activities, and pedestrian networks. Consideration should be given to creation of a
hierarchy of pedestrian pathways and public spaces."
• The Project includes a new multiuse public trail which will enhance the
pedestrian access to the proposed skatepark, City's Community Center and
sports fields, as well as The Ecology Center property.
The Project further complies with all applicable provisions of Title 9 of the San Juan
Capistrano Municipal Code and any applicable specific plan or comprehensive
development plan because the Project is a major capital improvement project as defined
in Section 9-2.337 of the Municipal Code. The Project complies with Section 9-2.337
because the Project has undergone required environmental review, the Project has been
noticed in accordance with the Code, and the Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Commission has reviewed the Project, and now the Planning Commission has
reviewed the Project.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve the Project.
SECTION 8. The location and custodian of the documents and any other material that
constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located
at the Development Services Department, 30448 Rancho Viejo Rd., # 110, San Juan
Capistrano, CA 92675. The custodian for these records is the Development Services
Department Administrative Specialist. This information is provided pursuant to Public
Resources Code section 21081.6.
7
SECTION 9. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council direct City
staff to cause a Notice of Determination to be filed and posted with the County Clerk and
the State Clearinghouse within five working days of approval of the Project.
PASS ED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 13th day of ecember 2023.
D
Joel Roja ,
Secretary
8
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)
("CEQA") provides 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 City Skatepark and Trail Project (CIP 21201)
evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") and Final Environmental
Impact Report ("Final EIR") for the Project.
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, where an EIR for a project
determines that the project will have one or more significant environmental impacts, a public
agency may only approve or carry out the project 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
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
final EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible
the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the final EIR.
While CEQA requires that lead agencies adopt feasible mitigation measures or alternatives
to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts, an agency need not adopt
infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives. (Pub. Resources Code,§ 21002. l(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."
1
(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; see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081(a)(3)
["economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations" may justify rejecting mitigation
and alternatives as infeasible].)
Environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of
mitigation measures. (Leona.ff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d
1337, 1347.)
The California Supreme Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of approving ... any development
project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound
discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The
law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore
balanced." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576.)
SECTION 2. FINDINGS REGARDING LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS NOT
REQUIRING MITIGATION
Consistent with Public Resources Code section 21002.1 and State CEQA Guidelines
section 15128, the EIR focused its analysis on potentially significant impacts, and limited
discussion of other impacts for which it can be seen with certainty that there is no potential for
significant adverse environmental impacts. State CEQA Guidelines section 15091 does not require
specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as "no impact" or a "less
than significant" impact. Nevertheless, the City hereby finds that the Project would have either no
impact or a less than significant impact to the following resource areas:
A. AESTHETICS
1. Scenic Vistas
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-2.)
Explanation: The structures associated with the skatepark and playground component
would not obstruct views of the surrounding hillsides. Additionally, the proposed trail would
provide an additional location in the City where residents and visitors can view these scenic
resources. (Draft EIR, p. 6-3.) The Project's lighting fixtures would be tall enough to potentially
be introduced into the views from the project site of the surrounding hillsides to the north, east,
and west. However, the lighting fixtures would not screen or obstruct the views due to their size
and the distance of the hills. Furthermore, the lighting fixtures would not interrupt any identified
2
scenic vistas. Upon completion of construction, the project would appear as a consistent visual
extension of the existing recreational uses adjacent to the site and would not substantially contrast
or be visually inconsistent with the surrounding area. The project would not remove or adversely
affect existing scenic vantage points from the surrounding hillsides. When viewed from farther
vantage points, the project would visually blend with the surrounding urban environment at
distance. (Draft EIR, p. 6-3.) For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project's
impacts on scenic vistas would be less than significant, and no mitigation relating to this issue is
required. (Draft EIR, p. 6-3.)
2. Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway
Threshold: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-3.)
Explanation: There are no designated state scenic highways in the vicinity of the project
site. Interstate 5 is considered eligible for state scenic highway designation and is located
approximately 0.5 miles east of the site; however, due to intervening development and topography,
the project site is not visible from this segment of I-5. For these reasons and for the reasons
discussed in the EIR, the Project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state
scenic highway, and no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 6-3.)
3. Existing Visual Character of the Site and Surrounding Area
Threshold: Would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of public views of the site and its surroundings or conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-3 through 6-4.)
Explanation: The project is not located on a property that is designated for scenic value or
open space, nor near any ridgelines identified for preservation. The proposed project is not adjacent
to residential neighborhoods such that development of the project site would interrupt the character
of a neighborhood. The project is proposed to be developed next to a park and community center
open to the public, and a working farm used for education and civic engagement. As such, the
project, which is intended for public use and recreation, would be consistent and compatible with
adjacent land uses, and would not represent an intrusive or non-confirming use. Thus, the project
would be consistent with the land use policies pertaining to the protection of scenic quality. The
Ridgeline and Open Space Preservation District (defined in Municipal Code 9-3.4) was created to
preserve scenic resources. The project site is not within a Ridgeline and Open Space Preservation
overlay and therefore would not be subject to scenic resource-related regulations due to an overlay
or special district. Development of the project would be subject to the goals and policies set forth
in the General Plan and municipal code as they relate to scenic quality and aesthetics, as well as
set forth in the Kinoshita Farm Specific Plan. (Draft EIR, p. 6-4.) For these reasons and for the
reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual
3
character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings, nor would it conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-3 through 6-
4.)
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?
Findings: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-5.)
Explanation: Under existing conditions, the project site is vacant and does not contain a
source of light. Infrastructure to support future lighting would be installed as part of initial
construction to allow lighting fixtures to be installed in a potential future phase. However, the
project is located in an urban area with existing sources of nighttime lighting from roadways,
residences, businesses, and recreational and institutional uses. In compliance with Section 9-3.529,
Lighting Standards, of the City's Municipal Code, the average and/or maximum light illuminance,
measured in foot candles, shall not exceed the recommended average or maximum guideline
established for the proposed recreational use by the Illuminating Engineering Society.
Additionally, outdoor recreation lighting shall be directed to areas within the property line to
minimize glare in surrounding areas. Spillover and glare shall be minimized by using fixture
cutoffs and optically controlled luminaries on all lighting fixtures (City of San Juan Capistrano
2021 a). As currently proposed, the proposed skatepark and playground hours of operation would
be 8 :00 a.m. to sunset, year-round, and would not include any nighttime lighting. If onsite lighting
is proposed in a future phase of the project, all lighting would be required to implement the
Municipal Code lighting standards (Section 9-3.529). Lighting standards include design standards
for lighting along pedestrian walkways, public facilities, and security lighting. Standards include
minimum illuminance, lighting pole heights, lighting sources, and shielding. Required compliance
with the City standards as established by the Municipal Code would ensure limited light spillover
or light pollution if nighttime lighting is installed in the future. (Draft EIR, p. 6-5.) For these
reasons, and for the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would not create a new source of
substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (Draft
EIR, p. 6-5.)
B. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
1. Agricultural Zoning
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or with a
Williamson Act contract?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-5.)
Explanation: The project site currently has a dual zoning of Agri-Business District (A) and
Specific Plan (SP) 85-01. The project site's existing zoning does not limit the project site to only
agricultural uses. Moreover, the Kinoshita Farm property, including the project site, is not under a
4
Williamson Act Contract. Accordingly, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use or with a Williamson Act contract, and impacts relating to this issue would be less
than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-5.)
C. AIR QUALITY
1. Air Quality Plan
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-5.)
Explanation: The Project does not conflict with the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan
(AQMP) for the South Coast Air Basin because the Project meets the SCAQMD criteria for
determining consistency with the AQMP. For this reason, and for the reasons discussed in the
EIR, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan. (Draft EIR, pp. 6.5 through 6.6.)
2. Criteria Pollutant
Threshold: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-7 through 6-11.)
Explanation: The project's maximum daily emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD
thresholds for any criteria air pollutant during construction. (Draft EIR, p. 6-9.) Notably, the
proposed project's maximum daily construction and operational emissions ofVOC, NOx, CO,
SOx, PMlO, and PM2.5 would not exceed the SCAQMD's significance thresholds. (Draft EIR,
pp. 6-10 through 6-11.) Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable increase in emissions of nonattainment pollutants, and impacts would be less than
significant during construction and operation.
3. Sensitive Receptors
Threshold: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-11 through 6-15.)
Explanation: Proposed construction activities would not generate emissions in excess of
site-specific localized significant thresholds, and localized impacts of the proposed project would
thus be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-12.) For this reasons and the reasons discussed in the
5
Draft EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-11
through 6-15.)
4. Objectionable Odors
Threshold: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-15 through 6-16.)
Explanation: Impacts associated with odors during construction would be less than
significant, as any potential odors generated from vehicles and equipment exhaust emissions
during construction of the project would disperse rapidly from the project site and generally occur
at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people. Moreover, the project would
not create any new sources of odor during operation. Therefore, the potential for long-term
operational emissions or odors would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-15 through 6-16.)
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Riparian Habitat
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-6.)
Explanation: The project site is currently undeveloped land used for agricultural purposes.
No natural vegetation communities are present within the impact footprint. As a result, there would
be no impact to riparian or sensitive vegetation communities. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-6.)
2. Wetlands
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally
protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-6.)
Explanation: There are no features within the project site that may be considered waters
of the United States or waters of the State. This includes the absence of federally defined wetlands
and other waters (e.g., drainages) and state-defined waters (e.g., streams and riparian extent). The
project would be subject to the typical restrictions ( e.g., best management practices [BMPs]) and
requirements that address erosion and runoff, including those of the Clean Water Act and National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. With implementation of BMPs and permit
conditions, no indirect impacts would occur. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the
6
EIR, no direct or indirect impact to jurisdictional waters or wetlands would occur. (Draft EIR, p.
4.2-6.)
3. Wildlife Movement and Nesting/Migratory Birds
Threshold: Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-6 through 4.2-7.)
Explanation: The project site is currently undeveloped land used for agricultural purposes
and is bounded by agricultural land to the north, agricultural land and the Ecology Center to the
east, the City's Sports Park to the west, and Camino Del Avion and single-family homes to the
south. Outside of the Kinoshita Farm Property, the surrounding area is predominantly urbanized.
The project site is not connected to any of the nearby identified wildlife corridors; thus,
construction on the project site would not result in direct or indirect impacts to nearby wildlife
corridors. Furthermore, there is no habitat onsite that would support special status species. Due to
the matrix of development surrounding the project site and the type of land cover on the project
site, the project would not constrain natural wildlife movement in its vicinity. For these reasons
and the reasons discussed in the EIR, project impacts to movement of wildlife species would be
less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-6 through 4.2-7.)
4. Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-7.)
Explanation: Section 9-2.349, Tree Removal Permit, of the City's Municipal Code sets
forth procedures for the care, preservation, maintenance, and removal of trees within the public
right-of-way and on private property. The area of the project site proposed for the skatepark does
not contain trees. However, trees and vegetation are located in the area for the proposed multi-use
trail component; as such, it is anticipated that some trees may be removed prior to construction.
Consistent with the City's tree ordinance, a tree removal permit would be obtained prior to the
removal of any trees with a trunk diameter of 6 inches or greater located on site. Specifically, City
facilities are subject to Section 9-2.349( c)(5),' of the City's Municipal Code which requires that
parks or other City facilities shall conform to the applicable provisions of the Tree Removal Permit
section of the Municipal Code (Section 9.2-349) regarding replanting requirements, acceptable
tree species, and review by a qualified tree expert where required by the Planning Director to
determine the viability of trees proposed for removal. The City will comply with the applicable
provisions. Therefore, based on required compliance with the municipal code, impacts associated
with tree removal or any other local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would
be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-7.)
7
5. Adopted Habitat Conservation Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or
state habitat conservation plan?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-7 through 4.2-8.)
Explanation: The project site does not contain communities of coastal sage scrub or other
sensitive habitat and is not located within or adjacent to a wildlife corridor. Furthermore, the
project site is not located within a proposed National Communication Conservation Plan reserve
area. The project site is currently undeveloped land used for agricultural purposes and is located
in an urban environment within a predominantly developed part of the City. For these reasons and
the reasons discussed in the EIR, impacts associated with an adopted conservation plan would be
less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-7 through 4.2-8.)
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Historical Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-6 through 4.3-7.)
Explanation: There are no historical resources that overlap with the project site. The
Congdon Residence, which is on the National Register of Historical Resources, is located in the
northeast comer of the Kinoshita Farm property off Alipaz Street, approximately 630 feet northeast
from the project site. In between the project site and the Congdon Residence are several intervening
structures and features, including a one-story farmstand and workshop, shade structures, a barn, a
greenhouse, landscaped areas, a parking lot, and agricultural fields. Given the distance and the
other surrounding structures and farm-related features, the project is not considered in the
immediate vicinity of the Congdon Residence and would not have an effect on the historic
resource. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the project would have a less
than significant impact on historical resources. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-7.)
F. ENERGY RESOURCES
1. Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption
Threshold: Would the Project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due
to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-16.)
8
Explanation: The project does not involve wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources during its construction or operational phases. For this reason
and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the project would have a less than significant impact relating
to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 6-16.)
2. Conflict with Energy Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-17.)
Explanation: The project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary
consumption of energy during construction or operation. Therefore, impacts associated with the
potential of the project to conflict with a state or local renewable energy or energy efficiency plan
would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-17.)
G. FORESTRY RESOURCES
1. Forestland Zoning
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-17.)
Explanatio·o: The project site and surrounding areas are not zoned for and do not contain
any forest land or timberland. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or cause the rezoning
or conversion of forest land or timberland. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 6-17.)
2. Loss of Forest Land
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-17.)
Explanation: The project site and surrounding areas are not zoned for and do not contain
any forest land or timberland. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or cause the rezoning
or conversion of forest land or timberland. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 6-17.)
3. Conversion
Threshold: Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
9
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-17.)
Explanation: The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Agri-Business
and is zoned Agricultural-Business District (A)/Specific Plan (SP) 85-01. Neither the project site
nor the surrounding areas are zoned for or contain any 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)).
Therefore, the project would not conflict with zoning or cause the rezoning or conversion of forest
land or timberland, either directly or indirectly. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 6-17.)
H. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1. Rupture of an Earthquake Fault
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?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-6.)
Explanation: The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zone; the nearest fault zone (Newport Beach Fault Zone) is mapped approximately 21 miles
northwest of the project site. Although the project is not located within a delineated earthquake
fault zone, it is located within a seismically active region. Project construction and operation would
not increase or exacerbate the potential for fault rupture to occur. Therefore, the project would not
directly or indirectly cause potential adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault,
and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-6.)
2. Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
Threshold: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk ofloss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-6.)
Explanation: The proposed restroom facility would be constructed to comply with the most
recent geologic, seismic, and structural guidelines including the most recent Uniform Building
Code and the City's Seismic Hazard Mitigation Ordinance. The project would contain no habitable
structures or other structural development intended for human occupancy. For these reasons and
the reasons discussed in the EIR, the project would not directly or indirectly cause potential adverse
effects involving strong seismic ground shaking, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.4-6.)
3. Seismic-Related Ground Failure and Liquefaction
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-6 through 4.4-7 .)
Explanation: The project would result in a less than significant impact relating to
liquefaction because the proposed project would be constructed to comply with the most recent
geologic, seismic, and structural guidelines including the most recent Uniform Building Code and
the City's Seismic Hazard Mitigation Ordinance. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in
the EIR, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-6 through 4.4-7 .)
4. Landslides
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk ofloss, injury or death involving landslides?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-7.)
Explanation: The project site is characterized by relatively flat or gently sloping terrain.
Additionally, the project would contain no habitable structures or other structural development
intended for human occupancy that would be located within or adjacent to identified landslide
zones. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft EIR, the project would not directly
or indirectly cause potential adverse effects involving landslides, and impacts would be less than
significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-7.)
5. Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-7.)
Explanation: The project's compliance with the City's Municipal Code would effectively
address erosion potential. Section 8-2.15 of the Municipal Code defines erosion control and water
quality requirement systems that projects must implement to reduce erosion impacts. The
Municipal Code adopts the latest California Building Code, for the purpose of prescribing
regulations for grading and excavations, and the Municipal Code establishes a process for
acquiring grading and building permits, which include provisions for implementation of erosion
control measures. Section 8-2.06.02 defines an erosion control system as " ... a combination of
desilting facilities, and erosion protection, including effective planting, to protect adjacent private
property, watercourses, public facilities and receiving waters form an abnormal deposition of
sediment or dust." As established by Section 8-2.15(g), no grading work will be allowed on any
single grading site under permit unless an erosion control system has been approved. Upon
completion of construction, the project would introduce impervious surfaces to the site that would
11
help to stabilize on-site soils. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the project
would not result in a significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-7.)
6. Soil Stability
Threshold: Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-7 through 4.4-8.)
Explanation: The project site will not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the project. The project site is located on relatively
flat terrain, and it is not adjacent to an excavation, channel, or body of water that would make it
susceptible to lateral spreading. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, impacts
associated with landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, or liquefaction would be less than
significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-7 through 4.4-8.)
7. Expansive Soil
Threshold: Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-8.)
Explanation: Project construction and operation would not increase or exacerbate the
potential for soils to expand or contract, because it would not alter the condition of the underlaying
soils. Moreover, the project would contain no habitable structures or other structural development
intended for human occupancy such that substantial risk to life or property would occur. In
addition, compliance with the City's building and grading codes would further address any
expansive soil potential. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, impacts would be
less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-8.)
8. Septic Tanks
Threshold: Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-8.)
Explanation: The project does not include the use of septic tanks. No impact would occur.
(Draft EIR, p. 4.4-8.)
12
I. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold: Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions ("GHGs"), either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-17 through 6-21.)
Explanation: The Project would not generate significant GHG emissions. The Project's
estimated annual project-generated operational GHG emissions and amortized construction
emissions would be approximately 195 MT CO2e per year, far below the SCAQMD's threshold
of significance of 3,000 MT CO2e per year. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the
EIR, the project's GHG contribution would not be cumulatively considerable and is less than
significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-21.)
2. Conflicts with Applicable Plans, Policies, and Regulations
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an
agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-21 through 6-25.)
Explanation: The project does not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation
of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. As set forth
in the EIR, the project does not conflict with CARB's Climate Change Scoping Plan, SCAG's
2020-2045 RTP/SCS, or SB 32. (Draft EIR, p. 6-24.) Notably, the proposed project is anticipated
to generate GHG emissions far below SCAQMD's recommended threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e
per year for non-industrial projects. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, impacts
relating to this issue would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-24 through 6-25.)
J. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. Transport, Use, or Disposal of 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? And, would the project
create a significant hazard to the public through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-25.)
Explanation: Construction and operation of the project would require the use of gasoline,
diesel fuel, lubricants, and other petroleum-based products used to operate and maintain
construction and maintenance equipment and vehicles, as well as household cleaning products,
degreasers, paints, and fertilizers for ongoing maintenance. The materials used would not be in
such quantities or stored in such a manner as to pose a significant safety or environmental hazard.
13
Operation of the project would include use of minor quantities of paints, lubricants, cleaning
materials, and landscaping maintenance materials. Handling, storage, and disposal of these
materials would comply with all federal, state, and local requirements. For these reasons and the
reasons discussed in the EIR, impacts associated with hazardous materials would be less than
significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-25.)
2. Acutely Hazardous Materials within ¼ Mile of an Existing or Proposed
School
Threshold: Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-25.)
Explanation: The nearest school, Kinoshita Elementary School, is located approximately
530 feet west of the project site. Additionally, Marco Forster Middle School is located 0.22 miles
west from the project site, and Del Obispo Elementary School is located 0.29 miles west from the
project site. The project would not create a significant hazard from routine use or reasonably
foreseeable upset/accident conditions of hazardous materials. For these reasons and the reasons
discussed in the EIR, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-25.)
3. Hazardous Materials Sites
Threshold: Would the Project be located on a site that 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?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-26.)
Explanation: The project site would not be located on a site that is located on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. For these
reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, impacts associated with this issue would be less than
significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-26.)
4. Public Airports and Private Airstrips
Threshold: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-26.)
Explanation: The closest public airport to the project site is John Wayne Airport, which is
located approximately 17 miles northwest of the project site. The project site is located outside of
any airport impact zones, and as such, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people
14
residing in the project area. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, no impact
associated relating to this issue would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 6-26.)
5. Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the Project impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-26.)
Explanation: The project would not adversely affect operations on the local or regional
circulation system, and as such, would not impact the use of these facilities as emergency response
routes. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, impacts associated with an
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant. (Draft EIR,
p. 6-26.)
6. Wildland Fires
Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to
a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Findi ngs: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-26 through 6-27.)
Explanation: The project site is not located within a Wildfire Severity Zone that may
contain substantial fire risk. Further, the project site is surrounded by existing development in an
urbanized portion of the City. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, impacts
associated with wildland fire hazards would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-26 through
6-27.)
K. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. Compliance with Water Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-27.)
Explanation: Compliance with existing regulatory requirements would ensure that the
Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and would
further ensure the project would not otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water
quality. Per City Municipal Code Chapter 4, Water Quality Regulations, Section 8-14.105, all
development projects within the City must be undertaken in compliance with all applicable
requirements oflocal ordinances, including the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan,
(DAMP), the City's Stormwater Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan (JRMP), and any
applicable requirements for coverage under the State's General Construction NPDES permit.
These requirements would ensure that construction of the project would not result in the movement
15
of unwanted material into waters within or outside the construction site. Coverage under the State's
General Construction NPDES permits requires dischargers to eliminate nonstormwater discharges
to stormwater systems, develop and implement a SWPPP, and perform monitoring of discharges
to stormwater systems. These requirements would ensure that construction of the project would
not result in the movement of unwanted material into waters within or outside the construction
site. Upon completion of construction, the project would introduce impervious surfaces to the site
that would help to stabilize on-site soils. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR,
impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-27.)
2. Groundwater Supplies
Threshold: Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-27 through 6-28.)
Explanation: The project site is located in the San Juan Valley Groundwater Basin (Basin).
The Basin underlies the San Juan Valley and several tributary valleys in southern Orange County.
Recharge of the Basin is from flow in San Juan Creek, Oso Creek, and Arroyo Trabuco and
precipitation to the valley floor. While construction of project would introduce more impervious
surface to the project site, the project site makes up a small portion of the parcel the project site is
located on. Areas to the north and east of the site would remain pervious. Additionally, the project
would include landscaped areas that would allow for water to percolate into the soil. Furthermore,
the project would not require groundwater during construction or operation activities. For these
reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, impacts to groundwater supplies and recharge would
be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-27 through 6-28.)
3. Existing Drainage Patterns and Runoff
Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-
site?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-28.)
Explanation: The project site is currently vacant, undeveloped land that has been and is
currently used for orchard and crop farming. Project construction would involve site preparation,
some additional grading, and trenching, which may temporarily expose soils to increased erosion
potential and loss of topsoil. The project would be required to comply with the applicable sections
of Chapter 14, Water Quality Regulations, of the City's Municipal Code. Section 8-2.15 defines
erosion control and water quality requirement systems that projects would implement to reduce
erosion impacts. Upon completion of construction, the project would introduce impervious
surfaces to the site that would help to stabilize on-site soils. As a result, the project would not result
16
in new or more severe conditions that would allow for soil erosion to occur. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-28.)
4. Surface Runoff and Flooding
Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner that would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on-or offsite?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-28.)
Explanation: The project would introduce impervious area to the site. Although the project
would result in some change to the existing drainage pattern of the site, the new proposed
impervious surfaces would be minor and are of such a small size (i.e., less than 1 acre) that they
would not substantially change or increase the rate or amount of surface runoff during storm
events. Additionally, storm drains located along Camino Del Avion would collect any surface
runoff that enters the street. Further, according to Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel 06037C1955F
as produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the project site is located
within FEMA-designated Flood Hazard Zone X, which is not within either the 100-or 500-year
flood hazard area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-28.)
5. Stormwater Drainage System Capacity and Polluted Runoff
Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner that would create or contribute runoff water that would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
Findings: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-28.)
Explanation: With implementation of the project, the flow patterns of the site will largely
remain the same. For this reason and the reasons discussed in the EIR, impacts would be less than
significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-28.)
6. Flood Flows
Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-28.)
Explanation: As stated above, the project site is located within FEMA designated Flood
Hazard Zone X, which is not within either the 100-or 500-year flood hazard area. Impacts would
be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-28.)
17
7. Natural Hazards
Threshold: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the Project risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-29.)
Explanation: The project site is located approximately 2.8 miles inland from the Pacific
Ocean. Additionally, as previously discussed, the project site is located within FEMA-designated
Flood Hazard Zone X, which is not within either the 100-or 500-year flood hazard area. For these
reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, impacts associated with tsunami, seiche, or flooding
would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-29.)
8. Conflict with Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable
Groundwater Management Plan
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-29.)
Explanation: The project would not conflict with or obstruct applicable water quality
plans. Additionally, the project would not use or interfere with groundwater recharge or use. For
these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft
EIR, p. 6-29.)
L. LAND USE AND PLANNING
1. Divide an Established Community
Threshold: Would the Project physically divide an established community?
Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-3.)
Explanation: The project would not create a physical division of an existing community
and would not result in removal of a means of access. Therefore, no impact would occur. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.5-3.)
2. Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations
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?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-3 through 4.5-7.)
18
Explanation: The project would not 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. The General Plan contains several goals and policies that
address land use and planning and are applicable to the project. The project would not conflict
with applicable land use policies, as explained in further detail in the EIR. For these reasons and
the reasons discussed in the EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant. (Draft
EIR, p. 4.5-3 through 4.5-7.)
M. MINERAL RESOURCES
1. Known Mineral Resources
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? And, 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?
Findings: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-29.)
Explanation: The project site is located in a predominately urbanized portion of the City
and is bound by existing development to the south and west. Land to the north and east is currently
used for agricultural use. Mineral resource mining is not a compatible use with existing
surrounding land uses. Additionally, the project site is not large enough to extract mineral
resources effectively. Considering the existing surrounding land uses and the incompatibility of
mineral resource extraction activities in the project area, any potential significant mineral resources
within the project area are considered unavailable for extraction. For these reasons and the reasons
discussed in the EIR, impacts associated with mineral resources would be less than significant.
(Draft EIR, p. 6-29.)
N. NOISE
1. Groundborne Vibration
Threshold: Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundbome vibration or
groundbome noise levels?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-10.)
Explanation: Construction vibration as a result of the project would not result in structural
building damage, which typically occurs at vibration levels of 0.5 inches per second (ips) peak
particle velocity (PPV) or greater for buildings of reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber
construction. Older residential homes are expected to have a damage risk threshold of 0.3 ips PPV
from continuous or frequently intermittent sources of groundbome vibration. The heavier pieces
of construction equipment expected to be involved for this type of project, such as backhoes, have
a reference PPV of 0.089 ips at a distance of 25 feet. Pile driving, blasting, and other special
construction techniques would not be used for construction of the project; therefore, excessive
19
groundbome vibration and groundbome noise would not be generated, since the 0.089 ips PPV
would attenuate to a value of just 0.013 ips PPV at 90 feet-the approximate distance to the nearest
existing home from the project southern boundary-and thus be far below these building damage
risk thresholds. Furthermore, 0.013 ips PPV is much lower than 0.2 ips PPV, which Caltrans
guidance considers sufficient to "annoy" building occupants. On these bases, construction-
attributed groundbome vibration would be considered a less than significant impact. Operation of
the project would not result in any substantial sources of groundbome vibration, and their
magnitudes would dissipate geometrically with distance as would temporary construction-related
sources of vibration. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-10.)
2. Private/Public AirportsThreshold: 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?
Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-11.)
Explanation: The closest public airport to the project site is John Wayne Airport, which is
located approximately 17 miles northwest of the project site. According to the Land Use Plan for
the John Wayne Airport, the project is not located within an impact zone and is outside the airport
planning area. The project site is located outside of any airport impact zones, and as such, the
project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing in the project area. Therefore, no
impacts associated with exposing people residing or working in the project to excessive noise
levels would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-11.)
0. POPULATION AND HOUSING
1. Induce Substantial 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 roads or other infrastructure)?
Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-30.)
Explanation: The project would construct a skatepark. The project would not introduce
residential uses or businesses to the project area and would not directly or indirectly lead to
unplanned population growth. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, no impact
would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 6-30.)
2. Displacing Housing and People
Threshold: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-30.)
20
Explanation: A significant impact would occur if the project would induce substantial
population growth that would not have otherwise occurred as rapidly or in as great a magnitude,
or if the project would displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing. The project
would construct a skatepark presumed to be utilized by residents in the City. The project would
not introduce residential uses nor businesses to the project area and would not directly or indirectly
lead to unplanned population growth. Additionally, the project would not displace existing housing
or require the construction of replacement housing. Therefore, no impact would occur. (Draft EIR,
p. 6-30.)
P. PUBLIC SERVICES
1. Fire Protection Services
Threshold: Would the proposed Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a 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 services?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-30 through 6-31.)
Explanation: The project would not propose any habitable structures or a use that would
induce population growth. The project would not change local fire protection response times or
affect demand for fire protection services in the project area. For these reasons and the reasons
discussed in the EIR, impacts associated with fire protection services would be less than
significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-31.)
2. Police Services
Threshold: Would the proposed Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for
new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for police protection services?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-31.)
Explanation: The project would not propose any habitable structures or a use that would
induce population growth. The project would not change local police protection response times or
affect demand for police protection services in the project area. For these reasons and the reasons
discussed in the EIR, impacts associated with police protection services would be less than
significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-31.)
3. Schools
Threshold: Would the proposed Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for
21
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?
Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-31.)
Explanation: The project does not involve a housing component that would result in
population growth and increased demands on existing schools within the area. Therefore, no
impact to schools would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 6-31.)
4. Parks
Threshold: Would the proposed Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for
new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for parks?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-31 through 6-32.)
Explanation: The project would develop a skatepark, and thereby increase and improve
recreational services available in the community. Environmental impacts that would occur as a
result of the project are analyzed throughout the EIR. For these reasons and the reasons discussed
in the EIR, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-31 through 6-32.)
5. Other Public Facilities
Threshold: Would the proposed Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for
new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for other public facilities?
Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-32.)
Explanation: The project would not involve a housing component or increase employment
opportunities that would result in population growth within the City. Therefore, additional
demands on other public facilities, such as library or health care services would not occur as a
result of project implementation, and no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 6-32.)
22
Q. RECREATION
1. Existing Facilities
Threshold: Would the proposed 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?
Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-32.)
Explanation: The project would develop a skatepark and thus increase and improve
recreational services available in the community. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in
the EIR, no impacts regarding the increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks would
occur. (Draft EIR, p. 6-32.)
2. New Recreational Facilities
Threshold: Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-32.)
Explanation: The project would develop new recreational facilities, including a skatepark, a
playground, and recreational trail. The project's environmental impacts are analyzed throughout this
EIR. For these reasons and the reason discussed in the EIR, impacts would be less than significant.
(Draft EIR, p. 6-32.)
R. TRANSPORTATION
1. Consistency with Circulation Performance Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-4 through 4.7-"5.)
Explanation: The project would generate temporary construction traffic, which would
cease upon completion of construction. The project proposes approximately 42,575 square feet of
recreational space that would consist of a new skatepark. The project would not include parking.
Visitors would be able to use the existing Community Center and Sports Park Complex parking
lot or park along Camino Del A vion. Relevant programs, policies, or plans for the Project site
would include the General Plan, the OCTA CBSP and CMP plans, and the Municipal Code. The
General Plan seeks to maintain and enhance multimodal transportation options through goals and
policies (listed above in section 4.7.2). the proposed Project would include short-term bicycle
storage as part the skatepark design. The Project site is in close proximity to bike trails or paths,
including a Class II bike lane along Alipaz Street, a Class II and III bike lane along Del Obispo
Street, and a multi-use trail the San Juan Creek Trail. Access to the Project site would be available
23
from these bike lanes and trails and the connected trail system. As described in Chapter 3 of the
EIR, the project proposes onsite bicycle racks to facilitate bicycle transit to and from the skatepark
for future users and onsite signage providing information on alternative transportation options to
the site. In addition, the proposed project is approximately 1.12 miles southwest of the San Juan
Capistrano Station which provides public transit services. The project site would be accessible
from the San Juan Capistrano Station via rideshare, bus, car, and bicycle as the Amtrak and
Metro link trains as well as the OCT A buses have bicycle racks. The available infrastructure in the
project area would allow for multimodal transit to and from the proposed project site, and would
not conflict with the applicable plans, goals, and policies. Moreover, the implementation of the
proposed project would not prevent the future implementation of planned bikeways or their
circulation infrastructure. Lastly, the project does not propose development of onsite vehicle
parking facilities, consistent with the City's Municipal Code (Section 9.3.535), which does not
include parking requirements for parks. The proposed project would be integrated into the existing
Community Center and Sports Park Complex, which includes an existing parking lot containing
228 parking stalls, 11 of which are accessible to persons with disabilities pursuant to the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) (1990). Due to the parking available in the existing parking lot as well
as street parking along the north side of Camino Del A vion, there is sufficient opportunity for
parking available. As such, the project is consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code
Section 9.3.535. Accordingly, the project would not conflict with any plans or ordinances
pertaining to the City's circulation system. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p.
4.7-4 through 4.7-5.)
2. Vehicle Miles Traveled ("VMT") Impacts
Threshold: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-5 through 4.7-6.)
Explanation: The project is estimated to generate a total of 193 daily trips, with 6 AM peak
hour trips and 29 PM peak hour trips. The trips generated by the project would be less than the
City's minimum trip threshold screening criteria of 200 weekday daily trips; the project is therefore
presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact. Because the project would not generate
significant trips or VMT, it would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3(b), and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-6.)
3. Transportation Hazards
Threshold: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4. 7-7.)
Explanation: The project would not substantially increase hazards due to any geometric
design features (it does not propose roadway improvements) or incompatible uses. For these
24
reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR. impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR,
p. 4.7-7.)
4. Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-7.)
Explanation: The nearest evacuation route to the project site is Del Obispo Street located
approximately 0.4-mile west of the site. Access to the project site would be provided via Camino
Del Avion. The project site is also provided regional access via I-5. Due to this local and regional
connectivity, in the unlikely event of an emergency, the project-adjacent roadway facilities would
be expected to serve as emergency evacuation routes for first responders and residents. The project
would not adversely affect operations on the local or regional circulation system, and as such,
would not impact the use of these facilities as emergency response routes. The project would not
include parking; thus, driveways would not be constructed. Emergency vehicles would be able to
park along Camino Del A vion or use the existing parking lot within the City's Sports Park. Access
to the project site would be provided by gated entrances along Camino Del A vion. In the event of
an emergency, personnel would have access to any of the proposed gate entranceways. Therefore,
impacts associated with inadequate emergency access would be less than significant. (Draft EIR,
p. 4.7-7.)
S. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Resources of Significance to a California Native American Tribe
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, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American
tribe, 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 subdivision (c) of 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?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-12.)
Explanation: No tribal cultural resources have been identified within or near the
Project site. For this reason and the reasons discussed in the EIR, impacts would be less than
significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-12.)
25
T. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
1. Utilities Infrastructure
Threshold: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-32 through 6-34.)
Explanation: The project includes development of a skatepark facility, and it would not
result in the relocation or construction of utilities infrastructure that could cause a significant
impact on the environment. The project would introduce a restroom facility to the site and would
connect to existing wastewater pipelines that service the surrounding area; thus, the project would
increase wastewater generated at the site. However, the project would introduce only a nominal
increase in the amount of wastewater treated daily by the wastewater treatment plant. For these
reasons and the reasons discussed in the BIR, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR,
p. 6-34.)
2. Sufficient Water Supplies
Threshold: Would sufficient water supplies be available to serve the Project and
reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-35.)
Explanation: Santa Margarita Water District would supply water for the Project, and it has
sufficient water supplies to serve the project during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. For this
reason and the reasons discussed in the EIR, impacts associated with water facilities and supplies
would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-34.)
3. Wastewater Treatment Capacity
Threshold: Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider that 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?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-35.)
Explanation: The project would not generate substantial wastewater demand such that
SOCW A and its existing capacities or commitments would be exceeded. The project would
introduce a restroom facility to the site and would connect to existing wastewater pipelines that
service the surrounding area; thus, the project would increase wastewater generated at the site.
However, the project would introduce only a nominal increase in the amount of wastewater treated
daily by the wastewater treatment plant. Furthermore, the project would not include relocation or
construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, given the available
26
capacity of the treatment plant, the nominal amount of wastewater generated by the project, and
no new or expanded wastewater infrastructure proposed, impacts associated with wastewater
treatment facilities would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-34.)
4. Landfill Capacity
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?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-35.)
Explanation: The project would generate solid water during both construction and
operation. Construction would temporarily generate solid waste such as scrap lumber, concrete,
residual wastes, packing materials, plastics, and soils. Once construction is complete, construction
generated solid waste would cease to be produced. Trash receptacles would be placed throughout
the site to collect potential waste generated by skatepark users. However, it is anticipated that
waste generated during operation of the project would be minimal. (Draft EIR, p. 6-35.) According
to the Land Use Element chapter of the General Plan, SO LAG, a private solid waste hauler collects
and disposes of the City's solid waste (City of San Juan Capistrano 1999). The City's solid waste
is disposed of at the County of Orange Integrated Waste Management Department's Prima
Deshecha Landfill, located approximately 3 miles east of the site. The landfill is currently active
and has a maximum permitted daily refuse is 4,000 tons per day (County of Orange 2018). The
project would generate nominal amounts of waste during operation and would not contribute a
significant amount of waste that would exceed the maximum permitted daily capacity. Therefore,
the project would be served by landfills with sufficient capacity. Impacts would be less than
significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-35.)
5. Solid Waste
Threshold: Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local management and
reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Findings: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-35.)
Explanation: Solid waste generated by the project would be disposed of at designated
landfill facilities under federal, state, and local regulation. Additionally, the City is required to
comply with relevant solid waste reduction and diversion requirements, including AB 939, AB
341, and AB 1327. Collectively, these regulations set statewide waste diversion goals and
established solid waste and recycling governing standards for local agencies. In addition, waste
diversion and reduction during project construction and operations would be completed in
accordance with City diversion requirements. As a result, the project would comply with federal,
state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Impacts
would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-35.)
27
U. WILDFIRES
1. Impairment of Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency
Evacuation Plan
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?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-35 through 6-36.)
Explanation: The project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
or a Wildland Fire Area that may contain substantial fire risk. Moreover, the project would not
adversely affect operations on the local or regional circulation system, and as such, would not
impact the use of these facilities as emergency response routes. For these reasons and the reasons
discussed in the EIR, impacts associated with an emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-35 through 6-36.)
2. Exacerbation of Wildfire Risks
Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high
fire hazard severity zones, would the Project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-36.)
Explanation: The project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
or a Wildland Fire Area that may contain substantial fire risk. Moreover, the project would not
include structures intended for long-term occupancy and operation of the project would involve
active maintenance of landscaping and vegetation, which would prevent dry or fire-prone
overgrowth of vegetation. Therefore, the project would not exacerbate wildfire risks such that
project users would be exposed to pollutants concentrations. Impacts would be less than
significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-36.)
3. Infrastructure-Related Wildfire Risks
Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high
fire hazard severity zones, would the Project require 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?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-36.)
Explanation: The project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
or a Wildland Fire Area that may contain substantial fire risk. Moreover, the project would not
28
result in installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk. For
these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft
EIR, p. 6-36.)
4. Landslides and Slope Instability
Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high
fire hazard severity zones, 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?
Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-36 through 6-37.)
Explanation: The project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
or a Wildland Fire Area that may contain substantial fire risk. Moreover, the project would not
pose a substantial risk for wildfire. Notably, the project would contain no habitable structures or
other structural development intended for human occupancy that would be located within or
adjacent to identified landslide zones. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures
to significant risks from post-fire slop instability or drainage changes. For these reasons and the
reasons discussed in the EIR, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-36 through
6-37.)
SECTION 3. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED
TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City hereby finds that feasible mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR
that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts
to a level ofless than significant. The potentially significant impacts, and the mitigation measures
that will reduce them to a less than significant level, are as follows:
A. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Special Status 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?
Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-5 through
4.2-6.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA
Guidelines,§ 15091(a)(l).)
Explanation: The project site is in an urban environment within a predominantly developed
part of the City. While much of the site is comprised of dirt surface, and crops, some plant species
are supported. Plant species found on the project site consist of ruderal and ornamental non-native
29
species, including small, scattered shrubs, as well as common weedy varietals growing within the
less-maintained areas of the site. Additionally, several ornamental trees are located along part of
the project site's southern, northern and western borders. Due to the disturbed condition of the
project site, no native plant species are expected to occur on site. Together, the on-site plant species
form a non-native and non-cohesive plant community that do not support any candidate, sensitive,
or special-status plant species.
Based upon the urbanized nature of the project area, wildlife species that could potentially
occur in the surrounding area include common species typically found in urban/developed settings
such as mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), and western
fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis). The on-site land cover is not known to support any
candidate, sensitive, or special-status wildlife species. However, the area surrounding the project
site contains scattered trees, shrubs, and bare ground that could potentially be used by migratory
birds for breeding. Direct impacts to migratory nesting birds must be avoided to comply with the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703-712) and the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife's (CDFW) requirements as established by Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game
Code. Prior to construction, ornamental trees within the project footprint would be removed thus
posing a potential impact to nesting birds onsite. Additionally, demolition and subsequent clearing
and grading activities on the project site have potential to impact ground-nesting bird species.
Furthermore, indirect impacts to nesting birds from short-term, construction-related noise could
result in decreased reproductive success or abandonment of an area as nesting habitat if
construction were conducted during the breeding/nesting season (i.e., February through August).
As such, to avoid potential direct and indirect impacts to nesting birds, and in conformance with
the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Department of Fish and Wildlife,
MM-BIO-1 would be implemented. With implementation ofMM-BIO-1 (produced below), direct
and indirect impacts to nesting birds from construction-related activities would be less than
significant as discussed in the EIR. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-5 through 4.2-6.)
MM-BI0-1: Nesting Bird Survey. In conformance with the requirements of the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act and Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code, should
vegetation clearing, cutting, or removal activities be required during the nesting season
(i.e., February 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird
survey no more than 7 calendar days before such activities take place. The survey shall
consist of full coverage of the project footprint and an appropriate buffer, as determined
by the qualified biologist. If no occupied nests are found, no additional steps shall be
required. If nests are found that are being used for breeding or rearing young by a native
bird, the qualified biologist shall recommend further avoidance measures, including
establishing an appropriate buffer around the occupied nest. Appropriate buffers may be
300 feet for passerine species and 500 feet for raptor species; however, the buffer shall be
determined by the qualified biologist based on the species present, surrounding habitat,
and existing environmental setting/level of disturbance. No construction or ground-
disturbing activities shall be conducted within the buffer until the biologist has determined
that the nest is no longer being used for breeding or rearing.
30
B. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Archaeological Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp 4.3-7
through 4.3-9.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR.
(State CEQA Guidelines,§ 15091(a)(l).)
Explanation: The entirety of the project site has been subjected to previous cultural
resource investigations. Of the two previous studies, one study (OR-01237), identified lithic
material and marine shell remains during a reconnaissance pedestrian survey within the Kinoshita
Farm Property, which is the 28-acre City-owned parcel that includes the current project site.
However, none of the lithic material identified exhibited any evidence of cultural modification and
the marine shell that was observed appeared to be recent in origin.
Additionally, the CHRIS records search indicates that one previously recorded prehistoric
archaeological site, P-30-000835/CA-ORA-000835, was identified within 720 meters
(approximately 2,360 feet) to the southeast and outside of the project site. This prehistoric
archaeological site was originally recorded in 1979 and was identified during a pedestrian survey.
The record notes that the nearest water source as the San Juan Creek. The site is described in the
1979 record as a prehistoric temporary campsite and was noted to be disturbed by an irrigation
system and the construction of the San Diego Freeway (I-5). The site was revisited in 2007 as part
of a cultural resources inventory and site assessment and the record was updated to state that the
prehistoric archaeological site as documented in 1979, no longer exists and was destroyed during
the construction of the southbound lanes for I-5 and it was concluded that there is no potential for
buried deposits to exist anywhere near the former footprint of site P-30-000835/CA-ORA000835
as mapped in 1979. The current project site is less than 500 meters west of the San Juan Creek and
has remained in use for agricultural purposes since the early twentieth century to present. Although
the project site has remained undeveloped to present-day and operates as an orchard and crop farm,
the vast majority of tree roots disturb roughly the top 22 to 36 inches of the soil. An intensive-level
pedestrian survey of the project site did not identify any cultural materials. It should be noted that
based on current site conditions, the native soils upon and within which cultural deposits would
exist in context was not observed during the survey. Given this information and geoarchaeological
suitability for supporting the presence of buried archaeological resources, there is a moderate
potential for the discovery of unanticipated cultural resources during initial ground disturbance
within native soil, beneath the extant root system of the orchard.
Despite thorough cultural assessments intended to identify or determine the potential for
archaeological resources to exist within a Project site, the potential to encounter yet unknown and
unrecorded buried archaeological resources cannot be ruled out when ground disturbances occur
within native soils. In the event that yet unknown and unrecorded archaeological resources are
encountered during project implementation, impacts to these resources would potentially be
31
significant. To appropriately respond to the unanticipated and inadvertent discovery of yet
unknown and unrecorded archaeological resources and mitigate potential impacts to a level ofless
than significant, the project shall incorporate MM-CUL-1 and MM-CUL-2, which provide:
MM-CUL-1. Workers Environmental Awareness Program Training: All construction
personnel and monitors who are not trained archaeologists shall be briefed regarding
inadvertent discoveries prior to the start of construction-related excavation activities. A
basic presentation and handout or pamphlet shall be prepared in order to ensure proper
identification and treatment of inadvertent discoveries. The purpose of the Workers
Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training is to provide specific details on the
kinds of archaeological materials and tribal cultural resources that may be identified
during construction of the project and explain the importance of and legal basis for the
protection of archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources. Each worker shall
also learn the proper procedures to follow in the event that archaeological resources and
tribal cultural resources or human remains are uncovered during ground-disturbing
activities. These procedures include work curtailment or redirection, and the immediate
contact of the site supervisor and archaeological monitor.
MM-CUL-2. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Monitoring and Inadvertent
Discovery of Archaeological Resources: An archaeological monitor must be present
during all initial ground disturbing activities with the potential to encounter cultural
resources. A monitoring plan must be prepared by the archaeologist and implemented upon
approval by the City. An inadvertent discovery clause, written by an archaeologist, shall
be added to all construction plans associated with ground-disturbing activities. An
archaeological monitor shall be present on the project site during initial ground-disturbing
activities to monitor rough and finish grading, excavation, and other ground-disturbing
activities in the native soils.
In the event that yet unknown and unanticipated archaeological resources (sites, features,
or artifacts) are inadvertently exposed during ground disturbing activities for the Project,
all construction work occurring within 50 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a
qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification
Standards, can evaluate the significance of the unanticipated resource.
If a resource is deemed significant by the qualified archaeologist, preservation in place or
avoidance of the resource shall be the preferred method of preservation consistent with
Public Resources Code section 21083.l(b). If preservation in place or avoidance is not
feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery
excavations to remove the resource. This mitigation will reduce any potential significant
impacts to a level of less than significant by ensuring that any significant resource
discovered is either avoided, preserved in place, or removed so that there will be no
substantial adverse change in the significance of the resource.
The methods and results of the data recovery excavation shall be included in a monitoring
report, to be completed by the qualified archaeologist after completion of the project. The
monitoring report shall include a description of resources recovered, treatment of the
32
resources, and evaluation of the resources with respect to the California Register of
Historical Resources and CEQA. Upon completion of the project, all appropriate
documentation (reports, site records, etc.) shall be submitted to the City Development
Services Director and the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC).
2. Human Remains
Threshold: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-9
through 4.3-10.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR.
(State CEQA Guidelines,§ 15091(a)(l).)
Explanation: No known current or historic cemeteries or burial sites interred outside of a
formal cemetery have been identified on the project site or adjacent area (within 0.5-mile radius).
However, it is possible ground-disturbing activities may encounter previously unknown or
unrecorded human remains, including those interred outside of a dedicated cemetery. To ensure
consistency with the requirements of CCR Section 15064.S(e), and to reduce any potential impacts
related to inadvertently disturbing human remains, MM-CUL-3 (produced below) would be
implemented. MM-CUL-3 requires work to halt in the event that human remains are encountered,
and establishes required steps for notification, treatment, and reporting of the remains. With the
implementation of MM-CUL-3, impacts related to disturbance of human remains would be less
than significant.
MM-CUL-3. Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. In the event that yet unknown and
unrecorded human remains are inadvertently encountered during construction activities,
the remains and associated funerary objects shall be treated in accordance with state and
local regulations that provide requirements with regard to the accidental discovery of
human remains, including California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, California
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). In
accordance with these regulations, if human remains are found, the County Coroner must
be immediately notified of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the
Project site or any nearby (no less than 100 feet) area reasonably suspected to overlie
adjacent remains can occur until the County Coroner has determined if the remains are
potentially human in origin. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are, or are
believed to be, Native American, he or she is required to immediately notify the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will notify the person/s it believes to
be the most likely descendant (MLD) from the deceased individual. The MLD must then
complete their inspection and determine, in consultation with the property owner, the
treatment and potential disposition of the human remains. All resulting documentation
shall be submitted to the City Development Services Director, or designee, for their review
and work shall not continue within the area of the discovery without authorization from
the City. Upon completion of the project, all appropriate documentation (reports, site
records, etc.) shall be submitted to the SCCIC.
33
C. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1. Paleontological Resources and Geologic Features
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-8
through 4.4-9.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR.
(State CEQA Guidelines,§ 15091(a)(l).)
Explanation: As discussed in Appendix A, no paleontological resources were identified
within the project site. Recent young alluvial flood-plain deposits that are generally too young to
contain significant paleontological resources on or very near the surface immediately underlie the
project site. However, at depths greater than five feet below the original surface, there is a greater
likelihood of encountering sediments that are old enough to contain significant paleontological
resources. As such, the likelihood of impacting paleontological resources within the project site is
considered low above a depth of five feet below the original ground surface, increasing with depth.
Therefore, the project would incorporate mitigation measure MM-GEO-1 through MM-GEO-4,
which requires retention of a qualified paleontologist if resources are encountered during
construction. Incorporation of MM-GEO-1 through MM-GEO-4 would reduce potential impacts
to a level below significance. Therefore, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than
significant with mitigation incorporated.
MM-GEO-I. Retention of a Qualified Paleontologist. If excavations below a depth of five
feet below the original ground surface are planned for the proposed project a qualified
Orange County certified paleontologist meeting the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology's
2010 standards must be retained to oversee the implementation of all paleontological
resources mitigation requirements for the project. The qualified paleontologist shall
prepare an inadvertent discovery clause to be added to all construction plans associated
with ground disturbing activities.
MM-GE0-2. Paleontological Resources Sensitivity Training. Prior to the start of
excavations, the Qualified Paleontologist, or their designee, shall conduct paleontological
resources awareness training for onsite personnel. The training session shall focus on how
to identify paleontological resources that may be encountered during excavations and the
procedures to be followed in the event of their discovery. The City shall ensure onsite
personnel are made available for and attend the training and retain documentation
demonstrating attendance.
MM-GE0-3. Paleontological Resources Monitoring. If excavations below a depth of five
feet below the original ground surface are planned for the proposed project, the qualified
paleontologist shall determine when and where paleontological monitoring is warranted
based on the paleontologists understanding of the construction plan and the lithologic
character and age of the sediments that could be exposed during excavation. The qualified
34
paleontologist or a qualified paleontological monitor meeting the Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology's 2010 standards under the direction of the qualified paleontologist must
conduct the paleontological monitoring. If the sediments are determined by the qualified
paleontologist to be too young or too coarse-grained to likely preserve paleontological
resources, the qualified paleontologist can reduce or terminate monitoring per the Society
of Vertebrate Paleontology's 2010 guidelines and based on the excavations remaining for
the proposed Project. The paleontological monitor should complete daily monitoring logs
for each day monitoring is conducted documenting construction activities and geological
and paleontological observations. The qualified paleontologist must produce a final
paleontological monitoring report that discusses the paleontological monitoring program,
any paleontological discoveries, and the preparation, curation, and accessioning of the
fossils into a suitable paleontological repository with retrievable storage. The report shall
be submitted to the City to signify the satisfactory completion of required paleontological
mitigation measures. If significant fossils are discovered, the report shall also be submitted
to the appropriate repositories.
MM-GE0-4. Paleontological Resource Treatment and Disposition. If paleontological
resources are discovered, significant fossils shall be prepared to the point of identification
and cataloged. Significant fossils shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a
research interest in the material and with retrievable storage, such as the Natural History
Museum of Los Angeles County, if such an institution agrees to accept the fossils. If no
institution accepts the fossil collection, then the fossils may be donated to a local museum,
historical society, school, or other institution for educational purposes. Accompanying
notes, reports, maps, and photographs shall also be filed with the final repository.
D. NOISE
1. Local Noise Level Standards
Threshold: Would the Project result in 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?
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-
6 through 4.6-10.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR.
(State CEQA Guidelines,§ 15091(a)(l).)
Explanation: Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to involve distinct and
sequential groupings of onsite activities or phases that for purposes of this assessment include site
preparation, excavation (for skate bowl areas), building construction, paving, and application of
architectural finishes. Utilizing FWHA reference noise levels and AUF values for anticipated
heavy construction equipment and vehicles to be used on the project site, an RCNM emulator
predicted the aggregate noise level exposures from each of these project construction stages at the
nearest offsite noise-sensitive receptors (NSR): existing homes on the southern side of Camino
Del Avion that are as close as 90 feet to the southern boundary of the project site or approximately
35
325 feet to its geographic centroid. As shown in Table 4.6-5 of the EIR, neither the general
assessment nor the detailed assessment technique predicts an 8-hour Leq exposure from a project
construction stage that would exceed the FTA guidance-based threshold of 80 dBA; hence, on this
basis, project construction noise would result in a less than significant impact.
Despite the expected compliance with FTA guidance, noise emission from onsite project
construction equipment would likely cause the outdoor ambient sound environment at these nearby
offsite NSRs to increase by as much as 14 dB with respect to the daytime Leq value range of 60-
65 dBA as presented in Section 4.6.1. Although such increase would be temporary and conclude
when project construction is completed, it would be clearly perceived under most conditions and
sound twice as loud as pre-project outdoor conditions when the increase is at least 10 dB in
magnitude. For this reason, the project would implement MM NOI-1 to further minimize this
construction attributed change to the daytime sound environment. MM NOI-1 below is provided
to reduce the magnitude of temporary construction-related increases to the outdoor ambient sound
level at offsite nearest NSR.
MM NOI-1 Construction Noise Reduction. In addition to adherence to the City of San Juan
Capistrano 's policies found in the City's General Plan Noise and Safety Element and
Municipal Code limiting the construction hours of operation, the following measures shall
be implemented to reduce construction noise emanating from the project: i. The project
contractor shall, to the extent feasible, schedule construction activities to avoid concurrent
operation of several pieces of construction equipment proximate to an offsite noise-
sensitive receiver. ii. All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with
properly operating and maintained engine exhaust mufflers. iii. Based on feasibility and/or
practicality, the project contractor shall apply the following onsite equipment noise control
and sound abatement methods: a. shutting off idling engines of vehicles and stationary
engine-driven equipment when not in use; b. orient operating stationary equipment so that
audibly or measurably louder cabinet surfaces or penetrations (e.g., air intake or
discharge vents) are facing away from nearest offsite noise-sensitive receptors; and c.
apply factory-approved enclosures, vent shrouds, and other equipment-mounted features
to attenuate (via dissipative acoustical absorption, south path occlusion or redirection,
etc.) noise emission. iv. During the site preparation and excavation phases of the Project,
the project contractor shall install a minimum 7-foot-tall temporary noise barrier (e.g.,
vertical installation of adjoining plywood sheeting [minimum ½-thick], a frame-suspended
outdoor acoustical blanket, or other materials/assembly that demonstrates a minimum of
sound transmission class [STCJ 20) along the full southern extent of the project boundary.
v. Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job
superintendent shall be clearly posted at construction entrances to allow surrounding
property owners to contact the job superintendent if necessary. In the event the City
receives a complaint, appropriate corrective actions shall be implemented, and a report of
the action provided to the reporting party.
With implementation of MM-NOI-1, required insertion of an 7-foot tall temporary solid
barrier would further reduce construction noise levels at residential NSRs just south of the project
site by as much as 11 dB during the site preparation and grading phases of construction. Under
these modeled conditions, construction noise at the nearest offsite receptors would fall within the
36
62 dBA to 63 dBA 8-hour Leq range during such activities. For these reasons and the reasons
discussed in the EIR, implementation of MM-NOI-1 would reduce potential construction noise-
related impacts to a level of less than significant.
Operational Noise. The project is anticipated to generate 193 daily trips, which one could
reasonably assume would occur on the Camino del A vion roadway segment that adjoins the project
to the south. Using an FHWA traffic noise model that include the 25 mile per hour (mph) roadway
speed, these additional project-related trips would create an estimated CNEL of 42.6 dBA at a
distance of 50 feet. Outside of school hours, the speed limit is 40 mph and would yield an estimated
47.0 dBA CNEL. This latter noise level is substantially lower than the 60 dBA CNEL contour
shown in the vicinity of the existing park along Camino del A vion and lower than the measured
CNEL of 64 dBA as shown in Table 4.6-1 of the EIR. Logarithmically adding 47.0 dBA to either
60 dBA or 64 dBA would be a negligible (i.e., less than 0.1 dB) increase to the existing outdoor
ambient sound level; therefore, traffic noise from project operation would result in a less than
significant impact.
Since the predicted exterior noise level exposures attributed to project stationary sources
are not expected to exceed 50 dB A hourly Leq at the boundaries of the nearest existing homes on
Camino del Avion, both of the City's noise standards-daytime or evening-would be satisfied.
E. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Potential Impacts to 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, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, 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)?
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-
10 through 4.8-12.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR.
(State CEQA Guidelines,§ 15091(a)(l).)
Explanation: SCCIC records indicate that four cultural resources have been previously
recorded within 0.5-mile of the project site. Of these, three are historic built environment resources
and one is a prehistoric archaeological site. None of these resources overlap the project site and
none of the available SCCIC records reviewed indicate that any previously recorded cultural
resources exist within the project site. However, despite thorough cultural assessments intended to
identify or determine the potential for cultural resources to exist within a Project site, the potential
to encounter yet unknown and unrecorded buried tribal cultural resources cannot be ruled out when
ground disturbances occur within native soils. In the event that yet unknown and unrecorded tribal
cultural resources are encountered during project implementation, impacts to these resources
would potentially be significant. To appropriately respond to the unanticipated and inadvertent
37
discovery of yet unknown and unrecorded archaeological resources and mitigate potential impacts
to a level ofless than significant, the project shall incorporate MM-CUL-1, MM CUL 2, and MM
CUL-3. Therefore, impacts associated with tribal cultural resources 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), would be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
MM-CUL-1 Workers Environmental Awareness Program Training: All construction
personnel and monitors who are not trained archaeologists shall be briefed regarding
inadvertent discoveries prior to the start of construction-related excavation activities. A
basic presentation and handout or pamphlet shall be prepared in order to ensure proper
identification and treatment of inadvertent discoveries. The purpose of the Workers
Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training is to provide specific details on the
kinds of archaeological materials and tribal cultural resources that may be identified
during construction of the project and explain the importance of and legal basis for the
protection of archaeological and tribal cultural resources. Each worker shall also learn
the proper procedures to follow in the event that archaeological and tribal cultural
resources or human remains are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities. These
procedures include work curtailment or redirection, and the immediate contact of the site
supervisor and archaeological monitor.
MM-CUL-2 Cultural and Tribal Resources Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery of
Archaeological Resources: An archaeological monitor must be present during all initial
ground-disturbing activities with the potential to encounter cultural resources. A
monitoring plan must be prepared by the archaeologist and implemented upon approval
by the City. An inadvertent discovery clause, written by an archaeologist, shall be added
to all construction plans associated with ground-disturbing activities. An archaeological
monitor shall be present on the project site during initial ground-disturbing activities to
monitor rough and finish grading, excavation, and other ground-disturbing activities in
the native soils. In the event that yet unknown and unanticipated archaeological resources
(sites, features, or artifacts) are inadvertently exposed during ground disturbing activities
for the Project, all construction work occurring within 5 0 feet of the find shall immediately
stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional
Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the unanticipated resource. If a
resource is deemed significant by the qualified archaeologist, preservation in place or
avoidance of the resource shall be the preferred method of preservation consistent with
Public Resources Code section 21083.2(b). If preservation in place or avoidance is not
feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery
excavations to remove the resource. This mitigation will reduce any potential significant
impacts to a level of less than significant by ensuring that any significant resource
discovered is either avoided, preserved in place, or removed so that there will be no
substantial adverse change in the significance of the resource. The methods and results of
the data recovery excavation shall be included in a monitoring report, to be completed by
the qualified archaeologist after completion of the project. The monitoring report shall
include a description of resources recovered, treatment of the resources, and evaluation of
38
the resources with respect to the California Register of Historical Resources and CEQA.
Upon completion of the project, all appropriate documentation (reports, site records, etc.)
shall be submitted to the City Development Services Director and the South Central
Coastal Information Center (SCCIC).
MM-CUL-3 Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. In the event that yet unknown and
unrecorded human remains are inadvertently encountered during construction activities,
the remains and associated funerary objects shall be treated in accordance with state and
local regulations that provide requirements with regard to the accidental discovery of
human remains, including California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, California
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). In
accordance with these regulations, if human remains are found, the County Coroner must
be immediately notified of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the
Project site or any nearby (no less than 100 feet) area reasonably suspected to overlie
adjacent remains can occur until the County Coroner has determined if the remains are
potentially human in origin. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are, or are
believed to be, Native American, he or she is required to immediately notify the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will notify the person/s it believes to
be the most likely descendant (MLD) from the deceased individual. The MLD must then
complete their inspection and determine, in consultation with the property owner, the
treatment and potential disposition of the human remains. All resulting documentation
shall be submitted to the City Development Services Director, or designee, for their review
and work shall not continue within the area of the discovery without authorization from the
City. Upon completion of the project, all appropriate documentation (reports, site records,
etc.) shall be submitted to the SCCIC. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-10 through 4.8-12.)
SECTION 4. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT FULLY
MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of mitigation measures outlined in the
EIR and in this Resolution, the following impacts from the proposed Project and related approvals
cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations is therefore included herein:
A. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
1. Farmland Conversion
Threshold: Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Finding: Significant and unavoidable impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-4 through 4.1-5.) Changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA
Guidelines, § 15091(a)(l).) It is not feasible, however, to fully mitigate the Project impact to a
39
level of less than significant. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091 (a)(3).)
Explanation: The project site is classified as "Prime Farmland" and is actively farmed and
has a reliable water supply. The project site currently represents approximately 1.4 percent of all
Prime or Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance in the City and less than one
percent in Orange County. Although the project site represents a small fraction of farmland in
Orange County, the direct loss of Prime Farmland to a non-agricultural use would be considered a
significant impact to agricultural resources. Here, the development of the project would result in a
loss of 1.75 acres of Prime Farmland. To reduce this significant impact, the City shall implement
mitigation measure MM-AG-1., which requires the City to mitigate the loss of agricultural land as
follows:
MM-A G-1: Contribution to Agricultural Preservation Fund. Prior to issuance of a grading
permit, the City shall mitigate for the loss of Prime Agricultural Land by depositing
payment of fees into the City's Agricultural Preservation Fund and in accordance with
Section 3-3.104, Schedule C, and Section 3-3.109(b) of the City's Municipal Code. The fee
payment shall be equivalent to cost of acquisition of Prime Farmland in the region at a
ratio of 1:1 (i.e., 1.75 acres) or comparable open space land that could be converted to
Prime Farmland. The fee payment shall be used for agricultural mitigation purposes,
including but not limited to farmland acquisition, agricultural conservation easements,
and/or farmland deed restrictions, with priority given to prime agricultural farmlands.
Implementation of MM-AG-1 would provide payment of a fee into the City's Agricultural
Preservation Fund to be used for agricultural mitigation purposes, including but not limited to
farmland acquisition, agricultural conservation easements, and/or farmland deed restrictions.
However, MM-AG-1 would not replace the approximate 1.75 acres of Prime Farmland lost as a
result of the proposed project and does not result in a net increase in agricultural land; therefore,
the measure does not offset the conversion of Prime Farmland to a nonagricultural use. Therefore,
implementation of MM AG-1 would not reduce the impact to Prime Farmland to a less-than-
significant level, and the permanent conversion of 1. 75 acre of Prime Farmland to non-agricultural
uses would constitute a significant and unavoidable impact pursuant to CEQA. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-
4 through 4.1-5.)
2. Conversion
Thresho1d: 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?
Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-5.) Changes or alterations have
been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen some of the
significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines,§ 15091(a)(l).)
It is not feasible, however, to fully mitigate the Project impact to a level of less than significant.
Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Specific economic, legal, social, technological,
or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified
40
in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines,§ 15091(a)(3).)
Explanation: Project implementation would result in the conversion of approximately 1. 7 5
acres of Prime Farmland to a non-agricultural use. Although the project proponent would be
required to mitigate the loss of agricultural land through implementation of MM-AG-1, the
mitigation measure does not result in a net increase in agricultural land, and thus does not offset
the conversion of Prime Farmland to a nonagricultural use. Therefore, MM-AG-1 would not
reduce impacts to Prime Farmland to a less-than-significant level, and the permanent conversion
of 1.75 acres of Prime Farmland to non-agricultural uses would constitute a significant and
unavoidable impact pursuant to CEQA. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-5.)
SECTION 5. FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Consistent with CEQA's requirements, the EIR for the Project includes an analysis of
cumulative impacts. The City hereby finds as follows:
A. AESTHETICS
There are no designated scenic vistas in the project vicinity and the project is not within
the Ridgeline and Open Space Preservation District; however, hillsides are visible in the vicinity
of the project site and could be visible from cumulative projects. Because of the distance of the
hillsides, construction of the proposed projects in combination with the cumulative projects would
not obstruct views of the distant hillsides. Further, all projects would be consistent with City of
San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code Title 9, Land Use, and the General Plan Land Use Element
and the Conservation & Open Space Element goals and policies pertaining to scenic quality,
development standards, and design guidelines. Cumulative projects may introduce new sources of
nighttime lighting. However, all projects would be in compliance with Section 9-3.529, Lighting
Standards, of the City's Municipal Code, which establishes lighting and operational guidelines to
minimize light pollution or light spillover. Therefore, compliance with these regulations would
ensure that impacts related to aesthetics would not be cumulatively considerable, and therefore, no
mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 5-5 through 5-6.)
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
The geographic context of agricultural resources is confined to areas containing
agricultural resources in the project region (within City boundaries and adjacent
cities/communities). Therefore, cumulative impacts as related to agricultural resources would be
confined to related projects on the cumulative projects list that are located near agricultural
resources or that would result in direct or indirect impacts to agricultural resources. This would
include cumulative project 4, The Farm on Del Obispo, which included conversion of land
classified as Unique Farmland into a residential development located just north of the proposed
project. As described in Section 4.1, Agricultural Resources, the proposed project would result in
a significant and unavoidable impact related to the conversion of Prime Farmland to a non-
agricultural use (see thresholds 1 and 3). To reduce the significant impact, the City would
implement MM-AG-1, which requires the City to mitigate the loss of agricultural land with
41
payment of a fee to the City's Agricultural Preservation Fund. Although the project proponent
would be required to mitigate the loss of agricultural land through implementation of MM-AG-1,
the measure does not result in a net increase in agricultural land, thereby offsetting the conversion
of Important Farmland to a nonagricultural use; thus, the impact would remain significant and
unavoidable. Because the project would result in the conversion of Prime Farmland to non-
agricultural uses, the project's incremental contribution to conversion of farmland within the
project vicinity and surrounding region would be cumulatively considerable; therefore, this would
be a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. (Draft EIR, p. 5-6.)
As described in Section 4.1, Agricultural Resources, MM-AG-1 would be implemented as
part of the proposed project. However, there are no mitigation measures to reduce the project's
contribution to cumulative loss of agricultural lands. Therefore, the project's incremental
contribution to conversion of farmland within the project vicinity and surrounding region would
be considered a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. (Draft EIR, p. 5-6.)
C. AIR QUALITY
The geographic scope for air quality cumulative impacts is the South Coast Air Basin and
the jurisdictional boundaries of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
which administers the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Air pollution is by its nature a
cumulative issue. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present
development. Per SCAQMD, "Projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are
considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project-specific
and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the
project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant" (SCAQMD
2003). The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions
of nonattainment pollutants, nor would it result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations. Further, the Project and all Cumulative Projects within the region,
including Easley Renewable Energy Project, would be subject to SCAQMD regulatory
requirements. As such, the project's potential contribution to impacts related to air quality would
not be cumulatively considerable, and therefore, no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 5-6
through 5-7.)
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The geographic context is defined differently for each species, based on species
distribution, habitat requirements, and scope of impact from proposed activities. For some species
the geographic context would be on-site habitat and directly adjacent habitat, while the geographic
scope for other species would be defined by migratory routes or patterns. Biological resources in
the project area and region are managed through the Orange County Southern Subregion Habitat
Conservation Plan (OCSSHCP).
Cumulative impacts to biological resources from cumulative projects would result in
significant and cumulative loss of natural habitat and special-status plant and wildlife species in
the region. Significant permanent loss of habitat and special-status species results from direct
42
removal of habitat due to physical development or other changes, or indirect effects related to
project activity that impacts special-status species' life cycles. Physical development of several of
the cumulative projects in Table 5-2 could result in direct and/or indirect impacts to habitat, special
status species, or other biological resources; however, implementation of mitigation measures,
conformance with existing regulatory requirements and project-specific permit requirements
would reduce most potential impacts to less than significant.
Biological resource impacts resulting from the proposed project would be less than
significant with mitigation measures included. Mitigation measure MM-BIO-1 would ensure
conformance with the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Department
of Fish and Wildlife, which would reduce potential direct and indirect impacts to nesting birds
from construction-related activities to less than significant. Because the proposed project would
avoid or minimize impacts to nesting birds and because the impacts to nesting birds can be reduced
to less-than-significant for cumulative projects, the project's potential contribution to impacts
related to direct and indirect impacts to nesting birds from construction-related activities would
not be cumulatively considerable, and therefore, no further mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p.
5-7.)
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impacts would be considered cumulatively considerable if the cumulative projects would
result in direct or indirect permanent impact to identified cultural resources and implementation of
mitigation or compliance with regulation would not avoid or reduce the impact. However, no
known historical or archaeological resources occur within the project site; therefore, the project
would not contribute to a cumulative loss of identified cultural resources in the region.
Implementation of the project, in combination with other proposed or planned projects listed in
Table 5-2 of the EIR, would involve ground-disturbing activities which could result in discovery
of or damage to previously undiscovered archaeological resources as defined in State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5. However, when considered in combination with the impacts of other
projects in the cumulative scenario, the project would not be cumulatively considerable because
implementation of MM-CUL-1 through CUL-3 would avoid or reduce project impacts associated
with potential for unanticipated archaeological resources and/or unanticipated human remains.
Further, cumulative development would also be required to implement similar mitigation to avoid
or reduce impacts to unknown archaeological resources. Therefore, the project's potential
contribution to impacts related to unanticipated archaeological resources and/or unanticipated
human remains would not be cumulatively considerable and no further mitigation is required.
(Draft EIR, pp. 5-7 through 5-8.)
F. ENERGY RESOURCES
The Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy during
construction or operations, nor would it conflict with an applicable plan. Cumulative projects
within the region would have a construction period during which electricity, natural gas, and
43
petroleum would be used; however, it is expected that such usage would be temporary and would
not constitute a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Furthermore, per the
City's Municipal Code, the project and cumulative projects would be subject to the 2019 California
Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) (City of San Juan Capistrano 2021a). Additionally,
cumulative projects would also be subject to statewide mandatory energy requirements as outlined
in Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations. And Title 24, Part 11, of the California
Code of Regulations contains additional energy measures that are applicable under CALGreen.
Future development would also be required to meet even more stringent requirements, including
the objectives set forth in the AB 32 Scoping Plan, which seek to make all newly constructed
residential homes produce a sustainable amount of renewable energy using on-site photovoltaic
solar systems. Furthermore, various federal and state regulations, including the Low Carbon Fuel
Standard, Pavley Clean Car Standards, and Low Emission Vehicle Program, would serve to reduce
the transportation fuel demand of cumulative projects. As such, the project's potential contribution
to impacts related to energy consumption would not be cumulatively considerable and no
mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 5-8.)
G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
As discussed in Section 4.4, Geology and Soils, the proposed project would result in a less
than significant impact related to geology and soils-related impacts and a potentially significant
impact to paleontological resources. With implementation of MM-GEO-1 through MM-GEO-4,
retention of a qualified paleontologist shall be required if paleontological resources are
encountered during construction and a qualified paleontological monitor would be required during
exaction activities greater than 5 feet. With incorporation of MM-GEO-1 through MM-GEO-4,
potential impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to a level ofless than significant.
Implementation of the project, in combination with other proposed or planned projects
within the project site and vicinity, would involve ground-disturbing activities which could result
in discovery of or damage to previously undiscovered paleontological resources. However, when
considered in combination with the impacts of other projects in the cumulative scenario, the project
would not be cumulatively considerable because implementation of MM-GEO-1 through MM-
GEO-4 would reduce the impact associated with unknown paleontological resources to a level of
less than significant. Further, cumulative development would be required to implement similar
mitigation to avoid/reduce impacts to paleontological resources. Therefore, the project's potential
contribution to risks of the existing seismic and geologic conditions or potential impacts related to
previously undiscovered paleontological resources would not be cumulatively considerable, and
no further mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-8 through 5-9.)
H. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The geographic scope of cumulative GHG impacts is the jurisdictional boundaries of the
SCAQMD. The cumulative context is that GHG emissions inherently contribute to cumulative
impacts, and, thus, any additional GHG emissions from cumulative projects would result in a
cumulative impact. The project, as described in Section 6.2, would not exceed the SCAQMD
threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year, and the project's GHG contribution would not be
cumulatively considerable. Further the project would not conflict with the CARB Scoping Plan or
44
SCAG's 2020-2024 RTP/SCS. As such, the project's potential contribution to greenhouse gas
emissions would not be cumulatively considerable and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 5-
9.)
I. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Cumulative projects, like the proposed project, could include use or handling of hazardous
materials during construction; however, all projects would be required to comply with existing
federal, state, and local regulations regarding hazardous material use, storage, disposal, training,
and transport to prevent project-related risks to public health and safety. Cumulative projects could
be located on a site included in a hazardous materials list and could exacerbate the hazardous
conditions for the public or the environment. The proposed project is not located on a site included
on a hazardous materials list and would not exacerbate any existing hazardous conditions.
Hazardous conditions could also be exacerbated by cumulative projects interfering with an
emergency or evacuation plan or expose the public or the environment to significant hazards
related to wildfire. The proposed project would not introduce any new physical features or
activities that would conflict with emergency or evacuation response, or wildfire conditions.
Therefore, the project's potential contribution to impacts related to hazardous materials and
hazardous conditions would not be cumulatively considerable, and therefore no mitigation is
required. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-9 through 5-10.)
J. HYDROLOGYANDWATERQUALITY
Cumulative projects, like the proposed project, would be required to comply with a
framework of local and state regulations that protect water quality of surface water bodies and
groundwater. This includes compliance with Chapter 8, Water Quality Regulations, of the City's
Municipal Code, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, and
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that require water quality BMPs and storm
drainage system design measures to minimize the potential for erosion, siltation, flooding, or the
deposition of mud, debris, or construction-related pollutants. The Project and cumulative projects
would be required to comply with applicable State and local plans and regulations that protect
water quality; therefore, impacts to hydrology and water quality would not be cumulatively
considerable, and therefore no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 5-10.)
K. LAND USE
As discussed in Section 4.5, the project would result in less than significant impacts related
to dividing an existing community or conflict with existing plans and policies governing land use.
This is because the project would implement a land use (park and trail) that would be cohesive
with the adjacent land uses and would not introduce a new, inconsistent land use that would impede
the continued operation of the adjacent and nearby land uses. While the project would remove 1.75
acres of land from agricultural use, it would not prevent the continued operation of adjacent
agricultural activity, and potential indirect impacts from the project would be mitigated as
discussed throughout this EIR. Taken as a whole, the proposed project is in harmony with the
45
overall intent of the City's General Plan goals and policies. As such, the impact would be less than
significant.
The projects included in Table 5-2 of the EIR consist primarily of infill development or
redevelopment of existing and aging structures. Like the project, proposed uses for the cumulative
projects would be consistent with surrounding uses and area land uses because the projects would
be subject to land use regulations found in the City's Municipal Code and would be required to
comply with goals and policies of the General Plan. Therefore, all cumulative projects, including
those in the project vicinity (i.e., The Farm; City Hall; Distrito La Novia -San Juan Meadows;
and Ganahl Lumber) would be consistent with the existing and planned land uses of the
surrounding area and would not conflict with the proposed project. As such, potential impacts to
land uses would not be cumulatively considerable, and therefore no mitigation is required. (Draft
EIR, pp. 5-10 through 5-11.)
L. MINERAL RESOURCES
Cumulative impacts to mineral resources could occur if the project or cumulative projects
caused a loss of availability of a known mineral resource valuable to the region and the state or
caused a loss of availability of an important mining site delineated in a local general plan or other
land use plan. The project vicinity is largely urbanized and built-up, which limits opportunities for
mineral resource extraction. While the project site is located within an MRZ-3 (Mineral Resource
Zone) area, the project site and surrounding areas are not designated or zoned as uses that would
allow mineral resource extraction, nor are the existing or proposed land uses compatible with
mineral resource extraction. Therefore, the project's potential contribution to impacts related to
mineral resources would not be cumulatively considerable, and therefore no mitigation is required.
Draft EIR, p. 5-11.)
M. NOISE
As discussed in Section 4.6, Noise, project impacts related to operational noise and
groundbome vibration would be less than significant. Compliance with City policies and
Municipal Code, along with the implementation of MM-NOI-1 to reduce the magnitude of
temporary increases in outdoor ambient sound levels at offsite noise sensitive receptors (NSR)
during construction activities, would reduce noise from construction of the proposed project to a
less-than-significant level.
Cumulative impacts from construction-generated noise could result if other future planned
construction activities were to take place in the immediate project vicinity and cumulatively
combine with construction noise from the project. The Farm on Del Obispo project ( cumulative
project 4) is nearly complete and is the closest project to the project site (approximately 1,000 feet
north). As discussed in Section 4.6, Noise, project construction would not exceed the FT A
guidance-based threshold of 80 dBA, and project construction noise would result in a less than
significant impact. Although construction noise would be within FTA standards, project
construction could cause the outdoor ambient sound environment at nearby offsite NSR to increase
by as much as 14 dB with respect to the daytime Leq value range of 60-65 dBA. To reduce changes
46
to outdoor ambient noise levels, the project would implement MM-NOI-1 related to management
of the construction equipment, hours, and schedule. With implementation of MM NOI-1 during
project construction, potential impacts to outdoor ambient noise levels resulting from construction
activities and equipment would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Construction of the nearby Farm on Del Obispo project is also subject to applicable noise-
related policies in the City's General Plan Noise and Safety Element and noise requirements in the
City's Municipal Code, including limits on construction hours of operation. In addition, similar
construction noise mitigation would be applicable to the Farm on Del Obispo project pursuant to
the CEQA document prepared for that project. Therefore, nearby cumulative construction noise
contribution to outdoor ambient noise levels would also be reduced. All other ongoing and future
anticipated development considered in this cumulative analysis would be located further away (see
Figure 5-1) and would not be anticipated to influence the immediate project area because
construction-related noise is typically a site-specific impact that affects those near the construction
activities. For these reasons and with implementation ofMM-NOI-1, the project would not result
in a new or substantially more severe cumulative construction noise impact and the project's
potential contribution to short-term construction noise impacts would not be cumulatively
considerable, and therefore, no additional mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-11 through 5-
12.)
N. PUBLIC SERVICES
The cumulative geographic context for public services is the jurisdictional boundaries of
the agencies providing public services, which in this case would include the Orange County Fire
Authority, Orange County Sheriffs Department, Capistrano Unified School District, and City of
San Juan Capistrano. A cumulative impact would occur if cumulative projects resulted in demand
to existing public service providers such that service standards could not be met, or additional
facilities would need to be developed to serve the demand. The proposed project would be
development of a park facility and is not anticipated to result in a significant impact to any public
services. The proposed project would be complementary to the adjacent park and recreational uses,
and would be served by the same fire and police providers that serve the adjacent uses. Demand
could increase slightly due to expansion of recreational uses but would not be substantial given
the project size and proposed recreational use. Therefore, the project's potential contribution to
impacts related to public services would not be cumulatively considerable, and no mitigation is
required. (Draft EIR, p. 5-12.)
0. RECREATION
Cumulative projects in the City would have the potential to result in a significant
cumulative impact if they would, in combination, result in the deterioration of parks and
recreational facilities due to increased usage. The geographic boundary for this cumulative analysis
includes all parks and recreational facilities within the project vicinity and region. Some
cumulative projects, such as residential developments, would have the potential to increase the
demand for recreational facilities, which could result in deterioration of existing facilities. The
47
project is a skatepark and trail that would provide additional recreational facilities to the
community, and thus would not result in a negative impact on these resources. Therefore, the
project's potential contribution to impacts related to recreation would not be cumulatively
considerable, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-12 through 5-13.)
P. TRANSPORTATION
As discussed in Section 4. 7, the project would not introduce any new features to a roadway
that would result in a hazard or restrict emergency access. The proposed project would introduce
a new multi-use trail which would provide more connectivity to existing bicycle and pedestrian
routes in the area, consistent with several policies set forth in the General Plan. Furthermore, the
project would provide another local recreational facility and would not result in daily vehicle trips
that would conflict with policies and regulations regarding vehicle miles traveled (VMT). As a
result, impacts would be less than significant.
Cumulative impacts related to roadway hazards or restriction of emergency access would
be localized to the roadways adjacent to the project sites. None of the cumulative projects within
one mile of the project site (The Farm, City Hall, Distrito La Novia -San Juan Meadows, and
Ganahl Lumber) would utilize the same roadway or propose any changes to the roadway utilized
by the project for construction and operation ingress/egress (Camino Del Avion). As such, no
localized cumulative impacts would occur related to roadway hazards or emergency access.
Regarding conflict with policies or programs regulating transportation, all cumulative
projects must also be consistent with relevant plans including the General Plan, the OCTA CBSP
and CMP plans, and the Municipal Code, which govern roadway, transit, bicycle, an pedestrian
facilities. Compliance with these regulations would result in less than significant cumulative
impacts.
Regarding cumulative VMT impacts, many of the cumulative projects are infill or
redevelopment projects, which generally do not induce an increase in VMT. All cumulative
projects would be subject to VMT screening and analysis pursuant to the City's VMT analysis
guidelines. Per City's guidelines, if a project generates 200 or fewer weekday daily trips, it is
considered consistent with the City's Administrative Policy and is screened from conducting a
VMT analysis. Further, if projects conducting VMT analyses result in VMT impacts, mitigation
measures would be applied to ensure consistency with VMT guidance and CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b). As such, impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, and
therefore, no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 5-13.)
Q. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impacts would be considered cumulatively considerable if the cumulative projects listed in
Table 5-2 would result in direct or indirect permanent impact to identified TCRs, and
implementation of mitigation or compliance with regulation would not avoid or reduce the impact.
The cumulative projects listed in Table 5-2 may result in potentially significant impacts to known
48
or previously undiscovered tribal resources that are identified over the course of project
implementation. Compliance with existing regulations, such as 14 CCR Section 15064.5 and
Public Resources Code Section 21074, as well as implementation of mitigation, including
provision of archaeological and tribal cultural monitors during ground disturbing activities would
reduce potential impacts. No tribal cultural resources were identified at the project site as a result
of a thorough cultural assessment or as a result of consultation between the City and California
Native American tribes; therefore, the project would not contribute to a cumulative loss of
identified tribal resources in the region. However, despite thorough cultural assessments intended
to identify or determine the potential for cultural resources to exist within a Project site, the
potential to encounter yet unknown and unrecorded buried tribal cultural resources cannot be ruled
out when ground disturbances occur within native soils. In the event that yet unknown and
unrecorded tribal cultural resources are encountered during project implementation, impacts to
these resources would potentially be significant. To appropriately respond to the unanticipated and
inadvertent discovery of yet unknown and unrecorded archaeological resources and mitigate
potential impacts to a level of less than significant, the project shall incorporate MM-CUL-1
through MM-CUL-3. When considered in combination with the impacts of other projects in the
cumulative scenario, the project would not be cumulatively considerable because implementation
of MM-CULl through CUL-3 would avoid or reduce project impacts associated with accidental
damage to unknown resources to a less-than-significant level. Further, cumulative development
would also be required to implement similar mitigation to avoid or reduce impacts to unanticipated
tribal resources. Therefore, the project's potential contribution to impacts related to previously
undiscovered tribal resources would not be cumulatively considerable, and therefore, no further
mitigation measures are required. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-13 through 5-14.)
R. UTILITIES
The cumulative geographic scope for utilities would be the project region that is served by
the utility providers. For the project, this would include the City of San Diego, South Orange
County Wastewater Authority, and County of Orange Integrated Waste Management. Cumulative
impacts would occur if the cumulative projects would together result in demand on utility and
service systems that could not be met by existing and planned infrastructure and facilities. The
proposed project would produce minor demand for water, wastewater, and solid waste services
due to the proposed park and associated restroom facility. Given the size of the project, it is
anticipated that existing utility demand and services would be sufficient to serve the proposed
project. Therefore, the project's potential contribution to impacts related to utilities and service
systems would not be cumulatively considerable, no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 5-14.)
S. WILDFIRE
The cumulative geographic scope for wildfire-related impacts would be the project vicinity
and region. The project is not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone or a Wildland Fire
Area that may contain substantial fire risk. The nearest Wildland Fire Area that may contain
substantial fire risk is located approximately 0.5 miles east of the site. Additionally, the nearest
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is located approximately 1.3 miles southeast of the project
49
site. Projects developed in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone may result in significant impacts
if they would exacerbate existing dangerous conditions or interfere with emergency response.
The project would not exacerbate wildfire risk due to its location and proposed uses. Any
future development of cumulative projects would be required to comply with applicable federal,
state, and local regulations related to emergency response and wildland fires. Required compliance
with these regulations would ensure impacts related to wildfire and associated emergency response
would be less than significant. Therefore, impacts related to emergency response and wildfires
would not be cumulatively considerable, no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-14 through
5-15.)
SECTION 6. FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
The State CEQA Guidelines requires a Draft EIR to discuss the ways in which the Project
could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, directly or
indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Under State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2(e), a
project would be considered to have a growth-inducing effect if it would result in any of the
following effects:
• Directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of
additional housing in the surrounding environment;
• Remove obstacles to population growth ( e.g., construction of an infrastructure
expansion to allow for more construction in service areas);
• Tax existing community service facilities, requiring the construction of new
facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; or
• Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the
environment, either individually or cumulatively.
Here, the Project would not result in significant growth-inducing impacts. (Draft EIR, pp.
6-1 through 6-2.)
The San Juan Capistrano Skatepark and Trail Project (project) would require a temporary
construction workforce to construct the proposed skatepark, new playground, restroom building,
raised berm seating, and associated improvements. The number of construction workers needed
during any given period would largely depend on the specific stage of construction but would
likely range from a dozen to several dozen workers on a daily basis. The project would not require
a permanent operational workforce; the project operation and maintenance would be served by
existing City employees and the project would serve an existing community. Therefore, the project
would not induce population growth in the project area. (Draft EIR, p. 6-1.)
The project would construct a skatepark and associated amenities presumed to be utilized
by residents in the City. The project would not introduce residential uses nor businesses to the
project area and would not directly or indirectly lead to unplanned population growth or need for
additional housing. (Draft EIR, p. 6-1.)
According to the 2022 U.S. Census, the population of the City was approximately 34,548
50
residents (U.S. Census Bureau 2022a). According to the City's General Plan Housing Element,
San Juan Capistrano is projected to grow by approximately 15.4% by 2045, an increase of 41,900
new residents (City of San Juan Capistrano 2022b). As such, the project's temporary employment
requirements could likely be met by the City's existing labor force without people needing to
relocate into the project region, and the project would not stimulate population growth or a
population concentration above what is assumed in local and regional land use plans. (Draft EIR,
p. 6-1.)
Projects that physically remove obstacles to growth, or projects that indirectly induce
growth, are those that may provide a catalyst for future unrelated development in the area. The
project would involve installation of a new restroom building, which would connect to the City's
existing water and energy utilities. The project's utility demands would be served by the City's
projected current and future supplies, especially since the project would use a relatively nominal
percentage of the projected supplies available to the City moving forward. The purpose of these
utilities is solely to serve the needs of the project, and not to provide capacity for future projects
or growth. No roadway construction is planned as part of the project; thus, the project would not
result in indirect population growth by providing vehicular access to an area presently lacking such
access. (Draft EIR, p. 6-1.)
Based on the proximity of the project site to existing facilities, the average response times
in the project area, the ability for nearby cities to respond to emergency calls, and the fact that the
project site is already located within the San Juan Capistrano Police Services and the Orange
County Fire Authority (OCF A) service areas, the project would be adequately served by public
services without the construction of new, or the expansion of existing, facilities. The project would
not result in an incremental increase in calls for service to the project site compared to existing
conditions and would not result in the need for new or expanded fire or police facilities. Lastly,
since the project would not directly or indirectly induce unplanned population growth in the City,
it is not anticipated that many people would relocate to the City as a result of the project, and an
increase in school-age children requiring public education is not expected to occur as a result.
Thus, the need for new or expanded school facilities is not required. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-1 through
6-2.)
In conclusion, the project would not cause population growth through new job
opportunities, would not remove obstacles to population growth, and would not cause an increase
in population such that new community facilities or infrastructure would be required outside of the
project site. Lastly, the project is not expected to encourage or facilitate other activities that could
significantly affect the environment, as explained above. For these reasons, the project is not
considered to be significantly growth inducing. (Draft EIR, p. 6-2.)
SECTION 7. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
The 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.
51
A. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The following objectives have been established for the proposed Project:
Objective 1: Fulfill a long-standing need for a skatepark facility in the community to
address the express interest of residents and stakeholders as reflected in the
City's 2007 recreational needs assessment.
Objective 2: Create a destination skatepark facility for City and surrounding residents to
encourage safe skating in a designated area rather than on public and private
property where skating may be prohibited.
Objective 3: Develop a skatepark facility in a location that is easily accessible, highly
visible, and provides a safe environment for park users.
Objective 4: Develop a skatepark facility that is contiguous to other recreational facilities
in order to maximize cohesive recreational land use patterns that encourage
community engagement, functionality, and convenience.
Objective 5: Optimize the development and use of City-owned property with an
emphasis on meeting community needs.
Objective 6: Develop a skatepark facility that includes a restroom and playground
amenities to meet the needs of skaters and visitors with children that may
be too young to skate
B. ALTERNATIVE SITE CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE
SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
CEQA does not require that an analysis of alternative sites be included in an EIR.
However, if the surrounding circumstances make it reasonable to consider an alternative site, then
an EIR may appropriately consider and analyze alternative sites. An EIR is required to identify
any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible. Among
the factors described under Section 15126.6(c) of the Guidelines in determining whether to exclude
alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are failure to meet most of the basic objectives
of the project, infeasibility, or inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.
With respect to the feasibility of potential alternatives, Section 15126.6(£)(1) states the
following:
Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of
alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general
plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries ... and
whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the
alternative site.
If no feasible alternative locations exist, the agency must disclose the reasons for this
conclusion. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(f)(2)(B).) Alternatives were developed by
52
identifying other locations in the City where a skatepark facility could feasibly be developed. The
parameters for identifying potential alternative sites included property that was owned or leased
by the City, was vacant or underused, and was large enough to accommodate a state-of-the art
skatepark facility. No other City properties were identified that meet all of these criteria.
In determining an appropriate range of project alternatives to be evaluated in this EIR, one
possible alternative (Descanso Park Alternative) was initially considered and then rejected. This
project alternative was rejected because it could not accomplish the objectives of the project, would
not have resulted in a reduction of significant adverse environmental impacts, and was considered
infeasible to construct or operate. (Draft EIR, pp. 7-3 through 7-5.)
The City considered a project alternative that would redevelop the existing Descanso Park
into a skatepark facility. Descanso Park is located just south of the San Juan Capistrano Police
station and other City Department buildings, on a peninsula of land in between two forks of the
channelized Trabuco Creek. The existing park facility includes a playground, a picnic area, an
open field, and a restroom building. This alternative would include redeveloping the entire
Descanso Park, or just the open field portion, into a skatepark facility offering similar amenities to
the proposed project.
The Descanso Park property is owned by the County of Orange and leased by the City. Per
the lease agreement, the County of Orange must approve any improvements proposed for the site,
and if approved for construction, any improvements become the property of the County. The
current lease agreement also allows the County to terminate the agreement with 60-day notice to
the City. Prior to considering Descanso Park as a potential skatepark location, the City would need
approval from the County that redevelopment of the site into a skatepark would be allowed and
would need to negotiate significant amendments to the existing lease agreement to ensure the
substantial financial investment of a skatepark property would remain in perpetuity on the site.
Due to these ownership conditions, this alternative was not considered feasible or practical by the
City.
In addition, the site sits at the dead end of Paseo Adelanto on a peninsula ofland in between
two forks of the channelized Trabuco Creek. The site is accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists
from San Juan Creek Trail and Trabuco Creek Trail, which wraps around the park. Visitors using
public transport would also need to access the skatepark from these adjacent trails because the site
is not otherwise accessible from any major streets and/ or sidewalks due to the adjacent concrete
channels. Given the single point of entry/exit and the site's unique location, the City also identified
concerns related to vehicular parking options for the site. The site currently provides few onsite
vehicular parking spaces and parking onsite could only be minimally increased due to the
triangular shape of the site and the single point of entry/exit available to the site. In addition, offsite
vehicular parking options along Paseo Adelanto are extremely limited as parking is reserved for
adjacent City department building employees and visitors. Therefore, the City determined the lack
of vehicular parking options on or near the site greatly impact the feasibility of this site as a
skatepark location.
53
In addition to the ownership conditions and lack of parking options described above, this
alternative would not meet Project Objectives 3, 4 or 5 (see Section 7.1 above). Regarding
Objective 3, this alternative location would not be highly visible due to its location or easily
accessible because it's not located on or adjacent to a major road and is not located near offsite
and/or on street public parking options. Regarding Objective 4, the location is isolated from any
major roads and provides very limited parking options on or near the site; therefore, the site
location would not encourage functionality and convenience for visitors. Regarding Objective 5,
this alternative would not be located on City-owned property. In addition, it would involve
removing existing recreational facilities that are used by the community. Thus, this alternative site
was considered by the City but rejected because it would not be a feasible alternative for the
reasons described above.
C. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS IN THE EIR
1. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
Description: Alternative 1 would result in no change to the existing conditions on the
project site. Under Alternative 1, there would be no construction, ground disturbance, or operation
of a skatepark recreational facility. (Draft EIR, p. 7-6.)
Impacts: Alternative 1 would not impact the existing agricultural resources present on the
project site and existing agricultural operations within the project site boundaries would continue.
Thus, Alternative 1 would not result in the removal of Prime Farmland or any other Farmland of
Statewide Importance from farming uses. As such, significant and unavoidable impacts (project
and cumulative) with mitigation incorporated that would occur as a result of agricultural land
conversion under the project would not occur under Alternative 1.
Similarly, Alternative 1 would not result in any ground disturbance that would potentially
affect biological, cultural, tribal cultural, or paleontological resources present, or potentially
present, on the project site. As such, the less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated
that would occur related to these resources under the development of the proposed project would
not occur under Alternative 1.
Short-term construction activities related to the proposed project could result in potential
significant impacts to ambient noise levels in the project vicinity that would be reduced with the
implementation of mitigation to a less than significant level. Under Alternative 1, there would be
no construction; therefore, there would be no noise-related impacts.
Implementation of Alternative 1 would not protect the project site or prevent future project
applications or development from occurring on the project site. In the future, development could
occur on the project site allowed under the current Kinoshita Specific Pan and land use and zoning
designations, or with a Minor Use Permit or Major Use Permit. Future development could result
in potential impacts related to ground disturbance, construction, or intensification of uses. (Draft
EIR, p. 7-6.)
54
Objectives and Feasibility: The No Project Alternative would fail to meet any of the
Project's objectives. (Draft EIR, p. 7-6.)
Finding: The City Council rejects the No Project Alternative on grounds that it fails to meet
any of the Project objectives. Therefore, the No Project Alternative is eliminated from further
consideration.
2. Alternative 2: Develop Skatepark with a 500-Foot Setback from
Camino Del A vion
Description: Alternative 2 would result in the same scale, site plan layout, and design of
the proposed skatepark facility and trail as the proposed project; however, the project footprint
would be set back 500 feet north of Camino del Avion Road (see Figure 7-1). The entrance to the
skatepark would be accessible from Camino del A vion Road or Via Positiva Road via the proposed
trail located west of the project site. Operation of Alternative 2 would occur consistent with
operation of the proposed project and the same project approvals would be required for Alternative
2 as for the proposed project. (Draft EIR, p. 7-6.)
Impacts: Like the project, Alternative 2 would result in a significant and unavoidable
impact to agricultural resources at a project level, and cumulatively significant and unavoidable.
Relative to the project, impacts to biological resources, archaeological resources, undiscovered
human remains, paleontological resources, and tribal cultural resources would be of similar
magnitude under Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would be at least 410 feet farther from the nearest
residential NSRs and would therefore result in a less than significant impact to the outdoor ambient
sound environment near NSRs during construction. Relative to the project, potential construction
noise-related impacts under Alternative 2 would be of lesser magnitude for residential sensitive
noise receptors because of the increased distance from residential uses. (Draft EIR, pp. 7-6 through
7-8.)
Objectives and Feasibility: Alternative 2 would meet Objectives 1, 2, 5, and 6 entirely, as
it would provide the community-requested skatepark facility and associated amenities within a
City-owned property and would encourage skateboarding within a designated area. Alternative 2
would not entirely meet Objectives 3 and 4 because the location of Alternative 2 is at least 500
feet from a public roadway and associated sidewalks, making the facility less visible. (Draft EIR,
p. 7-8.)
Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 2 on the following grounds, each of which
individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) this alternative
does not avoid the Project's significant and unavoidable impact on the environment; and (2) this
alternative meets the Project objectives to a lesser extent than the proposed Project. Therefore,
Alternative 2 is eliminated from further consideration.
55
3. Alternative 3: Develop Skatepark at San Juan Capistrano
Community Gardens
Description: Alternative 3 would consist of development of the same size skatepark
facility, operations, and trail alignment as the proposed project. However, the site design and
layout of the skatepark facility would be altered and the proposed playground, including the
restroom building, would no longer be proposed due to spacing concerns to accommodate the
different shape and smaller size of the Alternative 3 site. Implementation of Alternative 3 would
include demolition of the existing community garden and associated parking area to allow for
development of the skatepark facility. The community garden site is designated as Community
Park and is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land under the Farmland and Mapping and
Monitoring Program (FMMP) [see Figure 4.1-1]. Although the site would be located off Via
Positiva, it is anticipated vehicles would access the site from Camino Del Avion because Via
Positiva does not provide onstreet parking, does not have adequate road width for cars to pull over
to drop visitors off, and is located farther from available parking options (i.e., Community center
lot and onstreet parking along Camino Del Avion). (Draft EIR, p. 7-8.)
Impacts: Alternative 3 would not avoid any of the Project's significant and unavoidable
impacts, but it could result in a nominally lesser impact to environmental impact areas such as
agricultural, biological, cultural resources, paleontological resources, and tribal cultural resources
due to the smaller development footprint. (Draft EIR, pp. 7-8 through 7-10.) Relative to the project,
construction-related noise impacts from Alternative 3 would be greater because the nearest
residential NSRs and a school located along Via Positiva would be a closer distance. (Draft EIR,
p. 7-9.)
Objectives and Feasibility: Alternative 3 would meet Objectives 1 and 2 entirely, as it
would provide the community-requested skatepark facility and encourage skateboarding within a
designated area. Alternative 3 would not entirely meet Objective 3, because although the site
would be highly visible from Via Positiva, accessibility of the site would be reduced for visitors
with vehicles due to no onstreet parking or road width to accommodate space for visitor drop offs
on Via Positiva Way. Alternative 3 would not entirely meet Objective 4, because although it would
develop a skatepark contiguous with other recreational facilities, the functionality and convenience
of the site would be reduced without an onsite restroom and playground for visitors. Further,
functionality and convenience would be reduced for visitors with vehicles as they would not be
able to park along Via Positiva or have adequate space to drop off visitors due to the road width.
Alternative 3 would partially meet Objective 5 because the site is owned by the City; however,
development of this property would remove the existing public community gardens, which is also
a public facility that is currently serving community needs. Alternative 3 would not meet Objective
6 because the site would not include a restroom and playground amenities to meet the needs of
skaters and visitors with children that may be too young to skate. As such, Alternative 3 would
meet most of the project objectives but not in their entirety. (Draft EIR, p. 7-10.)
Alternative 3 also would not avoid the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts in its
entirety. Alternative 3 would convert 0.78 acres of Prime Farmland to non-agricultural uses.
56
Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 3 on the following grounds, each of which
individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) this alternative
does not fully avoid the Project's significant and unavoidable impact on the environment; and
(2) this alternative meets the Project objectives to a lesser extent than the proposed Project, and
does not meet Objective 6. Therefore, the Alternative 3 is eliminated from further consideration.
D. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Section 15126.6( e )(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of
alternatives to a proposed Project shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the
alternatives evaluated in an EIR.
The No Project Alternative would avoid all of the significant effects of the Project.
However, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e)(2), if a "no project" alternative
is identified as the "environmentally superior alternative" then the EIR shall also identify an
environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Accordingly, Alternative 3 is
identified as the environmentally superior alternative.
None of the alternatives would eliminate the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts
relating to agricultural resources. However, Alternative 2 does reduce construction-related noise
impacts and would result in similar impacts to the remaining resources. Alternative 2 meets most
of the Objectives, but does not entirely meet Objectives 3 and 4. For these reasons, Alternative 2
is identified as the environmentally superior alternative. (Draft EIR, p. 7-11.)
Alternative 3 would result in greater short-term construction noise impacts. It would
reduce, but not avoid, the significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources. Moreover,
Alternative 3 would result in reduced impacts to agricultural resources, biological resources,
cultural resources, paleontological resources, and tribal resources because of its smaller project
site. Therefore, Alternative 3 would be considered environmentally superior to the proposed
project and Alternative 2 overall.
Alternative 3 would not meet all project objectives, as it would not meet Objective 6.
Alternative 3 would fall short in meeting objectives related to accessibility, functionality, and
convenience because (1) it lacks onsite restroom and playground amenities to meet the needs of
skaters and visitors with children that may be too young to skate; and (2) it is located along Via
Positiva Way, a road that does not provide street parking or adequate space to drop off visitors due
to road width and is located farther from available parking options (i.e., Community center lot and
onstreet parking along Camino Del Avion). (Draft EIR, p. 7-11.) Accordingly, the City Council
rejects Alternative 3 and adopts the proposed Project.
SECTION 8. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council hereby declares that, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15093,
the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against any unavoidable environmental
impacts in determining whether to approve the Project. Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines,
57
if the benefits of the proposed Project outweigh the proposed Project's unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered "acceptable."
Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effect of the Project to the extent
feasible by adopting the Mitigation Measures contained in the EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP), and this Resolution, having considered the entire administrative
record on the Project, and having weighed the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable
adverse impact after mitigation, the City Council has determined that each of the following social,
economic, and environmental benefits of the Project separately and individually outweigh the
Project's potential unavoidable adverse impacts and render those potential adverse environmental
impacts acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations:
A. The Project fulfills a long-standing need for a skatepark facility in the community
to address the express interest of residents and stakeholders.
B. The Project creates a state-of-the-art skatepark facility for City and surrounding
residents to encourage safe skating in a designated area rather than on public and
private property where skating may be prohibited.
C. The Project develops a skatepark facility in a location that is easily accessible,
highly visible, and provides a safe environment for park users. Moreover, the
skatepark will be developed on a site that is contiguous to other recreational
facilities in order to maximize cohesive recreational land use patterns that
encourage community engagement, functionality, and convenience.
D. The Project optimizes the development and use of City-owned property with an
emphasis on meeting community needs.
E. The Project promotes family-cohesiveness by developing a skatepark facility that
includes a restroom and playground amenities to meet the needs of skaters and
visitors with children that may be too young to skate.
The City Council hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through
the approval and implementation of the Project outweigh the identified significant adverse
environmental impact of the Project that cannot be mitigated. The City Council finds that each of
the Project benefits separately and individually outweighs all of the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects identified in the EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable.
58
EXHIBIT "B"
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
59
EXHIBIT "C"
CODE AMENDMENT (CA) 22-007
60
EXHIBIT "D"
AMENDED ZONING MAP
61