The URL can be used to link to this page

Resolution Number 10-02-16-02RESOLUTION NO. 10-02-16-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE EASTERN WELLS PIPELINE AND WELL EQUIPMENT PROJECTS (CIP 08802)(AKM CONSULTING ENGINEERS) WHEREAS, the Utilities Department has prepared plans for the Eastern Wells Pipeline and Well Equipment Projects (CIP 08802) and such installation is consistent with the recommended water facilities improvements contained in the City Council -adopted Domestic Water Master Plan (DWMP); and, WHEREAS, the proposed projects have been processed pursuant to Section 9-2.337, Public Improvement Plans and Outside Agency Development Review of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the City of San Juan Capistrano Environmental Administrator has reviewed the initial study prepared pursuant to Section 15063 and 15064 of the CEQA Guidelines; has determined that the project qualifies for issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), has issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to Section 15070 of those guidelines; and has caused a Mitigated Notice of Negative Declaration to be posted pursuant to Section 15072 of those guidelines. The City has otherwise complied with all applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (1970) and all recommended mitigation measures have been incorporated herein; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby finds that the following findings based on substantial evidence in the record with respect to compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and in consideration of the proposed mitigation measures, all project impacts will be reduced below a level of significance. Section 1. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15074), the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) considers all potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed project and is complete and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines; and, Section 2. The project could result in potentially significant aesthetic impacts as a result of construction of the well head facilities. However, the following proposed mitigation measures will reduce such impacts to a level of insignificance: Given that the project components will be out of view of the general public, except for the South Cooks Well building, which will be designed to be visually compatible with 1 2-16-2010 area buildings, no impact to scenic vistas would occur. The following "project design features" are necessary: PDF -1 As part of the approval of construction plans and specifications, the construction plans will include the proposed well building design which will be subject to formal review by the Community Development Department or designee for consistency with . the City's Architectural Design Guidelines, who may refer the design to the Design Review Committee (DRC) for determination. PDF -2 As part of the approval of construction plans and specifications, the proposed site design will include a landscape design with provisions for using a California native plant palette which will be subject to formai review by the Community Development Department or designee for consistency with the City's Architectural Design Guidelines, who may refer the design to the Design Review Committee (DRC) for determination. Section 3. The project could result in potentially significant air quality impacts as a result of construction -related emissions. However, the following proposed mitigation measures will reduce such impacts to a level of insignificance: AQ -1 During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust preventive measures using the following procedures, as specified in the South Coast Air Quality Management Districts Rule 403: • All material excavated or graded will be sufficiently watered to prevent - excessive amounts of dust. watering will occur at least twice daily with complete coverage, preferable in the late morning and after work is done for the day. • All material transported on-site or off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. • The area disturbed by cleaning, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations will be minimized so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. • These control techniques will be indicated in Project specifications. Compliance with this measure will be subject to periodic site inspections by the City. AQ -2 As part of the SCAQMD Rule 403 Dust Control Plan, project grading plans shall show the duration of construction.. Ozone precursor emissions from construction equipment vehicles shall be controlled by maintaining equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturer's specifications, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Compliance with this measure will be subject to periodic inspections of construction equipment vehicles by the City. 2 2-16-2010 Section 4, The project could result in potentially significant cultural resources impacts as a result of construction related activities. However, the following proposed mitigation measures will reduce such impacts to a level of insignificance: CR -1: All cultural resources, including 30-176663, 30-176664, and 30-176700 (ATSF railroad tracks), the 1917 ATSF bridge, and prehistoric site 30-120017, shall be avoided where feasible. If appropriate, prior to construction, a qualified archaeologist (defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for professional archaeology) shall mark exclusion zones around known archaeological sites to ensure they are not impacted by construction. If avoidance is not feasible, the resources shall be evaluated for eligibility to the California Register or local historic register and potential significance under CEQA. If a resource is determined to be eligible to the California Register or local historic register, a site treatment plan or additional protection measures will be developed and implemented. If the site evaluation results in an assessment that a resource is not eligible, no further work or protective measures will be necessary. A qualified archaeologist (defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's professional qualification standards for archaeology) shall carry out all evaluation and site treatment. CR -2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department documentation that a qualified archaeologist (defined as an archaeologist on the List of Certified Archaeologists for Orange County) has been retained to monitor site clearing, grading, and excavation activities, stating the name, qualifications, and contact information for the archaeologist. A qualified archaeologist (defined as an archaeologist on the List of Certified Archaeologists for Orange County) shall be retained by the project applicant and shall be present at pre -construction meetings to advise construction contractors about the sensitive nature of cultural resources located on aid/or in the vicinity of the project site, as well as monitoring requirements. A qualified monitor (defined as an individual with a bachelors degree in anthropology with archaeological monitoring experience), supervised by the qualified archaeologist, shall observe on- and off-site construction activities that result in grading, and/or excavating on or below the original ground surface (including during project -related off-site utility [natural gas, electricity, sewer, water, drainage, communications, etc.] and roadway improvements). Should nonhuman cultural resources be discovered, the monitor shall have the power to temporarily halt or divert construction activities until the qualified archaeologist can determine if the resources are significant and, if significant, until recovered by the archaeologist. In the event that human remains are discovered, construction activities shall be halted or diverted until the provisions of §7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and §5097.98 of the Public Resources Code have been implemented. (CD) 3 2-16-2010 CR -3: Native American Monitor. During construction/grading activities, a Native American monitor shall observe construction/grading activities that result in grading, excavating, and/or trenching on or below the original ground surface (including during project -related off-site utility [e.g., natural gas, electricity, sewer, water, drainage, communications, etc.] and roadway improvements). The project Archeologist shall select the Native American monitor in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The Native American monitor shall consult with the Project Archaeological monitor regarding objects and remains encountered during grading that may be considered sacred or important. In the event that evidence of human remains is discovered, the Native American monitor shall verify that the archaeologist has notified the Coroner. CR -4: Paleontological Monitor. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified paleontologist (defined as a paleontologist on the List of Certified Paleontologists for Orange County) shall be retained by the project applicant and shall be present at pre -construction meetings to advise construction contractors about the potential occurrence of paleontological resources located on and/or in the vicinity of the project site, as well as monitoring requirements. A qualified monitor (defined as an individual with a bachelors degree in paleontology and monitoring experience), supervised by the qualified paleontologist, shall be on-site during construction activities that result in the grading and/or excavating of current surface material (including during project -related off-site utility [e.g., natural gas, electricity, sewer, water, drainage, communications, etc.] and roadway improvements) to monitor for paleontological resources. Should paleontological resources be discovered, the monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert construction activities until the qualified paleontologist can determine if the resources are significant. Significant paleontological resources shall be recovered by the qualified paleontologist. (CD) Section 5, The project could result in potentially significant water quality impacts as a result of construction -related activities. However, the following proposed mitigation measures will reduce such impacts to a level of insignificance: WQ-1 The City shall require that preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which emphasizes structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) in compliance with NPDES Program requirements, is included in the project's bid specifications. Specific measures shall include, but not be limited to: • Siltation of drainage devices shall be handled through a maintenance program to remove silt/dirt from channels and street gutters. • Surplus or waste material from construction shall not be placed in drainage ways or within the 'I 00 -year floodplain of surface waters. • Loose piles of soil, silt, clay, sand, debris, or other earthen materials shall be protected in an effective manner which eliminates any discharge to surface waters. 4 2-16-2010 Section 6. The project could result in potentially significant short-term construction noise impacts. However, the following proposed mitigation measures will reduce such impacts to a level of insignificance: NO1-1:Noise sources associated with construction, repairs, remodeling, or the grading of any real property shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Saturday. Construction is prohibited all day Sunday and on Federal holidays. NO1-2: All construction equipment shall be equipped with available noise suppression devices and properly maintained mufflers, including "new technology" equipment capable of attenuating exhaust noises by use of improved mufflers where feasible. All internal combustion engines will be equipped with mufflers as specified by the vehicle manufacturer. All construction equipment will be maintained in good mechanical condition so as to minimize noise created by poorly maintained engines, drive -trains or similar components (e.g. regular engine tune up, engine oil changes, drive train and track adjustment, and moving parts lubrication). NO1-3:The equipment staging area will be situated so as to provide the greatest distance separation between construction -related noise sources and noise - sensitive receptors nearest the Project site during all Project construction. NO1-4: If determined necessary by the Utilities Department Director, based on the planned construction phasing/approach, notification will be given to residences within 300 feet of planned construction activities thirty (30) days prior to commencement of demolition activity, and will include a brief description of the project, the overall duration of the various construction stages, noise abatement measures that will taken, and the name and phone number of the construction site supervisor or his designee to report any violation of a noise or mitigation standard. Section 7. The project could result in potentially significant biological resources impacts as a result of construction related activities. However, the following proposed mitigation measures will reduce such impacts to a level of insignificance: 13I0-1: The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC, Section 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. Migratory birds protected under this law include most native birds, with the exception of a few old word species, such as wrentit (Chamaea fasciata), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), rock pigeon (Columba livia), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), and certain game birds (e.g. turkeys and pheasants). This act encompasses whole birds and bird nests and eggs. Migratory birds are also protected by the state of California, under Section 3513 of the California Fish 5 2-16-2010 and Game Code (CDFG Code). The CDFG Code also protects all breeding birds under Section 3503, and raptors (eagles, hawks, and owls) under Section 3503.5. To avoid impacts to native nesting birds, including cactus wren, should construction activity begin between January 1 and September 15, the City shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct nest surveys in potential nesting habitat within and adjacent to the project site prior to construction or site preparation activities. Specifically, within 30 days prior of ground disturbance activities associated with construction or grading, a qualified biologist shall survey the project site and areas within 50 feet of the project limits to determine if active nests of bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBIA) or the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Code are present in the construction zone or within a distance determined by CDFG or the qualified biologist. Because many birds expected to use the project area for nesting during the late winter (such as Anna's hummingbird [Calypte anna] and Cooper's hawk [Accipiter cooperii]), the breeding bird survey shall be carried out in the event construction begins during either the typical nesting/breeding season (mid March through September) and in January and February. If ground disturbance activities are delayed for more than 5 days, additional pre -construction bird nest surveys will be conducted such that no more than five days will have elapsed between the last survey and the commencement of ground disturbance activities. Surveys shall include examination of trees, shrubs, and the ground within grassland for nesting birds, as several bird species known to occur in the area are shrub or ground nesters. • If active nests are found, clearing and construction activities within a buffer distance determined by CDFG, or the qualified biologist, shall be postponed or halted until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged, as determined by the biologist, and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting during the same year. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest shall be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction personnel shall be instructed on the requirement to not encroach into the buffer established for nesting areas. The results of the survey, and any avoidance measures taken, shall be maintained to document compliance with applicable state and federal laws pertaining to the protection of native birds. BIO -2: If the contractor determines that any trees (with a diameter exceeding 6 inches at breast height) would need to be removed, the following shall occur: Prior to removal of any tree, the contractor shall secure issuance of a tree removal permit, except in cases where a State -registered Arborist has determined in writing that such tree(s) are a hazard to utility lines or facilities. An application for tree removal shall be filed with the Community Development Department and the City may require replacement planting. 6 2-16-2010 • A heritage tree shall not be removed without prior Planning Commission review and approval of a heritage tree removal permit. A tree shall be deemed a heritage tree and shall be protected from removal when such tree has a trunk diameter at breast height (dbh) of thirty-six (36) inches or greater, and is a specimen of the following species: Schinus molle (California pepper); Quercus spp. (oak); Cedar spp. (cedar), Eucalyptus globulus (blue gum eucalyptus); Juglans spp. (walnut); 4lea europaea (olive); Piatanus spp. (sycamore), Populus spp. (cottonwood); or as otherwise designated by the Planning Commission based on the tree's unique and intrinsic value to the community because of its size, age, historic association or ecological value. • Any proposal for construction, utility installation, paving, street improvements, or any other ground -disturbing activity within the drip line or critical root zone of a heritage tree shall require administrative approval by the Planning Director pursuant to Section 9-2.303(a)(4) prior to issuance of permits, to ensure that such work will not adversely impact the health of the heritage tree. Section B. The proposed project would construct an underground water pipeline and re-establish two existing wells. The project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities and no impact would occur. Nor would the proposed project require the construction of additional recreational facilities. However, the project would temporarily disrupt the bike path during construction of the pipeline resulting in a potentially significant impact to recreation. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure REC-1, which would require a bike path construction detour plan, impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance. REC-11: Prior to the issuance of the construction permit the contractor shall prepare and implement a construction detour plan for the bike path subject to Utilities Department review and approval in consultation with the Community Services Department. Section 9. The pipeline would be installed within a five month period, and would temporarily disrupt individual segments for less time. These segments include a parking lot area, as well as some roadway and bike path crossings. As a result, the construction activity would have the potential to have temporary construction impact. However, the implementation of a traffic control plan during construction would reduce traffic impacts to below a level of significance. TRANS -1: Prior to the issuance of the construction permit the contractor shall develop and implement a traffic control plan subject to prior review and approval by the City Engineer or his designee. The traffic control plan shall include the limitation of constructions to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Saturday. Construction is prohibited all day Sunday and on Federal holidays. 7 2-16-2010 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Juan Capistrano does hereby that the proposed project is consistent with the policies and objectives of the General Plan, specifically, the Public Services & Utilities Element because the proposed waterline and wells will ensure that the City maintains the ability to provide the required high -duality and dependable water service to the community; and, The proposed project is consistent with the City Council adopted Domestic Water Master Plan (DWMP) which identifies the waterlines and facilities (Project ) to provide necessary higher levels of water service to existing and proposed developments located in the surrounding area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Juan Capistrano does hereby approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration subject to the' mitigation measures contained in Exhjbit-A. �tt`ached hereto and incorporated herein. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED -this 16h d Y of F bruary, 2010, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO } DR. LONDRES USO, MAYOR I, MARIA MORRIS, appointed City Clerk of the City of San Juan Capistrano, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 10-02-16-02 was duly adopted by the Cit Council of the City of San Juan Capistrano at a Regular meeting thereof, held the 16 day of February 2010, by the following vote: AY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Allevato, Hribar, Freese and Mayor Uso N S: ; OUNCIL MEMBER: None A S �OUNPIL MEMBER: Nielsen , City Cl 8 2-16-2010 INITIAL STUDY city ofsan 'uan ca istrama calif©lrnia 1. PROJECT: Capital ImprovementProject 775, Eastern Wells and Pipeline Project (Project No. 20859 1) 2. LEAD AGENCY: City of San Juan Capistrano 3. CONTACT PERSON & PHONE: Joe Mankawich, Associate Engineer, (949) 487-4313 4. PROJECT LOCATION: Two wells: Well 5A is located approximately 290 feet southeast of the intersection of MorningstarLane, Via Parra and Calle Arroyo, and approximately 170 feet north of San Juan Creels, The South Cook Park Well is situated within Russell Cook Park, approximately 430 feet east of the intersection of Calle Arroyo and Rancho Viejo Road and approximately 54 feet north of San Juan Creek. Pipeline.- From Well 5A southwesterlyto the City's.Groundwater Recovery Plant; for a total distance of approximately 8,670 linear feet. S. APPLICANT: Utilities Department, City of San Juan Capistrano, 32454 Paseo Adelanto, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The General Plan Land Use EIement's Land Use Policy Map designatesport.ions of San Juan. Creek and the adjoining bank areas as 1.0 -General Open Space", while C. Russell Cook Parts is designated "LICommunity Park". 7. ZONING: ,Portions of San Juan Creek and the adjoining bank areas are classified as "GOS" (General Open Space) on the Official Zoning Map of the City of San Juan Capistrano, while C. Russell Cook Paris is zoned "CP" (Community Park). S. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: In 1994 the San Juan Basin Groundwater Managementand Facility Plan (Groundwater Plan) was prepared by the San Juan Basin Authorityto establish management strategies for groundwater and potable water supplies in the San Joan Basin, The Groundwater Plan discussed several facilities required to manage future water supply. The facilities included a desalting plant to treat poor to marginal quality groundwaterin the Iowerportion ofthe basin, new wells to pump groundwater, recharge facilities for recharging imported water, and pipelines and other ancillary equipment. These facilities would allow for the groundwater of the San Juan Basin to be used as a storage element in the local and regional water supply systems and particularly provide a supplemental supply of water during periods of drought or emergency. The Groundwater Plan was prepared for the San Juan Basin Authority in 1994; and was used in the preparation of its CEQA documentation completed in 1995. The proposed Eastern Wells and Pipeline project (proposed project) would be consistent with the facilities required to meet the objectives of the Groundwater Plan. Furthermore, on October 30, 2000 theSan Juan Basin Authority(SJBA), of which the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) is member agency, received apernfitfor diversion and use of water (diversion permit) from the State Water Resources Control Board Division of Water Rights (SWRCB). Diversion permit #21074 granted the SJBA rights to extract groundwater from seventeen different potential well locations. within the boundaries of the San Juan Creek and the Arroyo Trabuco Creek. More specifically, SJBA has been allocated rights to divert (extract) up to a maximum of 8,426 acre-feet per year (afy) of groundwater EXHIBIT A Initial Stud /Environmental Checklist -2- City of San ,Juan Capistrano, California from January 1 to December 1 of each year. The 8,026 afy can be increased by a maximum of 2,676 afy, for a total diversion of 10,702 afy. However, the SJBA would need to prove to the SWRCB that the water is available to sustain the maximum extraction and that the maximum extract would not degrade the creeks acrd/or vegetation/habitat within the riparian corridor. Currently, as part of the diversion permit the City has to regularly monitor the condition of the creeks and vegetation living within the riparian corridor. if it is determined by the monitoring data submitted to the SWRCB that there is any degradation of the creek or the vegetation due to the extraction well(s) then the diversion permit requires that the well(s) be shutdown. The proposed project would consist of the construction of two replacement groundwater production wells, along with a collection pipeline. The proposed South Cook Park Well and Well 5A are two of the seventeen wells identified in the diversion pen -nit. The proposed collection pipeline would connect the two replacement wells, South Cook Park Well and Well 5A, plus a third existing well, Tirador Well, to Conn a groundwater collection system in the vicinity of San Juan Creek and south of Calle Arroyo (figure 1). The collection system would supply water from the San Juan Groundwater Basin (basin) to the City of San .luau Capistrano's Groundwater Recovery Plant (GWRP, located at 32470 Paseo Adelanto) for treatment before being introduced into the public water supply systern. The treatment consists of removing iron, manganese and total dissolved solids (TDS) fi-atn the groundwater. The current capacity of the GWRP is 5.1 mgd (5,712 afy) which is within the limits allocated by the diversion permit of 8,026 afy. The addition of the proposed South Cook Park Well and Well SA along with the current operating wells will not exceed the allotted amount of water to be extracted under the diversion pen -nit, The GWRP is currently ;Fed by six (6) wells in the basin: [Dance Hall, Tirador, CVWD No, 1, CVWD No. 2, SJBA No. 2, and SJBA No. 4. Phase I of the GWRP required 8 wells to feed the GWRP. The South Cook Park Well and Well 5A will complete the well requirements under the Phase I for the GWRP, and will allow for effective management of the basin water. The purpose of the two replacement Eastern Wells (South Cook Park Well and Well 5A) is to provide system reliability and ultimately improve the flexibility of potable water production from these existing group of wells. Construction would occur during a five month time -fume, anticipated to be, February through June, 2010. Project components are described in greater detail below, and depicted in Figure 2. South Cook Par Well: The South Cook Park Well is a replacemert well for CVWD Well No. 3 and would be located within Russell Cook Park. The well would be located approximately 430 -feet east of the intersection of Calle Arroyo and Rancho Viejo Road and approximately 50 -feet north of San Juan Creek. The well would be constructed within a concrete block, stucco building which would beapproxirnately 22 feet in length and 16 feet in width. The building would also house the majority of the related mechanical and electrical equipment. Well 5A: Well SA is a replacement for CVWD Well No. 5, a well that is currently at the sarne location, which is approximately 290 feet southeast of the intersection of Morningstar Une, Via Parra, and Calle Arroyo and approximately 170 feet north of San Juan Creek. This site would be secured within a concrete masonry unit (CMU) (e.g. slump stone) walled building and substantially screened from view of the general public by existing and proposed landscaping. As required by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), well facilities must be located at a higher elevation than the 100 -year floodplain. This prevents flood water from infiltrating the underground basin directly and potentially contaminating the ground water supply. The finished, grade for the South Cook Park Well facility foundation would be raised approximately five feet to match the existing berm that borders San Juan Creek. The berm is two feet higher than the floodplain, and this elevation complies with the CDPH requirements. zi].�° co w � p LTL ti cc c y qyC N Lu Lu mVu Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist .6- City of San Juan Ca istrano, California Pipeline: The pipeline material was chosen to be 0905 Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) pipe, due to (lie corrosive nature of the soil in,the San Juan Capistrano area. PVC does not react with the soil, whereas a ferrous material (i.e., one containing iron) would. The sixteen (1 b) inch diameter pipeline would extend for approximately 8,670 linear feet. The project would also include an alterative alignment that would bypass the existing Tirador Well and connect to an existing 12 -inch potable water pipeline that runs parallel to 1-5 freeway. The alternative alignment would be approximately 930 linear feet (see Figure 2). The proposed pipeline would commence at the GWRP maintenance yard underground (Pipeline Segment 2C1). The pipeline would then continue underground in a steel casing beneath the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) railroad right-of-way (Pipeline Segment 2C2). Segment 2C3 and 2C4 of the proposed pipeline spans the area between the railroad right-of-way mid Camino Capistrano. The majority of the pipeline would be located in a bike trail adjacent to San Juan Creek. Segment C5 of the pipeline extends from the east side of Camino Capistrano to the west side of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) right-of-way. The Caltrans right-of-way marks the Interstate 5 freeway (1-5) under crossing. This portion, of the pipeline would also be located in the bike path adjacent to the San Juan Creek. The bike path material transitions between concrete and asphalt construction periodically during this section of the proposed. alignment. Segment C6 of the pipeline begins on the west side of the 1-5 freeway where it will extend to an existing 12 -inch water line that runs adjacent to the 1-5 freeway. This existing potable water line will be converted to raw water use by the City and will also be used to cotxraect Segment C9 of the proposed pipeline that lies north of Segment C6. Segment C9 of the proposed pipeline spans west along Calle Arroyo where it intersects the existing water line and travels east to the parking lot entrance located on the west side of Calle Arroyo Cottages. The parking lot entrance lies between the Calle Arroyo Cottages and an equestrian center. The pipeline would be constructed within Calle Arroyo, Segment CIO of the pipeline would be located within the entrance driveway and parking lot of Calle Arroyo Cottages and then would transverse through the City owned property of the Ortega Equestrian Center. This segment would end with a connection to South Cook Park Well, located in Russell. Cook Pari. The City would retain an easement frorrr Calle Arroyo Cottages for this particular portion of the alignment. Segment Cl I would underground along a bike path within Russell Cook Park. The pipeline would span the length of the park from South Cook Park Well to La Novia Street. The majority of construction would be in the asphalt path of the park, however, a small segment at the end would be within the outfield of the park's baseball diamond. Segment Cl 2 of the pipeline horizontally crosses La Novia Avenue. Segment Cl 3 completes the connection of the three wells. The pipeline would be constructed within a paved bike path adjacent to San Juan Creek for the remaining length of the alignment. Segment C 13 terminates the well collection pipeline at the Well 5A facility. The 1-5 crossing is independent of the I6 -inch PVC well collection pipeline. This portion of the project would replace two existing water pipelines that have been installed undei-reath I-5, approxiniately2000-feet south of Ortega Highway. The first of these existing pipelines is an 8.63 -inch (6.96 inch inside diameter) High-density polyethylene (HDPE) well collection line that currently transports water from the Tirador Well to the City's GWRP. The second pipeline is an 18 -inch (14.73 inch inside diameter) HDPE potable water supply line which supplies water from the GAW to the City's 350 pressure zone. Several replacement options ware considered by the City. The City concluded that abandonment of both of the existing 18-hich and 8.63 -inch pipelines and the installation of new, Caltrans approved, crossing in the same location was the most effective option. The new crossing would require a 30 -inch steel easing to house a 16 -inch ductile iron pipeline. Well Pump and Construction Methods: South Cook Park Well and Well 5A arc similar in production and Initial Study/Environ mental Checklist -6- City of San Juan Ca istrano, California size, as well as mechanical and electrical components; however, they have different site requirements that are specific to each well. Pumps are chosen based on the flow (in gallons per minute, gptn) and total dynamic head (TDIj). During; the drilling phase, both wells are required to be pumped for a 48-hour development period and samples of the soil will be taken at 4 -foot increments. Data from both of these operations will be used to determine the actual performance of both wells and the final design will be altered to accommodate these results. For the purpose of this preliminary design report, the flow and TDI-/ requirements for both wells are 700 gpnt and l 10 feet respectively. ,additionally, each well facility would be equipped with a Prograrrumable Logic Controller (PLC), 5 port Ethernet Switch, iNET900 Ethernet Radio and YAGI Directional Antenna. Status signals and alarms at each well facility would be sent froth, the PLC to the iNET 900 Ethernet Radio via the Ethernet Switch. This equipment allows for remote operation and monitoring of each well site by the City. Various well drilling methods have been developed in the industry, responsive to differing geologic conditions. For the purpose of these two wells, a combination method, the direct auger drill through casing method, is proposed. "ibis combined method uses direct rotary auger drilling; ahead of a temporary casing that is pushed into the bore hole in four -foot long segments. Once the bore hole and temporary casing is advanced to the full well depth, a well screen and gravel pack is placed inside the temporary casing and the temporary casing is then removed. As the upper (50 -foot to 60 -foot) portion of the temporary casing; is re€moved, the sanitary seal is placed. Pi�elute Construction Method: Two different construction methods will be used for the pipeline. Open cut construction will be used for the majority of the well collection pipeline, excluding Segment 2C2. The jack and auger boring method will be used in the recommended alternative for the 1-5 crossing; as required by Caltrans. Open out construction is the most common method of pipeline construction.. It involves excavating a trench, preparing the pipeline foundation (bedding), placing the pipe in the developed trench, backfilling the trench, and restoring surface improvements. The jack and auger boring technique consists of placing the boring machine in a jacking pit on grade with the bore profile so that it exits into a receiving pit. The boring machine drives a dry rotating auger normally through a jacked steel casing. The casing; is jacked in ahead of the auger. The jack and bore method is applicable when trenchlcss applications are required for selected crossings, as is the ease with the I-5 crossing; where Caltrans requires a jack & bore pipeline installation. A casing will be jacked in and the carrier pipe inserted into the casing. General Construction Requirements: The project construction program will comply with all government regulations, including, but not limited to those of the state, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and City of San Juan Capistrano. Activities shall be regulated as follows (these requirements shall be specified in the construction plans submitted to the City Department of Public Works): • The use and disposal of any hazardous materials used during construction and maintenance shall follow all government and n-ranufacturers specifications. • Use of all products and machinery during construction shall comply with labeling and standards of use. • Plans shall be submitted detailing how siltation or airborne dust (SCAQMD Ruld 403) will be reduced during the grading and construction phase. • City and Caltrans emergency access plans, where applicable, shall be complied with. • Project construction traffic and parking; plans for construction -phase traffic and parking disruptions will be prepared by the applicant or contractor and approved, by Caltrans and the City. These plans will include temporary traffic control features that would be employed during construction. • The project contractor shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for City approval, in order to comprly with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). • The project contractor shall prepare a detour plan for the bike/walking path for City approval. Initial Stud !Environmental Checklist -7- City of Sari Juan Capistrano, California 9. SURROUNDING LAND USES) & PROJECT SETTING: The project site is located in the City of San Juan Capistrano (refer to Figure 1). The wells would be located within suburban areas characterized by residential development, park areas, and bikeways. The pipeline would extend through similar areas, through the maintenance yard adjacent to the GWRP, as well as extending within a bike path that forms an underpass under the following transporUtion routes: I-5, Camino Capistrano, and the Metrolink Railroad. 10. OTHER REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS: California Regional Water Quality Control Board: Section 401 Water Quality Certification It, PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: • Program EIR, Non-Domestic/Recycled Water Master flan (NDWMP, City of San Juan Capistrano, 2006). • Preliminary Design Report -City of San Juan Capistrano Eastern Wells and Pipeline Report, City of San Juan Capistrano, 2009. • Mitigated Negative Declaration, Supplement to the 1995 Expanded Mitigation Negative Declaration for the San .Tuan Basin Groundwater Management and facility Plan, Capistrano Valley Nater District, Desalter Project (ROIDBOF) Project, 2001.. • San .Tuan Basin Groundwater Management and Facility Plan, NBS Lowry, 1994. • Water Master Plan Update, San Juan Capistrano Domestic Water Master Plan, AKM Consulting Engineers, 2004. 1.2. CONSULTATION: A. City of San Juan Capistrano William A. Ramsey, AICP, Principal PIanner Eric Bauman, Utilities Engineer Joe Mankawich, Associate Engineer B. Documents & resources: City of San. Juan Capistrano, General Plan, City of Saar Juan Capistrano, Title 9, Land Use Code. City of San .Tuan Capistrano, Environmental Review Guidelines. Federal Emergency Management Agency, .Flood Insurance Rate Maps. U.S.G.S. Topographic Quadrangle, San Juan Capistrano. City of San Juan Capistrano, Street Tree Master Plan. City of San Juan Capistrano, Architectural Design Guidelines, 13. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED., The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages: ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑j Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology & Soils C Hazards & Hazardous Mats. ❑ Hydrology & Water Quality ❑ Land Use & Planning ❑. Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation & Traffic ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance 14. DE'T'ERMINATION. (To be completed by lead agency) Based on this initial evaluation: I Find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Initial Stud /Environmental Checklist -8- City of San Juan Ca istrano, California I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been rnade by or agreed toa by the project proponent. A M1T1GA,rL,1D NEGATIVF DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL.IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have ft "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect l) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described ort attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier E1R or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to drat earlier El or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing; further is required. 15. ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINATION (Section 9-2.201 of SJC Municipal Code): The initial study for this project has been reviewed and the environmental determination is hemby approved: William Ramsey, AICP, Principal P Environmental Administrator 16. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts which may result from the proposed project, Por the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist (Section 2) are stated and answers are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis considers the project's short -terns impacts (construction -related), and its operational or day-to-day impacts. For each question, the following should be provided: I) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following; each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced 'irtforrnation sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive; receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the City has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less Initial Stud ignvlronmental Checklist -9- City of San Juan Ca istrana Califarrtia than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that all effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation. of Witigation measures has reduced an effect from. "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses Inay be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program Elft, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D); In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects frons the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures, For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refitted from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Incorporate into the checklist references to information sources fol• potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Include a source list and list of individuals contacted or consulted. 8) This forth is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and all Initial Studies performed on projects within the city must use this format. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify, a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance, K a EZ 4 16.1 AESTHETICS. Would the roiect: a. have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not hinited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building along a State -designated scenic Q ❑ ❑ Iii hwa t c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and surroundings? El El 1:1Its Initial Study/Environmerntal Checklist -14- City of San Juan Capistrano, California a) Have a substantial attverse effect on a scenic vista? No Irnpaet. The project site is located within the vicinity of 1-5 and SR -74. The City's General Plan Community Design Element designate I-5, and all arterial streets including State Route -74 (Ortega Highway) as a "scenic corridor" (Sant Juan Capistrano, 1999). Also, the City establishes specific design guidelines for "public facilities" to assure they are designed consistent with the Community Design Element's goals and objectives. Viewsheds from these major roadways and from public parks and open spaces must be considered as part of the public facility design process. . The project area includes suburban development, neighborhood parks, open space, and some commercial and industrial (west of 1-5) development. The proposed pipelinewould be located underground, with only ihowell components extending above ground and so, the well buildingsrepresent the only physical feature that could affect aesthetic resources. South Cooks Well would be located within a park and in ,full view of the public, therefore special consideration has been made to make the site aesthetically pleasirng. Tho well would be constructed within a stucco covered concrete block building, which will be approximately 22 -feet in length and 16 -feet in width. The building would be equipped with a red tile roof to match the surrounding architecture. The building would also house the majority of the mechanical and electrical components of the well. This will not only keep them out of view but would also protect the facility from vandalism, Well 5A would be constructed on the existing CVWD Well No. 5 site. This site is secured within a chain link fence and out of the view of the general public. Well 5A would include a concrete masonry unit (CMU) wal I (e.g. slump stone) and a corrugated roof building to protect it and obscure it from views. Given that the project components will be out of view of the general public, except for the South Cooks Well building, which will be designed to be visually compatible with area buildings, no impact to scenic vistas would occur. The following "project design features" are necessary: PDF -1: As part of the approval of construction plans and specifications, theconstruction plans will includethe proposed well building design which will be subject to formal review by the Community Development Department or designee for consistency with the City's Architectural Design Guidelines, who may refer the design to the Deign Review Committee (DRC) for deter-nination. PDF -2: As part of the approval of construction plans and specifications, the proposed site design will include a landscape design with provisions for using a.Califor7nia native plant palette which will be subject to formal review by the Community Developrment Department or designee for consistency with the City's Architectural Design Guidelines, who may refer the design to the Design .review Committee (DRC) for determination. b) S7ubstantial4y damage scenic resources, including, but not thnited to, trees, r-oclr outcropping,; , C"Id bistor ie buildings along a state scenic highway? No Impact. See response 16.1 a) above. The proposed project would not be visible from a state scenic highway; therefore, ono impact would occur, c9 Subwantaally degrade the existing visual character or quality of , the site and its surroundings? oundings? No Impact. d. Create anew source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect da or ni lnttirne views in the area? F-1❑ a) Have a substantial attverse effect on a scenic vista? No Irnpaet. The project site is located within the vicinity of 1-5 and SR -74. The City's General Plan Community Design Element designate I-5, and all arterial streets including State Route -74 (Ortega Highway) as a "scenic corridor" (Sant Juan Capistrano, 1999). Also, the City establishes specific design guidelines for "public facilities" to assure they are designed consistent with the Community Design Element's goals and objectives. Viewsheds from these major roadways and from public parks and open spaces must be considered as part of the public facility design process. . The project area includes suburban development, neighborhood parks, open space, and some commercial and industrial (west of 1-5) development. The proposed pipelinewould be located underground, with only ihowell components extending above ground and so, the well buildingsrepresent the only physical feature that could affect aesthetic resources. South Cooks Well would be located within a park and in ,full view of the public, therefore special consideration has been made to make the site aesthetically pleasirng. Tho well would be constructed within a stucco covered concrete block building, which will be approximately 22 -feet in length and 16 -feet in width. The building would be equipped with a red tile roof to match the surrounding architecture. The building would also house the majority of the mechanical and electrical components of the well. This will not only keep them out of view but would also protect the facility from vandalism, Well 5A would be constructed on the existing CVWD Well No. 5 site. This site is secured within a chain link fence and out of the view of the general public. Well 5A would include a concrete masonry unit (CMU) wal I (e.g. slump stone) and a corrugated roof building to protect it and obscure it from views. Given that the project components will be out of view of the general public, except for the South Cooks Well building, which will be designed to be visually compatible with area buildings, no impact to scenic vistas would occur. The following "project design features" are necessary: PDF -1: As part of the approval of construction plans and specifications, theconstruction plans will includethe proposed well building design which will be subject to formal review by the Community Development Department or designee for consistency with the City's Architectural Design Guidelines, who may refer the design to the Deign Review Committee (DRC) for deter-nination. PDF -2: As part of the approval of construction plans and specifications, the proposed site design will include a landscape design with provisions for using a.Califor7nia native plant palette which will be subject to formal review by the Community Developrment Department or designee for consistency with the City's Architectural Design Guidelines, who may refer the design to the Design .review Committee (DRC) for determination. b) S7ubstantial4y damage scenic resources, including, but not thnited to, trees, r-oclr outcropping,; , C"Id bistor ie buildings along a state scenic highway? No Impact. See response 16.1 a) above. The proposed project would not be visible from a state scenic highway; therefore, ono impact would occur, c9 Subwantaally degrade the existing visual character or quality of , the site and its surroundings? oundings? No Impact. Initial Stud /Environmental Checklist -9 7- Cif of Sart Juan Ca istrano, California As described in section 1.1 (a), the project pipeline components would be underground. The wells have also been either located out of public view (Well S A), or designed to be visually compatible with buildings in the surrounding area (South Cooks Well). South Cooks Well, which is within a park, has been specially designed to be aesthetically pleasing. The well would be constructed within a stucco covered, concrete block building, which will be approximately 22 -feet in length and 16 -feet in width. The building would be equipped with a red the roof to thatch the sumocrnding architecture. No degradation of the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings would occur with impletnentation-of the project. cl) Create a new source of'suhstantial light orglare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views its the area? No Impact. The proposed project pipeline would be completely underground; and the well facilities do not propose outdoor lighting. Security lighting will be required to be designed consistent with the City's Title 9, Land Use Code, exterior lighting standards and all fixtures will require glare shields and cutoffs. No impact would occur. a) Convert Prince Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Siat",ide Importance, (farmland), as shown on the maps tykepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Prograrrr of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The proposed wells would not be located on Prime, Unique or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The South Cooks Well would be located within the Russell Cook Park, Well 5A is a replacement well that would be located on the existing CVWD Well No. 5 (Well 5) facility. Therefore, impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would not occur. The proposed pipeline would be installed within existing facility maintenance yards, Caltrans goad right-of-way (two pipeline segments: the 1-5 crossing and segment C-6), and parking lot areas, underneath a bike path and underneath previously disturbed open space and recreational park land. No conversion of farmland is required. h) Conflict with eaisling zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson pct contract? No Impact, The proposed pipeline and wells are not located on land designated for agricultural use or under William Act contract (see section 2.1 (a) above), Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any existing agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract, and would not convert any farmland to non-agricultural use. 0 Involve other changes in the existing environment which, clue to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural arse? No Impact. a tiu 2!.. 16.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance as depicted on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 and Monitoring Program of the CA. Resources A enc ? b, Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson. Act 13 © ❑ Contract'? e. Involve other Changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural :1 ❑ ❑ use? a) Convert Prince Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Siat",ide Importance, (farmland), as shown on the maps tykepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Prograrrr of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The proposed wells would not be located on Prime, Unique or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The South Cooks Well would be located within the Russell Cook Park, Well 5A is a replacement well that would be located on the existing CVWD Well No. 5 (Well 5) facility. Therefore, impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would not occur. The proposed pipeline would be installed within existing facility maintenance yards, Caltrans goad right-of-way (two pipeline segments: the 1-5 crossing and segment C-6), and parking lot areas, underneath a bike path and underneath previously disturbed open space and recreational park land. No conversion of farmland is required. h) Conflict with eaisling zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson pct contract? No Impact, The proposed pipeline and wells are not located on land designated for agricultural use or under William Act contract (see section 2.1 (a) above), Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any existing agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract, and would not convert any farmland to non-agricultural use. 0 Involve other changes in the existing environment which, clue to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural arse? No Impact. initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist -12- City of Sart Juan Ca istrano, California The proposed project would be located within the existing well facilities, roadways, highway right -of --wiry and recreational areas. "Therefore, the proposed project would not result in conversion of farmland to non- agricultural uses. a) ConfliCtWith orobstructimplementation gfthefy,7plicablcairqualityplan..> Less 11tan..Signifwant,frttpact. Air quality is regulated by several agencies, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARE), and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). At the federal level, the USEPA is responsible for implementation of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and establishing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). "Che California AirResource Board (CARE) promulgates ambient standards for California, or the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The proposed project is located within the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD, the regional agency empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions from stationary, mobile, and area sources, for all or portions of Los Angeles, Orange; Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. SC:AQMD, in conjunction with in conjunction with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), has developed strategies for reducing emissions in the Air Quality Management flan (AQMP). The Final 2007 AQMP was adopted on June 1, 2007, and provides emission reduction strategies for the District and local air agencies to consider. The projects air quality impacts were analyzed based on the comparison of construction and operational emissions to regional significance thresholds and draft greenhouse gas thresholds. In sutmnary, the proposed project would not result in an exceedance of ambient air quality standards or thresholds for other criteria pollutants. Thus, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. Further, the Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing; air quality violations and would riot cause or contribute to new air quality violations. The proposed project is consistent with the Orange County General Plan and the City of San Juan Capistrano General Flan and the AQMP, in that it is part of the utility plans to support area development and would not include land use changes that would conflict with long-range air quality projections. The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. b) Violate aray air quality standard or contribute suhstandally to an existing; or projected air quality violation? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction ernissions, discussed in greater detail below, would be the most substantial source of air duality emissions from the proposed project. Operational activity for the proposed project would be passive and include the conveyance of groundwater through underground pipes, and the purnping of water from wells. R C Cp � 6 CS v 16.3 AIR qUALITY. Would the ro'ect: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? [l b. Violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ofany criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under the applicable federal or ❑ ® El ❑ state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceedquantitative thresholds for ozone recursors)? d. Expose sensitive rece tors to substantial pollutant concentrations-? ❑ El e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of eo le? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) ConfliCtWith orobstructimplementation gfthefy,7plicablcairqualityplan..> Less 11tan..Signifwant,frttpact. Air quality is regulated by several agencies, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARE), and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). At the federal level, the USEPA is responsible for implementation of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and establishing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). "Che California AirResource Board (CARE) promulgates ambient standards for California, or the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The proposed project is located within the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD, the regional agency empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions from stationary, mobile, and area sources, for all or portions of Los Angeles, Orange; Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. SC:AQMD, in conjunction with in conjunction with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), has developed strategies for reducing emissions in the Air Quality Management flan (AQMP). The Final 2007 AQMP was adopted on June 1, 2007, and provides emission reduction strategies for the District and local air agencies to consider. The projects air quality impacts were analyzed based on the comparison of construction and operational emissions to regional significance thresholds and draft greenhouse gas thresholds. In sutmnary, the proposed project would not result in an exceedance of ambient air quality standards or thresholds for other criteria pollutants. Thus, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. Further, the Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing; air quality violations and would riot cause or contribute to new air quality violations. The proposed project is consistent with the Orange County General Plan and the City of San Juan Capistrano General Flan and the AQMP, in that it is part of the utility plans to support area development and would not include land use changes that would conflict with long-range air quality projections. The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. b) Violate aray air quality standard or contribute suhstandally to an existing; or projected air quality violation? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction ernissions, discussed in greater detail below, would be the most substantial source of air duality emissions from the proposed project. Operational activity for the proposed project would be passive and include the conveyance of groundwater through underground pipes, and the purnping of water from wells. Initial _5tu /Environmental Checklist _13- City of Sart Juan Caaistrano. California Potential long-term emission sources include emissions associated with rnaintenancelrepair trips, which would be minimal. The City anticipates. that from an operational perspective, the well sites would generate a maximum. of one to two maintenance visits per month (average of 0.2 AUT per weekday); Therefore, the number of workers required for maintenance and operational activities would not result in a significant increase in traffic in the project area. Therefore, the effect of project -related traffic on local carbon monoxide concentrations along roadways and at intersections would also be negligible. Construction Emissions Construction due to the well and pipeline installation would generate emissions from excavation and soil fill/compaction activities, soil hauling, and worker commuter trips. One building would be constructed, providing housing for the control panels and water pump equipment. Estimates of mass daily emissions during pipeline installation were compiled using URBEMIS 2007, which is an emissions estimation/ evaluation model developed by the GARB, based in part on SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook guidelines and methodologies. The URBEMIS 2007 (Version 9.2.4) output sheets are provided in Appendix A. Calculations assume that construction of project, including pipeline and well component, would require approximately five months to perforin, and conservatively assumes that the entire pipeline is part of the project (including the portion currently under design and proposed for construction by the Ventanas Development). Calculated unmitigated daily emissions from project construction are presented in Table 1. As shown, project emissions would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds, and therefore project impacts would be less than. significant. Even so, implementation of mitigation measure AQ -1 for on -road vehicles and off-road equipment will further reduce cumulative construction emissions in the South Coast Air Basin and benefit regional air quality: TABLE 1 UNMITIGATED REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Estlntated Emissions lbs/da year/Phase ROC NO • CO PM€fl PM2s 2009 Mass Grading 3.67 32.50 16.40 14.23 4.11 Trenching 2.22 18.96 9.45 0.94 0.86 2010 Paving 2,06 12.17 8.88 1.05 0.96 Maximum Regional Daily 5.88 51.47 25.85 15.17 4.97 Regional Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 55 Significant Impact? No No No No No SOURCE: Scie ase Assockfts. 2009. Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming The Global Warning Solutions Act of 2006, otherwise deferred to as Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), requires CARE to establish a statewide Greenhouse Gases (GHG) emission cap for 2020 based on 1990 emission levels (representing an approximate 25 percent reduction in emissions), and to adopt mandatory reporting; rules for significant sources of GHGs. GHGs consist of CO2 and other less prevalent gases (the six Kyoto Protocol gases), which etre collectively measured in CO2 equivalents, or CO2E. Initial Stud /Environmental Checklist -14- City of San Juan Capistrano, California In addition to the emissions in Table 1 above, the proposed project would contribute to global climate change as a result of emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, emitted by the small number of tracks and earthmoving equipment associated with construction activities and the limited maintenance efforts required for the project (primarily wells) once the proposed project is built. As with other small projects with primarily short-term impacts, the specific ernissions froth the proposed project would not be expected to individually have an impact on Global Climate Change. F uithermore, the project's GHG impact would be considered to be exclusively cumulative in effect; as no local project is large enough to cause climate change, there are no non- cumulative greenhouse gas emission impacts from a climate change perspective. Thus, the proposed project analysis of GHG emissions is to determine whether the proposed project impact is cumulatively considerable. Project construction greenhouse gas emissions would be approximately 1,306 metric tons of CO2l✓/yr. When compared to the draft SCAQMD Staff CEQA greenhouse gas significance threshold of 6,500 metric torts of CO2E/yr, the maximum greenhouse gas emissions for the proposed project (2,158 metric tons of CO2Elyr o€• 33 percent of the draft threshold) is far below the draft threshold, and is not anticipated to conflict with the state's ability to meet the Ala 32 GHG reduction goals, and therefore less than significant. TABLE 2 ESTIMATED EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES FROM CONSTRUCTION ........... Emissions metric tons of CO a er year for one year of construction Emission Source Onsite Heavy E ui ment Employee Vehicles Total Construction 141 7 148 SOURCE Eaviromnent;d Science Assmi a4n, 2009. Operational Emissions Operational activity for the proposed project would be passive and include the conveyance of potable water through underground pipes, and the pumping of water from wells. Potential long-term emission sources include emissions associated with maintenance/repair trips, which would be minimal. Operationally, only minimal, occasional maintenance of the project would be required. Maintenance of the project is not anticipated to generate more than two truck trips per month on average (twenty-four trips per year), and the track trips would be within the City, and of short duration and distance, This number of vehicles is extremely low for a project, would be less than the anticipated variation in vehicle use daily or annually on area roadways, and would not result in a significant increase in traffic in the project area. els a result, the proposed project would therefore have a less than significant impact with regard to criteria pollutants and GHG. Further, the effect of project -related traffic on local carbon monoxide concentrations along roadways and at intersections would also. be negligible. Electricity will be used at the well site for pump operation, well status signals, and alarms. Electricity use would be minimal, and would not result in substantial increases in emissions from area electrical generation. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase a f any enter id pvllutanl fbr ki"hich the project region is non-attainnic,ni under an applicable , fecleral or ,state ambient air quality standard (including releasing e1774ssion s ughiclt e� ceecl grruntitcrtit�cJ tlrresltolcle far vzane preCuf :rot :sy j Lecc ttrcrtt Sigttrf cant with hlitigatiofr Incorporated, Despite the success of regional stir quality programs in improving the South Coast Basin's air quality, the air basin still exceeds healtli-based standards for ozone and particulate matter less than ten microns in size (PMro). Initial Stud /Environmental Checklist -1 Ct of San Juan Capistrano, California Section 18 1(a)(I) of the Clean Air Act classifies the Basin as an extreme non-attairirrrent area for ozone, and states that the Basin must achieve the federal ozone standard by .lune, 2021 (South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, 2007 Draft) (SCAQMP, 2007). The proposed project would not exceed thresholds for significant air quality impacts, based on the analysis in sections 3.1 (a) and (b) above. However, project construction would require trenching activities that have the potential to contribute to cumulative airborne particles to the non -attainment air basin. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -1 specifies which of the Rule 403 measures will be required for this particular project and would reduce impacts to a loss -than - Significant level. d) E,rpnse sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Itttnact The area surrounding; the project contains suburban residential tracts, open space, parks, commercial business and schools, Althougr part of the project will traverse a park, the area affected is a passive -use area where public activity will be restricted during construction of that portion of the project, The nearest residences are located within 50 feet from the proposed pipeline and wells, and the closest school is approximately 100 feet away (St Margaret's Episcopal School). However, construction would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD thresholds (see sections 3.1 (a), (b) and (c) above), and construction would be of short-term duration (five months total, and substantially less at any one location along the alignment). Also, the project would involve very small areas of disturbance and Iimited construction equipment particularly for installation of the pipeline, which is the component nearest the sensitive receptors. Based on these facts, impacts would be considered less than significant to sensitive receptors. ej Create objectionable odors affecting a .s•ubstrantial nujszber vfpeople? Laos than Significant Impact. Short -ten -n objectionable odors associated with the use of diesel -powered heavy equipment, and paving; and asphalting; activities could occur in areas near construction sites. SCAQMD Rule 1113 1irnits the amount of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) from architectural coatings and solvents. As such, with mandatory corrrpliance with SCAQMD Rules, no construction activities or materials are proposed that would create objectionable odors that exceed applicable thresholds. Thus, due to the small project size and its short-term nature, odor impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures AQ -1: During clearing;, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust preventive measures using the following procedures, as specified in the South Coast Air Quality Management Districts Rule 403: • All material excavated or graded will be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. watering; will occur at least twice daily with complete coverage, preferable in the late mousing and after work is done for the day. • All material transported on-site or off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. • The area disturbed by cleaning;, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations will be minimized so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. • These control techniques will be indicated in Project specifications. Compliance with this measure will be subject to periodic site inspections by the City. AQ -2: As part of the SCAQMD Rule 403 Dust Control Plan, project grading plans shall show the duration of construction. Ozone precursor emissions from construction equipment vehicles shall be controlled by maintaining equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturer's specifications, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Compliance with this measure will be subject to periodic inspections of construction. equipment vehicles by the City. Initial Stud /Environmental Checklist -16- City of San Juan Ca is#rano, California Biological Resources Analysis LSA biologists conducted a biological resource assessment on the proposal project site on March 17, 2009. A visual inspection was conducted by walking the length of the project site (i.e., the proposed pipeline aligntnent and the well sites, South Cooks Well and Well SA) to assess on site and adjacent biological resources and their potential for supporting special -status species. Prior to the site visit, BSA reviewed existing information for the proposed project site, including the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFG, 2009), the California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory (CLAPS, 2009), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species list (USFWS, 2008). ESA queried these sources for special -status species records in the San Juan Capistrano Geological Survey 7.5 -minute quadrangle reap. The potential for special -status species to occur on the project site is based on the proximity of the project to previously recorded occurrences in the CNDDB, on-site vegetation and habitat quality, topography, elevation, soils, surrounding land uses, habitat preferences, and geographic ranges of special -status plant and wildlife species known to occur in the region. a% Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identgfted as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department. of Fish and Gaine or the USFWS' Less than Significant wvidt MidOdon Incorporated. The proposed project would be implemented entirely within previously disturbed areas (i.e., within paved areas or previously disturbed park areas). San Juan Creek, a signnificant.watercourse, is located immediately to the south of the Project and contains riparians vegetation that is suitable for hosting habitat for a variety of avian species, including the least Bell's vireo, a federally- and state -listed endangered species. Portions of the pipeline alignment are closer to the creck than others and adjacent riparian vegetation within the crwek varies in species composition, density and height. An approximate 7 foot tall earthen "levee" separates r 16.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the roject: a. 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 El ❑ California Department of Fish and Game or the USFWS? b. 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 Game (DFG) or U.S. Fish and ❑ Q 0 Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not. limited to, marsh, C1 pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological El Elvernal interruption, or other paeans? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fists or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory ❑ ❑ 0 R wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources; such as tree reservations policy/ordinance? ❑ El ❑ f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or ❑ ❑ 0 E state habitat conservationplan? Biological Resources Analysis LSA biologists conducted a biological resource assessment on the proposal project site on March 17, 2009. A visual inspection was conducted by walking the length of the project site (i.e., the proposed pipeline aligntnent and the well sites, South Cooks Well and Well SA) to assess on site and adjacent biological resources and their potential for supporting special -status species. Prior to the site visit, BSA reviewed existing information for the proposed project site, including the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFG, 2009), the California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory (CLAPS, 2009), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species list (USFWS, 2008). ESA queried these sources for special -status species records in the San Juan Capistrano Geological Survey 7.5 -minute quadrangle reap. The potential for special -status species to occur on the project site is based on the proximity of the project to previously recorded occurrences in the CNDDB, on-site vegetation and habitat quality, topography, elevation, soils, surrounding land uses, habitat preferences, and geographic ranges of special -status plant and wildlife species known to occur in the region. a% Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identgfted as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department. of Fish and Gaine or the USFWS' Less than Significant wvidt MidOdon Incorporated. The proposed project would be implemented entirely within previously disturbed areas (i.e., within paved areas or previously disturbed park areas). San Juan Creek, a signnificant.watercourse, is located immediately to the south of the Project and contains riparians vegetation that is suitable for hosting habitat for a variety of avian species, including the least Bell's vireo, a federally- and state -listed endangered species. Portions of the pipeline alignment are closer to the creck than others and adjacent riparian vegetation within the crwek varies in species composition, density and height. An approximate 7 foot tall earthen "levee" separates Initial Stud lEnvironmental Checklist -17- City of San Juan Ca istrano, California the majority of the pipeline alignment and the two well sites from San Juan Creek corridor. A mixture of native and non-native shrub species occurs on the northern slopes of the levee crnbankrnent that face the Project site. The proposed pipeline alignment would- extend along a paved bike path that is void of vegetation. South Cook's Well would be constructed within Russell Cook Park. Vegetation at the South Cook's Well site consists of non-native turf grass (Kikuya [Pennisctum clundestintint] and Bermuda grass [Cynodon dactylcn]). Tall mature blue gum (Eucalyptus globules) occur near the South Cook's Well site and pipeline segments C- 11, C-12 and C-13, and numerous other mature ornamental trees exist near various portions of the Project site. Well 5A is proposed atop asphalt and cement pavement and native coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) trees, blue elderberry (SaMbucus nigra ssp. Canadensis) and a mixture of non-native and native shrubs are adjacent. Dense clusters of willow (Salix sp.) and giant reed (Arundo dowx) are adjacent to pipeline segments C-12 and C-13. As shown on Figure 3, a variety of sensitive biological resources occurs within San Juan Creek, primarily, upstream and downstream of the projmt site. Recorded occurrences of species within the reaches of San Juan Creek near the project site include white rabbit -tobacco (Pseudognaphallum leucocephalum), Coulter's saltbush (Atriplex coulteri), least Hell's vireo, two -striped garter snake (7hamnophis hanunondu), southwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorala 17allida), arroyo chub (Gila vrcuttii), tide -water. goby (Eucyclagobius nawberryl), and Southern Cottonwood 'Willow Riparian Forest. The proposal project site is fragmented by urban development front nearby recorded occurrences of sensitive species located outside of the creek. There are no sensitive plants (including white rabbit -tobacco and Coulter's saltbush) located within or immediately adjacent to the project site; nor are there on-site or adjacent habitats present that are capable of supporting the special -status animal species mentioned above. Fond .turtles and two -striped garter snakes would not be.expected to be present within the disturbed portions of the project site (e.g., bike path, cement and asphalt areas) or within Cook's Park. Arroyo chub and tidewater gobi are fish, and as such they are confined to the perennial waters of San Juan Creek. Southern Cottonwood Willow riparian Forest is the typical breeding and foraging habitat of the least Bell's vireo. Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest has been recorded within the creek to the northeast of the proposed project site. In addition, ESA biologists also noted various clusters of cottonwood and willow trees within various portions of the creek that are located to the south of the proposed project site. The nearest recorded occurrences of Ieast hell's vireo is greater than two miles upstream of the proposed Well 5A; where adjacent urbanization is minimal to absent. Least Bell's vireo could forage within the portion of the creek adjacent to the project site; however, they would not be expected to breed within these areas due to adjacent suburban and urban land uses. No construction would occur within: undisturbed open space areas (park areas are previously disturbed), riparian areas or sensitive habitats. The entire area of construction activity would be located within previously disturbed areas. Installation of the pipeline, equipment access and staging would not result in the direct or indirect mortality of special -status species, 0A 16 7 CL Is 15 0 E o 15 F fa E CG7> t7 E 0 45 PN G7 QL M 2 u0,. 0 .2 E O Initial Stud /Environmental Checklist - I9- City of San Juan Capistrano, California Tree removal would not occur; however, indirect disturbance resulting from construction activities could cause nest abandonment and death of young or loss of reproductive potential at active nests located near the pipeline route and well sites. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC, Section 743, Supp. 1, 1989) prohibits billing, possessing, or trading migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. Migratory birds protected under this law include most native birds, with the exception of a few old word species, such as wrentit (Chamaea fasciata), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), rock pigeon (Columba livia), house sparrow (Passer domesticus) and certain game birds (e,g., turkeys and pheasants). This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs, Migratory birds are also protected by the state of California, under Section 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code (CDFG Code). The CDFG Code also protects all breeding; birds under ,Section 3543, and raptors (eagles, hawks, and owls) under Section 3543.5. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1310-1 during; construction adjacent to habitat for nesting birds, including raptors and special -status avian species would reduce impacts to less than significant. h) ,'lave tx ,vulistanlial aciver.ve q fect on any riparian hdbilat or other sensitive natural conmrunity klenlrfted in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of -ish and Gauze (DI,G) or US, Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. Sensitive riparian habitat occurs within San Juan Creek; however, the proposed project would be located outside of the creek and is separated by a levee and adjacent land uses (i.e., open space, equestrian trail, Cook's Park, etc.). Construction activities would . not result in the removal or disturbance of riparian habitat. All consauction activities would be confined to paved areas (i.e., bike path, road rights-of-way) and park areas (e.g., South Cook's Well, which is proposed within Cook's Park). The proposed project would not require a Section 404 permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or a streambed alteration agreement with CDFG as the proposed pipeline project would not involve construction activities on wetlands as defined by section 404 of the Cleary Water Act. c) Have a substantial adverse effect onFeder rally protected vetkinciv as defined by Section 4014 of the Clean WaterAct (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, e(c.) through direct rerrtovcal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. Sec response 16.4 b) above. d) Interfere ,sacl3.vtcantially with tla.e nr.ovenrent of any ncctive rericlerrt. or rraigrratory f sh c>r 1ajr.Icllife .ipc'cic s cry with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native 1vi.lclltfe nursery sites? No Impact. Wildlife corridors are pathways or habitat linkages that connect discrete areas of natural open space otherwise separated or fragmented by topography, changes in vegetation, and other natural or human -induced factors, f. such as urbanization. Adjacent land uses include residential and commercial development and busy roads, including 1-5; therefore, the project site does not provide a corridor for wildlife movement to and from adjacent sites. Moreover, the proposed pipeline would be constructed primarily within an existing bike path, other paved areas, and other disturbed areas. Some animals accustomed to urbanization, such as opossum (Didelphh vlrginiana), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and coyote (Canis hatrans), may travel through San Juan Greek; however, the proposed project would not impair wildlife movement within the creek's corridor. Moreover, these species have not been designated as either Federally or State -protected, nor are they being presently being evaluated for such purpose. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts on the movement of wildlife species E, Initial Stud /Environmental Checklist -20- Cit of San Jinn Ca istrano California e) Conflict ta7it{t any local pr�licics vrosdinarrccrprvleclirrrbicrfr�gical resources, such a.r treG preset-vcrtior7 policylvrdinance? Less titan Significant oviti, Mitigation 11jeorporated. The City's Municipal Code (Section 9-2.349) establishes regulations for removal of trees within the City. The ordinance regulates the removal of trees over six -inches (b") in diameter measured three feet (3') feet above grade. It also establishes findings. that the City must consider before acting on the permit. Tree removal permits are required for new development projects, utility easements, common landscape areas, nonresidential projects, City facilities and right-of-way, individual residential lots, and heritage trees. The Municipal Code (Section 9- 3,557) prohibits the topping or severe trimming of trees, Topping is cutting branches back to stubs or lateral branches to reduce the size of tree. Implementation of Mitigation Measure B10-2 would reduce impacts to a ,level of less than sigpifrcant. f) Conflict with the prvrvisions ofan adapted ,habitat Consen>ation Plan, Natural Cgnvnuni4o Con.renwf on Plat►, or other approved local, regional, or -stale habitat consemalon plan.? A& Impact. The proposed project is located within the Southern Subregion of the County of Orange Natural Community Conservation flan and Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP), However, the proposed pipeline project would not impact coastal sage scrub habitat, San Juan Creek riparian habitat, nesting habitat for special -status raptors and other bird species, or other candidate, sensitive and special status species. The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of the NCCP/f1CP. Mitigation Measures RIO -1: The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC, Section 703, Supp. 1, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. Migratory birds protected under this law include most native birds, with the exception of a few old word species, such as wrentit (Chamaea fasciata), European starting (.Sfurnus ►jtzlgaris), rock pigeon (Columbu livia), house sparrow (Passer domavicus), and certain game birds (e.g. turkeys and pheasants). This act encompasses whole birds and bird nests and eggs. Migratory birds are also protected by the state of California, under Section 3513 ofthe California Fish and Game Code (CDFG Code). The CDFG Code also protects all breeding birds under Section 3503, and raptors (eagles, hawks, and owls) under Section 3503.5. To avoid impacts to native nesting birds, including cactus wren, should construction activity begin between January l and September 15, the City shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct nest surveys in potential nesting habitat within and adjacent to the project site prior to construction or site preparation activities. Specifically, within 30 clays prior of ground disturbance activities associated with construction or grading, a qualified biologist shall survey the project site and areas within 50 feet of the project limits to determine if active nests of bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (META) or the California Department of rich and Game {CDF(3) Code are present in the construction zone or within a distance determined by CDFG or the qualified biologist. Because .many birds expected to use the project area for nesting during the late winter (such as Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna] and Cooper's hawk [Accipiter cooperiij), the breeding bird survey shall be carried out in the event construction begins during either the typical nesting/breeding season (raid March through September) and in January and February. If ground disturbance activities arc delayed for more than 5 days, additional pre -construction bird nest surveys will be conducted such that no more than five days will have elapsed between the last survey and the commencement ofground disturbance activities. Surveys shall include examination of trees, shrubs, and the ground within grassland for nesting birds, as several bird species known to occur in the area are shrub or ground nesters. Initial Stud lEnvlrorimental Checklist -21- City of Sar: Juan Capistrano, California + Ifactive,nests are found, clearing and construction activities within a buffer distance determined by CDFG, or the qualified biologist, shall be postponed or halted until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged, as determined by the biologist, and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting during the saute year. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest shall be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction personnel shall be instructed on the requirement to not encroach into the buffer established for nesting am -is. The results of the survey, and any avoidance measures taken, shall be maintained to document compliance with applicable state and federal laws pertaining totlieprotection of native birds. BIO -2: Ifthe contractor determines that any trees (with a diameter exceeding 6 inches at breast height) would need to be removed, the Following shall occur: Prior to removal of any tree, the contractor shall secure issuance of a tree removal permit, except in cases where a State -registered Arborist has determined in writing that such tree(s) are a hazard to utility lines or facilities. An application for tree removal shall be filed with the Community Development Department and the City may require replacement planting. A heritage tree shall not be removed without prior Planning Commission review and approval of a heritage tree removal permit. A tree shall be deemed a heritage tree and shall be protected from removal when such tree has a trunk diameter at breast height (dbh) of thirty-six (36) inches or greater, and is a specimen of the following species: Schinus molle (California pepper); Quercus spp. (oak); Cedar spp. (cedar); Eucalyptus globulus (blue gum eucalyptus); Juglans spp. (walnut); Olea europaea (olive); Platanus spp. (sycamore); Populus spp. (cottonwood); or as otherwise designated by the Planning Commission based on the trees unique and intrinsic value to the community because of its size, age, historic association or ecological value. Any proposal for construction, utility installation, paving, street improvements, or any other ground -disturbing; activity within the drip line or critical root zone of a heritage tree shall require administrative approval by the Planning Director pursuant to Section 9-2.303(a)(4). prior to issuance of permits, to ensure that such work will not adversely impact the health of the heritage tree. Cultural Resources Analysis A project -specific cultural resources literature and records search was conducted at the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) on April 23, 2009. This records search included an examination of previous cultural resources survey coverage and reports, and •�• i �, S S G 5.. Yi y L C 2 -. 16.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a. Cause a substantial adverse change at the significance ofa historical resource ❑ © ❑ as defined in ' 15064.5 of CEQA? b. Cause a substantial adverse cbange in the significance of an archaeological ❑ ❑ ❑ resource ursuant to .1 15064.5 of C1; A? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or ❑ ® 1-1❑ urri uc eolo is feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal ❑® ❑ � cemeteries? Cultural Resources Analysis A project -specific cultural resources literature and records search was conducted at the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) on April 23, 2009. This records search included an examination of previous cultural resources survey coverage and reports, and Initial Stud /Environmental Checklist -22- City of San Juan Capistrano, California known cultural resources within a 0.25 -mile radius of the project site. Other sources that were reviewed included the California Points of Historical Interest (PHI), the California Historical Landmarks (CHL), the California Register of Historic Places (California Register), the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), the California State Historic Resources Inventory (HRI), and historic snaps. A Sacred Lands Search for the project area was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in May, 2009. No response has yet been received. A reconnaissance survey of the project area was conducted in April, 2009, by ESA archaeologist. The entire project area was systematically surveyed for any cultural resources that may have been visible on the ground surface. The project area was found to be mostly paved or disturbed by modern. development, No cultural resources were recorded during the survey. ca) Cciusc a sul),stctnticrl ad7lej se c:laange ire the signf ccance o/'ct historical i•evouf cc as° clgfincd iii ' 1,5004. S or. CEQA? Less than Significant with Mitigation 111corporated The proposed project would have a significant effect if it would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP), the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), or a local register of historic resources. To be eligible for listing in the NRNP, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Similarly, to be eligible for the CRHIZ, a historical -period property must be considered a significant resource at the local, state, andlor federal level. Unless the, property possesses exceptional significance, it must be at least fifty years old to be eligible for NRNP listing. According to the SCCIC records search, there are 10 historic properties within 0.25 miles of the Project Area that are listed on the CRHR. Nine of these properties are also listed on the NRNP. The Los Rios .Historic District, which is listed on the NRNP, is also located in close proximity to the project area. However, none of these properties are within the Project Area and none would be impacted by the proposed project. Seven additional historic built resources are located within 0.25 miles of the project area. One of the sites, 30- 150083, is located within severalhundred feet of the project area. Three others (30-176663, 30-176664, and 30-176700) are located within the project area. All three resources within the project area are segments of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad (A,rsF) line, originally constructed in 1882. The line is still in use and its tracks and associated components, as part of a working railroad, are modern, In addition, a railroad bridge constructed in 1917 lies just south of the proposed pipeline route. However, the proposed pipeline will be routed under the railroad tracks, and these resources should therefore not be adversely impacted by pipeline construction. All historic resources, including; 30-176663, 30-176654, and 30-176700 (ATSF railroad tracks), and the 1917 ATSF bridge should be avoided during project construction. The implementation of Mitigation Measure CR -1 would reduce impacts to historic resources to less than significant Initial Stud lEnvironmental Checklist -23- -City of Sar Juan Capistrano, California b) Cause a substantial adverve change in the significance g1'an archaeological revource pur.want to 15064.5 of CEQA? Less than Significant, with Mitigation incorporate The proposed project would have a significant effect if it would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of unique archaeological resource. According to the SCCIC records search results, there are eight archaeological resources within 0.25 miles of the project area. One of these, site 30-120017, a prehistoric lithic and shell scatter, is located immediately adjacent to the project area. However, the site could not be relocated during the April, 2009 site visit. Another resource, site 30-120015, is recorded as being within 200 feet of the project area, The proposed pipeline would be installed along the San Juan Creek flood plain. According to the San Juan Capistrano General plan (City of San Juan Capistrano, 1999), the San Juan Creek has been identified as an area of archaeological sensitivity, The abundant resources in the area of the creek would have made it ideal for human settlement in both the prehistoric and historic periods, as the large number of archaeological sites near the project area attests. In addition, the. project area is located near the historic Mission San Juan Capistrano and associated settlements, the Los Rios Historic District, and the historic ATSF raii.line. Both prehistoric- and historic -period buried archaeological deposits could be located within the project at -ea. Since the nature of the proposed project will. involve ground -disturbing activities that may extend into undisturbed soil, it is possible that such actions could unearth, expose, or disturb subsurface archaeological, historical, or Native American resources that were not observable on the surface, However, implementation of Mitigation Measures CR -1, CR -2, and CIL-3 would reduce the potential for encountering and disturbing known or unknown archaeological resources to less than significant. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique lialeonlological resource or site or unique geolni;icfeature? Less than Significant Willi Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would have a significant effect if it would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique paleontological resource. Paleontological resources have been uncovered in various portions of the City (San Juan Capistrano, 2002). The valley area, with its alluvial deposits, has less potential to produce fossils, while the older foothills have a higher potential to yield fossils, The Capistrano and Monterey Formations and San Onofre Breccia, rnainiy located in the eastern foothills of the City, are considered to be of high paleontological importance. This is due to the numerous fossil sites which have been found in these bedrock units. While the project area is located along the San Juan Creek and within alluvial deposits, construction activities nevertheless have the potential to expose buried paleontological resources. Low-lying areas within relatively recent alluvial floodplain soils, such as the project area, could include some Pleistocene Epoch fossils. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR -4 would reduce the impact to less than significant. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred out4ide of Jr�rr�tcrl cetnetG°t les? ?Law, €lratz Sigrsgficarlt Willi Mitigation Incorporated., The proposed project would have a significant effect if it would disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. No hu.wnan remains are known to exist within the project site. However, given the sensitivity of the project area for buried prehistoric and historic -period archaeological deposits, construction activities have the potential to expose buried human remains. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR -1, CR -.2, CR -3, and CR -5 would reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level. Initial Studylnvlronmental Checklist -24- _ City of San_Juan Capistrano, California Hitigatiou measures The following mitigation measures will be utilized to avoid negative impacts to cultural resources: CR -1: All cultural resources, including 30-176663, 30-176664, and 30-176700 (A rSl" railroad tracks), the 1917 ATSF bridge, and prehistoric site 30-120017, shall be avoided where feasible. If appropriate, prior to construction, a qualified archaeologist (defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the interior's Standards for professional archaeology) shall mark exclusion zones around known archaeological sites to ensure they are not impacted by construction. If avoidance is not feasible, the resources shall be evaluated for eligibility to the California Register or local historic reg.ister and potential significance underCEQA. If a resource is determinedto be eligibleto the California Register or local historic register, a site treatment plan or additional protection measures will be developed and implemented, if the site evaluation results in an assessment that a resource is not eligible, no further work or protective measures will be necessary. A qualified archaeologist (defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's professional qualification standards for archaeology) shall early out all evaluation and site treatment. CR -2: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department documentation that a qualified archaeologist (defined as an archaeologist on the List of Certified Archaeologists for Orange County) has been retained to monitor site clearing, grading, and excavation activities, stating the name, qualifications, and contact information for the archaeologist. A qualified archaeologist (defined as an archaeologist on the List of Certified Archaeologists for Orange County) shall be retained by the project applicant and shall be present at pre -construction meetings to advise construction contractors about the sensitive nature of cultural resourees located on and/or in the vicinity of the project site, as well as monitoring requirements. A qualified monitor (defined as an individual with a bachelors degree in anthropology with archaeological monitoring experience), supervised by the qualified archaeologist, shall observe on- and off-site construction activities that result in grading,. and/or excavating on or below the original ground surface (including during project - related off-site utility [natural gas, electricity, sewer, water, drainage, communications, etc.] and roadway improvements). Should nonhuman cultural resources be discovered, the monitor shall Have the power to tetnporarily halt or divert construction activities until the qualified archaeologist can determine. if the resources are significant and, if significant, until recovered by the archaeologist. In the event that human remains are discovered, construction activities shall be halted or diverted until the provisions of §7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and §5097.98 of the. Public Resources Code have been implemented, (CD) CR 3;._ Native Art erican Monitor. During construction/grading activities, a Native American monitor shall observe eonstruction/grading activities that result in grading, excavating, and/or trenching on or below the original ground surface (including during project -related off-site utility [e.g., natural gas, electricity, sewer, water, drainage, communications, etc.] and roadway improvements). The project Archeologist shall select the Native American monitor in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The Native American monitor shall consult with the Project Archaeological monitor regarding objects and remains encountered during grading that may be considered sacred or important. In the event that evidence of hurnan remains is discovered, the Native American monitor shall verify that the archaeologist has notified the Coroner. CR -4: Pa iwntological Monitor. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified paleontologist (defined as a paleontologist on the List of Certified Paleontologists for Orange County) shall be retained by the project applicant and shall be present at pro -construction meetings to advise construction contractors about the potential occurrence of paleontological resources located on and/or in the vicinity of the project site, as well as monitoring requirements. A qualified monitor (defined as an individual with a Initial Stud /Environmental Checklist -25- ..._City of San Juan..Capistrano, California bachelors .degree in paleontology and monitoring experience), supervised by the qualified paleoritologist, shall be ora -site during construction activities that result in the grading and/or excavating of current surface material (including during project -related off-site utility (e.g., natural lamas, electricity, sewer, water, drainage, communications, etc.] and roadway improvements) to monitor for paleontological resources. Should paleontological resources be discovered, the monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert construction activities until the qualified paleontologist can determine if the resources are significant, Significant paleontological resources shall be recovered by the qualified paleontologist. (CD) u) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse, effects, including the risk Qf loss, injury, or death involving., i) Rapture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Mal) issued by the State Geologist, fpr the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Minas and Geology Special Publication 42.) Less than Sigtnifi`cant Impact. The proposed project is located in a seismically active at -ea. However, no known active seismic faults traverse San, Juan Capistrano or the project area (City of San Juan Capistrano General Plan, 1999), Consequently, the potential for ground rupture at the project area is low. The project does not occur within Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Additionally, the pipeline would be designed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code requirements and current seismic design standards to minimize seismic impacts, Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 16.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the roject: a. Expose people or structures to potentia( substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving (i) rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist, or based on other substantial ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ evidence of a known fault (Refer to DM&G Pub. 42)?; or, (ii) strong seismic ground shaking?; or, (iii) seismic -related ground failure, including li uefactiorf?; or, (iv) landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ 0 [❑ c. 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-site or off-site ❑ Cl ❑ M landslide, lateralspreading, subsidenee, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the 1994 UBC, ❑ El ® El substantial risks to life or ro err . e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or . altemative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for ❑ ❑ ❑ ,_ the_disposal of waste water? u) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse, effects, including the risk Qf loss, injury, or death involving., i) Rapture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Mal) issued by the State Geologist, fpr the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Minas and Geology Special Publication 42.) Less than Sigtnifi`cant Impact. The proposed project is located in a seismically active at -ea. However, no known active seismic faults traverse San, Juan Capistrano or the project area (City of San Juan Capistrano General Plan, 1999), Consequently, the potential for ground rupture at the project area is low. The project does not occur within Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Additionally, the pipeline would be designed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code requirements and current seismic design standards to minimize seismic impacts, Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Initial Stud /Environmental Checklist -26- aty of San Juan Capistrano, California ii) Strong seismic ground shalcing? Less than .Significant Impact. The project area is located within approximately 50 miles of several known potential sources of strong seismic shaking, including; the offshore segment of the Newport -Inglewood fault system located approximately six Miles west of San Juan Capistrano, and the San Andreas fault system located approximately 50 miles cast of the City. The Newport -Inglewood fault is considered an active fault requiring that special near -source factors be incorporated into buildings developed within 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) of the fault, The Uniform Building Code requires that most of the southwestern portion of the City incorporate near -source factors into the design of new buildings and other structures. Other faults located within 50 miles of the City include the offshore Palos Verdes fault, the Elsinore fault, the Whittier fault and the San Jacinto fault. A Major earthquake associated with any of these faults could result in moderate to severe groundshaking in the project area. Damage to buildings and infrastructure, including pipelines and wells, could be expected as a result of groundshaking during a seismic event. The most severe earthquake -caused damage to the pipeline would include rupture and displacement of the line. 1 Earthquake --related damage to a well could be partial collapse or other structural breaks. Because -the project features are allocated away from habitable structures, along bike paths, and through parkland and open land, and the pipeline tuns roughly parallel to the San Juan Creek and at a lower elevation to the nearest structures, any water released from the pipeline would flow downstream into drainage ditches, toward the creek, and away from any structures. Any damage to the wells would be expected to be localized and except for the pipeline connections would not result in the release of water into the surrounding area. In addition, the pipeline will have emergency shut-off valve capacity to prevent any major release of water. As a result, damage caused by strong seismic ground shaking would be less `han significant. iii) Seismie-related ground failure, including liqugfaction? Less than Significant futpact. Damage from earthquakes is most often the result of liquefaction. of alluvial soils underlying large rigid structures. Liquefaction occurs pritrnarily in areas of recently deposited sands and silts and in areas of high groundwater levels. Poorly consolidated sediment and high groundwater levels occur most frequently in creekbeds and tloodplains. The potential for liquefaction is particularly high in the floodways located along San Juan Creek. The proposed project would be constructed primarily within an existing bikeway, which was previously graded and engineered for stability according to City building; requirements. The widening project would involve new compaction and preparation of un -developed parkland areas and some other undeveloped land for portions of the alignment, which would reduce the liquefaction capacity of the, soils. In addition, because it is a narrow, linear and relatively light structure, the pipeline itself would not require significant load- bearing strength in its underlying soi Is. The wells are located within areas previously utilized for wells and will be drilled acrd designed to current Uniform Building Code requirements, along with the pipeline, and current seismic design standards to reduce the risk of damage caused by liquefaction. `l'herefore, the risk of loss or adverse effect caused by seismic- related g11round failure, including; liquefaction, would be less€han sig;nific<arit. h9 Landslidev? No Impact. Unstable slopes are located throughout San Juan,Capistrano. The hillsides adjacent to San Juan Creek in the project area may likely contain areas of potential landslide. The abundant shales and siltstones underlying; the hills of San .Tuan Capistrano are highly porous and do not hold together well when wet, which can lead to slope instability and landslides. Secondary factors contributing to slope instability and landslides include rainfall and earthquakes. Debris flows can occur rapidly and without warning during periods of exceptionally high rainfall. The proposer{ pipeline would be installed completely underground. As such, the pipeline would have a low profile relative to the adjacent land ,areas'. The occurrence of a landslide or debris flow along the pipeline route and over the top of the pipeline would be unlikely to impact its short -terns operation or cause damage to the pipeline itself. Neither construction of the pipeline, nor its operation, is likely to increase the risk of debris flows along; the pipeline corridor. Nor would landslides or debris flows be likely to impact the operation of the Initial Stud iEnvironmental Checklist -27- --- - City of San Juan Capistrano, California pipeline. The wells would be located on sites previously drilled for wells, and have not been subjected to known landslides in the past. The pipelitie and wells would be designed and built in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and current seismic design standards to reduce the risk of damage that could result from construction in areas with potential for liquefaction and landslide. h) Result in substantial soil erasion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities involving soil disturbance, such as excavation, stockpiling, and grading could result in increased erosion and sedimentation to surface waters. However, substantial erosion is considered unlikely because of the relatively confined space and small scale of the area ofground disturbance necessary for project implementation, In addition, the proposed project would be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention flan (SWPPP) to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). 'Wherefore, impacts related to erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant e) Be located on a geologic unit or ,soil that is unstable, or that would become twistable as ca result of the ,project, and potentially result in on- or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No Impact. The proposed project would be located in a seismically active area and in a general area that has been identified as having a high potential for liquefaction and susceptibility to landslides. The project would consist of the installation of a 12 -inch potable water pipeline within an existing roadway right-of-way. The soil would be compacted during road concurrent widening construction project. There are no standing structures associated with the project. The pipeline and wells would be de -signed and built in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and current seismic design standards to reduce the risk of damage that could result from construction in areas with potential for liquefaction and landslide. Because the pipeline would be buried below ground and would have a low topographic profile, and because the construction footprint would be relatively narrow, it would not increase the risk of landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. d) Be located on c? pansive soil, as de fined in Table I8 - 1-B of the Uniforin Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? Cess than Significant Impact. Expansive soils possess a shrink -swell characteristic 1 that can result in structural damage over along period of time. Expansive soils are largely comprised of silicate clays, which expand in volume when water is absorbed and shrink when dried. The relatively significant amounts of clay present in the underlying bedrock of the Capistrano and Monterey formations in San Tuan Capistrano pose an expansive soils hazard. Soils derived frorn these fonnations are considered moderately to highly expansive. When construction occurs .over a medium of this consistency, the resulting shrinkAwell characteristics will likely result in damage to the overlying structures. The pipeline design would comply with the Uniform Building Code and current standards f9r the use or avoidance of expansive soil materials. Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils would be considered less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately .supportitrg the use of septic tanks or.alternative iv astetvater disposal .systems where sewers are not availablefrir the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. No impact would occur because the project does not include septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. I -Shrink-swell" is the cyclical expansion and contraction that occurs inrine-grained clay sedirnomts from wetting and d€ging. St€vcturm located on soils with this characteristic may he damaged over a long period of time, usually as tho€'exult of inadequate foundation engineering. Initial Stud llinvironmental Checklist -28w City of San Juan Capistrano, California a) . Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal ofbazar clous :materials? /Vo Impact No hazardous materials would be routinely transported, used, or disposed of during the operation of the pipeline or well, as the pipeline would transport water for treatment at the G WkP. The water to be transported is not suitable for domestic use prior to treatment due to iron, manganese and total dissolved solids content. No hazardous materials would be used during routine operation of the project. Therefore, no impact would result. b) Create a signijlcant hazard to tine public or the environment through rca.sonahly.foreseeable upset and ciccident conditions r'rzvoh,ing the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less titan Significant Impact. Construction activities would involve the use of certain potentially hazardous materials such as fuels and hydraulic fluids. These materials would generally be used for construction equipment, and would be contained within vessels engineered for safe storage. Storage of large quantities of potentially hazardous materials at the construction site is not anticipated. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, .substances, or waste within one-quarter mile gj'an €:xWing or proposed school? Lays that: Significant Impact. There several schools located within one-quarter mile of the project alignment. However, as discussed above, no hazardous materials would be routinely used during the operation of the pipeline. The contaminants in the n G - 16.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, Would the ro'ect: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through: the FJ El EJ trans ort, use, or dis osal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable conditions involving the release of hazardous ❑ ❑ ® l materials into the environment? c_ Brant hazardous emission or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or ❑ ❑ Z ❑ proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, 0 0 ❑ Z would it create a si nificant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a platy has not been adopted, within two utiles of a public airport or public use airport, E] E3 ❑ would the project result in safety hazard for people residing or working in the ro.ectarea?' f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result ❑ ❑ ❑ in a safet hazard for pea le residin or workin in tfae ro'eet area? b. Impair implementation of or physically interfere willi an adopted emergency ED El El Elres onse Ian or em ency evacuation plan? Ii, Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving.wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized ❑ 0 Z ❑ areas or where residences are intermixed with: wildlands? a) . Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal ofbazar clous :materials? /Vo Impact No hazardous materials would be routinely transported, used, or disposed of during the operation of the pipeline or well, as the pipeline would transport water for treatment at the G WkP. The water to be transported is not suitable for domestic use prior to treatment due to iron, manganese and total dissolved solids content. No hazardous materials would be used during routine operation of the project. Therefore, no impact would result. b) Create a signijlcant hazard to tine public or the environment through rca.sonahly.foreseeable upset and ciccident conditions r'rzvoh,ing the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less titan Significant Impact. Construction activities would involve the use of certain potentially hazardous materials such as fuels and hydraulic fluids. These materials would generally be used for construction equipment, and would be contained within vessels engineered for safe storage. Storage of large quantities of potentially hazardous materials at the construction site is not anticipated. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, .substances, or waste within one-quarter mile gj'an €:xWing or proposed school? Lays that: Significant Impact. There several schools located within one-quarter mile of the project alignment. However, as discussed above, no hazardous materials would be routinely used during the operation of the pipeline. The contaminants in the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -29- City of San Jinn Capistrano, California groundwater that will be transported are not of level to be, designated as "hazardous materials" and further, the pipelines are located underground and designed to meet code requirements, assuring sound construction. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list cif hazardous inaterialr sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 ancl, as a result: would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. An extensive. data base search for hazardous materials sites was conducted at the time of the Non. Dorne:stic/Recycled Water Master Man Update Program EIR (City of San Juan Capistrano, 2007). 'rhe proposed project is not located on any known hazardous waste sites, pursuant to Govermunent Code Section 65962.5 (California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2007). e) For a protect located within an airport land use plan or, where smack a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public., airport or public use air port, u}ould the prgject result in a sctrety hazard for people residing or ivorking in the project area.;, No Impact. No impact would occur because the proposed project is not located within two miles of a public airport. ) For a project wilhin the vicin lty Q1a p vale airstrip, would the project result in a safety haza7Yl fnrpeople residing; or working in the prgject area? No ,finpact There are no private airstrips within two miles of the project area. The project would not result in a safety hazard for people working in the project area because of its distance from any airport. g) Iiitl)air inmplenrentation gforplmysically interfere xlitfr an. adopted enmergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. Roadway access in the project area would be maintained during pipeline installation and well construction. The underground pipeline would not interfere with anycinergeney response plan or evacuation plan, and the wells would be located on existing well sites. Where road crossings (or other temporary transportation or parking interference would occur), temporary traffic control features would be employed as part of the project. However, theses features would not inhibit emergency responses or emergency evacuation. Therefore, the project would not interfere: with an emergency response plan or evacuation plan and no impact would occur. h) t1'xposepeopleorstructurestoasign ificantrisk nfYoss, irrjuiyordeathinvolving.wildlandlires, including where ivBldlands art-, adljacerrt to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlarad ? Less than signi&arrt Impact. The proposed project is an infrastructure project, consisting of underground pipes and two well locations. No habitable structures are included, and as a result, the proposed project would not,expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. in addition, the project alignment runs roughly parallel to San Juan Creek, and within bike path, park land and other vacant areas, beyond which lies suburban development with fire water access and no major wild t:ire sources. No impact would occur during pipeline operations. The potential for starting wildfires would be less than significant. - •Y ` � �4-4 �q C n d r€ Initial Stud /Environmental Checklist -30- . Cif of $art Juan Capistrano, California 16.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUAUTY. Would theproject: a. 'Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b.. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfero substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of [ [] ® ❑ pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support exiitinj land uses or planned uses for which ermit% have been granted)? c. Substantially atter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a Danner which ❑ ❑ ❑ would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially Li ® ❑ increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result rn floodin on or off fine? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial jl ❑ ❑ N additional sources of polluted runoff? f Otherwise substantially degrade water duality? Q ❑ ❑ g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood insurance Rate neap or other flood hazard El ❑ ❑ delineation map? lr: Place within a I00 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or 1:1 redirect flood flows? ❑ ❑ is Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or [1 ❑ ❑ E dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ k. Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters considering water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical stormwater pollutants (e.g. heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum ❑ ❑ derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen -demanding substances, and trash L?__ 1. Result in significant alternation of receiving water quality during or following ❑ ❑ ❑ construction? m. Could the proposed project result in increased erosion downstream? ❑ ❑ ❑ n. Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff? 0 ❑ ® ❑ o. Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due.to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes? (� ❑ p. 'Tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(4) list? If so, can it result in an increase in any pollutant for El El ❑ which the water body is already impaired? Initial Stud llEnvironrnental Checklist -39- City of San Juane Capistrano, California a) Violate any seater quality standards or waste discharge requirermeniv? Less than Significant Impact During the eotestruction phase of the project, excavated soils could erode and be transported to down -gradient drainages. The City would require that the contractor prepare a Stornn Water Pollution Prevention Plane (SWPPP) to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimihation System (NPDES). Asa result of being in compliance with the NPDES and implemeatinga SWPPP the project would result in a less than significant impact to water quality. PDF -3: As part of the construction plans and specifications ("plans & specs"), the City shall require that the contractor prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plant (SWPPP) consistent with all applicable Federal, State and regional water requirements/standards which shall be subject to Utilities Depattnnetnt review and approval prior to the beginning of any grading or construction. b) Suljvtantutllydc'1)1-,t(-,gr7)unilwcitersupplie,Yorinterfer"L'Slibst6rPrtiallywitlrgroundwettel"recharacstichthat there would he a net deficit in aquifer voliane or a 16141ering gfthe local groundwater table level (e.g., the Production rite ofpre-exivting nearby wel/v would drop to a level which would not support existing; land uses or planned usesf for which perinits have Ixten granted)? Less than Significant [impact. The proposed pipeline portion of the project would not require the use of groundwater supplies that would deplete the aquifer. The pipeline would be installed within a pipeline improvement corridor and would not affect the groundwater recharge. The replacement well portion of the project would not incrme groundwater extraction but rather snake available the existing water supplies that the S1BA is entitled to pump under the diversion permit #121074. The City as a member of the SJBA is permitted to extract 8,026 afy of groundwater from January 1 to December 1 of each year. The current capacity of the GWRP is 5.1-mgd (5,712 acre-feet per T 9 mow_ �•�FW ��,_ W 9. Tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? if so, can it exacerbate El El exnsttn sensitive conditions? r. Have a potentially significant environnmental.innpact on surface water quality El ❑ ❑ to either marine, fresh or wetland waters? s.. Have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ t. Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater El ❑ receivi water ualit ob'ectives or de nadation of beneficial uses? u, Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ v. Potentially impact stormwater runofffrom construction or post constrtwtion? ❑ ❑ Z ❑ w. Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater 'pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials ❑ [l S ❑ handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? x. result it, the potential for discharge of stormwatcr to affect the beneficial El E-] Eluses of the receivingwaters? y. Create the potential for significant cleanses in the flow velocity or volume of ❑ ❑ stormwater runoff to cauwae environmental harm? z. Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding El❑ Elareas? a) Violate any seater quality standards or waste discharge requirermeniv? Less than Significant Impact During the eotestruction phase of the project, excavated soils could erode and be transported to down -gradient drainages. The City would require that the contractor prepare a Stornn Water Pollution Prevention Plane (SWPPP) to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimihation System (NPDES). Asa result of being in compliance with the NPDES and implemeatinga SWPPP the project would result in a less than significant impact to water quality. PDF -3: As part of the construction plans and specifications ("plans & specs"), the City shall require that the contractor prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plant (SWPPP) consistent with all applicable Federal, State and regional water requirements/standards which shall be subject to Utilities Depattnnetnt review and approval prior to the beginning of any grading or construction. b) Suljvtantutllydc'1)1-,t(-,gr7)unilwcitersupplie,Yorinterfer"L'Slibst6rPrtiallywitlrgroundwettel"recharacstichthat there would he a net deficit in aquifer voliane or a 16141ering gfthe local groundwater table level (e.g., the Production rite ofpre-exivting nearby wel/v would drop to a level which would not support existing; land uses or planned usesf for which perinits have Ixten granted)? Less than Significant [impact. The proposed pipeline portion of the project would not require the use of groundwater supplies that would deplete the aquifer. The pipeline would be installed within a pipeline improvement corridor and would not affect the groundwater recharge. The replacement well portion of the project would not incrme groundwater extraction but rather snake available the existing water supplies that the S1BA is entitled to pump under the diversion permit #121074. The City as a member of the SJBA is permitted to extract 8,026 afy of groundwater from January 1 to December 1 of each year. The current capacity of the GWRP is 5.1-mgd (5,712 acre-feet per Initial Studyllnvironmental Checklist -32- City of San Juan Capistrano. California year). Operational capacity of the GWRP does not exceed the available groundwater the City is entitled to pump and therefore would not interfere with groundwater supplies. However, as part of the diversion penhit the SJBA has to regularly monitor and report annually on the condition of the creeks and vegetation living within the riparian corridor. If it is determined by the monitoring that them is any degradation of the crock or the vegetation due to over extrzetion then the diversion, permit requires that the well(§) be shutdown. The purpose of the two replacement wells (South Cooks Well and Well 5A) is to provide system reliability to the GWRP, not system expansion, ultimately improving the flexibility with potable water production from these existing groups of wells. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Substantially altar the c�vistitig drainage pottery► of the sr'te or area, iiiclueling tits rough the ctlteration osf the course of stream. oz° rive r, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- ornff= site? Lest than Significantltnpact, The proposed project would be located within an existing highway right-of-way. The proposed pipeline would be located below ground and wouldnot include any surface structures other than minor pipeline appurtenances. No strearn alterations would occur froth the proposed project. The completed project would not substantially impact or degrade the drainage pattern of the site, and therefore would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, nor will the pipeline have any effect on the drainage pattern, or surface ruin off characteristics. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of fhe course o f a stream or rimer, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface r unofj in a manner which would result hz,flooding on- or qff-site? Less than Signiflcant Impact. The proposed project would be located within a bike path, as well as within park lard and other vacant land. The proposed pipeline would be located below ground and the well locations would be self contained and of limited land coverage. No stream alterations would occur from the proposed project. The completed project would not substantially impact or degrade the drainage pattern of the site, and therefore would not result in substantial flooding on- or off-site. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainagesystems or provide, .suIntantial additional ,sources ref polluted runoff. No ,Impact. Construction of the proposed pipeline project would not result in increased impervious surfaces as the project would be located underground within various rights-of-way and at existing well sites, The proposed pipeline would be required to obtain numerous encroachment pennits, see Project Description above for details. 0 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact. During construction, a SWPPP would be implemented to control runoff, minimizing the potential for impacts to water duality. Following construction, the project would not affect water duality. Water extracted from the aquifer has been used in the City's Non -Domestic Water System for many years. This project would increase the use of local groundwater for potable use. Water duality of the potable water produced by the GWRP would be regulated by the Department of Public Health (CDPH) as it is currently. No impacts to potable water quality would occur. The CDPH require that well facilities be located at a higher elevation than the I00 -year floodplain. This prevents flood water from infiltrating the underground basin directly and potentially contaminating the ground water supply. To comply with this requirement, the finished (rade of the foundation for the South Cooks Well facility would be raised approximately five feet. This assures that the well foundation would match the existing berm that borders San Juan Creek. That berm is two feet higher than the floodplain and Initial Stud !Environmental Chedklist M33- City of San ,Juan Capistrano, California therefore this elevation complies with the CDPH requirements, This design tequiren-ketzt would assure no significant impact would occur. g) Place hotrving within a I00 yearflood hazard area as mapped on a fideral Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation reap? No Impact Although the pipeline itself would cross the 100 -year flood plain in some locations, the project does not. propose housing or other structures within the 100 -year -flood boundary (County of Orange, 2005). Therefore, no impact would occur. lij Place usithin a 100-yearflood hazard area structures witch would impede or redirectflood,flows? No Impact The proposed pipelines would be underground, and the wells would be located on existing well sites. Only the South Cooks Well would add to the area structures, in that it would be housed ill a structure. This one feature would result in a small but a less than significant increase in development in the area. The finished grade fnr the South Cooks Well facility foundation would be raised to be above the I00 -year flood hazard area, Specifically, it will be raised approximately five feet to match the existing berm that borders San Juan Creek. The berm is two feet higher than the floodplain, and this elevation complies with the CDL'H requirements. Thus the project would not result in a significant impediment or redirection of flood flows in the 100 -year flood zone. ij Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death r'rniviving,flooding, including .flooding cis a result of the failure cif a levee or data? No Impact. The proposed project is not located in a levee or dam inundation area. The project would consist of underground pipelines and two wells, and does not involve habitable structures. The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding from levee or dam failure, j) Inundation by seiche, tsunand, or niudf ow? No .Impact. Construction of the proposed project will take place entirely in the highway right-of-way and will not impact or undercut the slope of the surrounding hills. Also, the creek crossing is above the surge tide of any possible inundation by seiche or tsunami. Therefore, the construction and operation of the pipeline will not increase or impact the natural risk of inundation by sciche, tsunami or raudflow at the project area, and no impacts are anticipated. k). Result in an increase in pollutant dischargav to receiving waters? Consider water quality parameters such as teniperattrre, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical stornitvater pollirtants (e.g. healy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen-delnanding substances, and trash)? No Impact.. During construction a S WPPP will be prepared and would include erosion control measures that would prevent impacts to water quality, Operation is not anticipated to result in any water quality impacts. Ij Result in significant alternation of receiving ranter quality during ot.following construction? No Impact. During construction a SWPPP will be prepared and would include erosion control measures that would prevent impacts to water quality. Operation is not anticipated to result in any water duality impacts. nij Coulcl the propovecl prr�fect rsstilt in increased erosion clownstreciiia.? No IttipflCt Initial stud /Environmental Checklist -34- City of San Juan Capistrano, California Given the project's limited size and tit -ailed impervious surface, the project would produce a relatively low volume of storrawater runoff that would not result in increased downstream erosion. n) Result in increased impervious tiurfaces and associated increased runor? .Less than Signifrcantlotpact The increase in impervious surface and associated runoff is below the significance threshold established by the City for determining a significant impact. See responsel6.8 d) above. o) Create a significant Inverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in run(?fflotiv r ate.s or voluines? Nn Impact The project does not include mass site grading or substantial changes in project site drainage that would alter drainage patterns, or increase runoff flow rates or volumes. See 16.8 c) above. p) Tributary to an already impaired water boily, as lismd on the Clean Waterpct Section 303(d) list? Ifao, can it result in an increase in any pollutan,for which the water body is already impaired? Nn Iinpact. The project site does not agjoin or discharge directly into a federally -listed water body. q) Tributary to other environmentally sansWve areas? �f so, can it exacerbate already exisfing sensitive conditions? No Impact See response to 16.8 p) above. i), Hcttic, a potentially significant environmental impact on surface wetter quality to either that ine, . fresh, or wetland waters? No Impact The project would -trot discharge directly into surface waters nor involve operational characteristics that would result in pollutant discharges into such waters including pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers and similar chemicals. s) Have a potentially .significant adver w impact on groundwater quality? Less than. Significant Irttpact. See response 16.8 b) above. t) Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation nfhengficial uses'? No Impact. 'rhe proposed project will not result in any violation of applicable water quality standards established by the Clean Water fist and implemented by the San Diego Regional Water Quality. Control Board (RWQCB) through the regional National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDI S) permit. See response 15,8 0 above. it) Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? Less than Sign, cant Impact See response 16.8 b) above. t'J Potentially inaperct .storrmrvater rrinoff'frorn construction or Bost construction? Less titan Significant Impact See responsel6.8 a) above Initial Stud !Environmental Checklist -35- City of Scan Juan Capistrano, California w) Result in a potential, for discharge} of storrnrv(ster pollutants, f or t areas of material storage, vehicle, or equipmentfueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste hawfling; hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading= docks or other outdoor work areas? Levs than ,Significant Impact. See response16.8 a) above. x) Result in the potential for discharge of stor rnwater- to n jfect the benef cial rases of rhe receiving waters? No Impact. y) Create the poten7tial. for significant changes, in the flow velocity or volume of storns water r tmgff to cause environmental harm? No Inspact. The project will neither increase the volume nor the velocity of stonnwater flaws, nor indirectly contribute to such impacts as a result of project implementation. Z) Create sigrniftcarnt increaser in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? Lev than ,S'ignificaut Impact. See responsel6.8 c) above. a) Physically diviele tin established community? No Impact. The proposed pipeline involves the construction of an underground pipeline within various right -always including a highway right-of-way. The pipeline would be entirely underground. The proposed wells are replacement wells located on the same site as previous wells, Therefore, the proposed project would spot divide an established community and no impact would occur. b) Conflict with any applicable land u.%, plan, policy, or regulation of an agency i-vith,juriscliction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, speetjic plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) wloptecd.for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The proposed project is subject to the Satz Juan Capistrano General Plan (San Juan Capistrano, 1999). The proposal is an infrastructure project, typically allowed in any plan designation or zoning category, is consistent with the City's Water Master flan, and would not displace or otherwise impact the use of surrounding; land, 4 . tl- 16.9 LAND USE AND .PLANNING. Would the roiect: a. Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ ED b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the General El El C1Plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the'purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community ❑ ❑ ❑ conservationplan? a) Physically diviele tin established community? No Impact. The proposed pipeline involves the construction of an underground pipeline within various right -always including a highway right-of-way. The pipeline would be entirely underground. The proposed wells are replacement wells located on the same site as previous wells, Therefore, the proposed project would spot divide an established community and no impact would occur. b) Conflict with any applicable land u.%, plan, policy, or regulation of an agency i-vith,juriscliction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, speetjic plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) wloptecd.for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The proposed project is subject to the Satz Juan Capistrano General Plan (San Juan Capistrano, 1999). The proposal is an infrastructure project, typically allowed in any plan designation or zoning category, is consistent with the City's Water Master flan, and would not displace or otherwise impact the use of surrounding; land, Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -36- _2Lty of San Juan Capistrano, California Further, all environmental effects would be avoided or mitigated, as described in this document. 'I he project would therefore not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation and no impact would occur. c) Co..ggict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or nattttal community conservation blast? No Impact. See response 16A 0 above. The proposed project would be consistent with the Southern Subregion Coastal Sage.Scrub Natural Community Conservation PIan (NCCP/FICP). No protected species are expected to be removed or impacted during pipeline installation-. No impact would occur. . a) Result in the loss ofavailability ofa knotim mineral resource that would he of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The City's General Pleur and Title 9, Ladd Use Cade would not permit any mineral extraction on or within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the project would have no impact. b) Remelt in the loss oV'avallahility of a locally-imporkint snitterai resource recovery site delineated on a local generell plass, specific pldn or other land ttse plan? Ale Impact. See response 16. 10 a) above. ro H 16.11 NOISE, Would the project - 16. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES, Would the pLoj A: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise Ievels in excess of standards a, Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral, resource that would be of established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable to the region and the residents of the state'? ❑ET Elvalue b, result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbolme vibration or El recovery site delineated on a local general play, specific plan or other land ❑ ® ❑ Z usePlan? c. A substantial permanent increase ill ambient noise levels in the project❑ a) Result in the loss ofavailability ofa knotim mineral resource that would he of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The City's General Pleur and Title 9, Ladd Use Cade would not permit any mineral extraction on or within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the project would have no impact. b) Remelt in the loss oV'avallahility of a locally-imporkint snitterai resource recovery site delineated on a local generell plass, specific pldn or other land ttse plan? Ale Impact. See response 16. 10 a) above. ro 16.11 NOISE, Would the project - a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise Ievels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other a =encies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbolme vibration or El ® ❑ rourldborne Iroise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase ill ambient noise levels in the project❑ vicinityabove levels existingwithout the rolect'? El ❑ d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ Clro'eet vicinit above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two mules of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 excessive noise levels'? Initial Stud fEnvirontnental Checklist -37- City of San Juan Capistrano, California a) Evposure t?fpersons to oi�gertcration vfnoirc levcls in cxccss nfstanclartivatahllshed in tlicfocctlgenerul plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of either agencies? Less than Significant with ,Mitigation Incorporated, The regional noise environment in the community of Sara Juan Capistrano is relatively quiet, with traffic on nearby roads and freeways providing the primary noise source. The farad uses in the project vicinity include open space, parks, residential tracts, commercial businesses and schools. Population density is at a suburban level. Project construction wouldresult it) intermittent, elevated, temporary noise levels in and around the project sites. Construction noise and vibration would result from operation of equipment and vehicles and would fluctuate depending on equipment type, duration of use, and distance'between the noise source and receptor. Construction of the proposed project would temporarily increase ambient noise and vibration levels at nearby sensitive receptors (residences). The nearest residences are located within 50 feet from the proposed pipeline, Implementation of Mitigation Measures N01-1 and NO 1-2, in compliance with the City of San Juan Capistrano noise regulations for construction, would reduce noise and vibration impacts to less,than-significant levels. Mitigation Measures NOW: Noise sources associated with construction, repairs, remodeling, or the grading of any real property shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Monday through .Friday, and from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Saturday. Construction is prohibited all clay Sunday and on Federal holidays. NOW: All construction equipment shall be equipped with available noise suppression devices and properly maintained mu Mors, including "new technology" equipment capable of attenuating exhaust noises by use of. improved mufflers where feasible. All internal combustion engines will be equipped with mufflers as specified by the vehicle manufacturer. All construction equipment will be maintained in good mechanical condition so as to minimize noise created by poorly maintained engines, drive -trains or similar components (e.g. regular engine tune up, engine oil changes, drive train and track adjustment, and moving parts lubrication). N01-3: The equipment staging area will be situated so as to provide the greatest distance separation between construction7,related noise sources and noise -sensitive receptors nearest the Project site during all Proiect construction. N014 If determined necessary by the Utilities Department Director, based on the.planned construction phasing/approach, notification will be given to residences within 300 feet of planned construction activities thirty (30) days prior to commencement of demolition activity, and will include a brief description of the project, the overall duration of the various construction stages, noise abatement measures that will takers, and the narne and phone number of the construction site supervisor or his designee to report any violation of a noise or mitigation standard. N ETosta^e nfpers°ons to orgeneration of exce sivugrounelhorne vibration or°gror,cndborne noise levels? .Gess than Sagr:ificant Impact. y � a � E Por a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose pen le residi or workin in the ro'ect area to excessive noise levels? ❑ ®. a) Evposure t?fpersons to oi�gertcration vfnoirc levcls in cxccss nfstanclartivatahllshed in tlicfocctlgenerul plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of either agencies? Less than Significant with ,Mitigation Incorporated, The regional noise environment in the community of Sara Juan Capistrano is relatively quiet, with traffic on nearby roads and freeways providing the primary noise source. The farad uses in the project vicinity include open space, parks, residential tracts, commercial businesses and schools. Population density is at a suburban level. Project construction wouldresult it) intermittent, elevated, temporary noise levels in and around the project sites. Construction noise and vibration would result from operation of equipment and vehicles and would fluctuate depending on equipment type, duration of use, and distance'between the noise source and receptor. Construction of the proposed project would temporarily increase ambient noise and vibration levels at nearby sensitive receptors (residences). The nearest residences are located within 50 feet from the proposed pipeline, Implementation of Mitigation Measures N01-1 and NO 1-2, in compliance with the City of San Juan Capistrano noise regulations for construction, would reduce noise and vibration impacts to less,than-significant levels. Mitigation Measures NOW: Noise sources associated with construction, repairs, remodeling, or the grading of any real property shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Monday through .Friday, and from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Saturday. Construction is prohibited all clay Sunday and on Federal holidays. NOW: All construction equipment shall be equipped with available noise suppression devices and properly maintained mu Mors, including "new technology" equipment capable of attenuating exhaust noises by use of. improved mufflers where feasible. All internal combustion engines will be equipped with mufflers as specified by the vehicle manufacturer. All construction equipment will be maintained in good mechanical condition so as to minimize noise created by poorly maintained engines, drive -trains or similar components (e.g. regular engine tune up, engine oil changes, drive train and track adjustment, and moving parts lubrication). N01-3: The equipment staging area will be situated so as to provide the greatest distance separation between construction7,related noise sources and noise -sensitive receptors nearest the Project site during all Proiect construction. N014 If determined necessary by the Utilities Department Director, based on the.planned construction phasing/approach, notification will be given to residences within 300 feet of planned construction activities thirty (30) days prior to commencement of demolition activity, and will include a brief description of the project, the overall duration of the various construction stages, noise abatement measures that will takers, and the narne and phone number of the construction site supervisor or his designee to report any violation of a noise or mitigation standard. N ETosta^e nfpers°ons to orgeneration of exce sivugrounelhorne vibration or°gror,cndborne noise levels? .Gess than Sagr:ificant Impact. Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist -38- City of San Juan Capistrano, California See response 16.11 a) above. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ahoiv levels "fsting without the project? No Impact Fallowing construction, pipelines would be located below ground. The project would not include any surface structures other than minor pipeline appurtenances. Therefore, no permanent noise impacts would occur. d) A substantial tempora,), orpei-ioclic increase in ainbient noise levels in thepl°gject vicinity alcove levels existing without the project Less tlsan Sigssi?fscant wills Mitigation Incorporated. . As noted above, the implementation of the proposed project may result in short-term increased noise levels within the project vicinity due to construction activities. This temporary condition would cease upon project completion and is subject to the City's noise mitigation guidelines. See response 16.11 a) above. e) 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 orpublic use airport, ��nuld tlrepr�lect. experselreoplc resiclin� or st�t�rkirt�,r ire lire prgject area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. As previously stated, the prop6sed project is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest airport, John Wayne -Santa Ana, is located approximately 20 plus miles northwest and given the project's distance from that airport, no impacts ate anticipated. .)9 For a prgjecl within the vicinity rtfaprivate air wrip, would theproject e posepeopleresidingorworking in the project area to exce.vxiw noise levels? No Impact. The proposed project is not located within two miles of a.,private airstrip. The proposed project would not result in pennanent personnel at the project site. 'Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels and no impact would occur. a) Induce .substantial 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 irtfrctstructure,)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would improve the local water system, providing water for existing and General Plan - anticipated development within the City,of San Juan Capistrano. The City's goal with this project is to increase the water sources to reach the treatment capacity of the GWRP with the re-establishment of two wells and the introduction of the pipeline to convey. The project would provide up to approxitnately 2,583 acre-feet per year z ISa k 2 4p L - � � � �• �'�" ? ii ebb � i 1.6.12 POPULATION & HOUSING. Would the project,, a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses or indirectly (for example, through ❑ © M El extension of roans or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the � Q El ED construction of replacement housingelsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of peopic, necessitating the construction of El El Z] replacement bousin Y elsewhere? a) Induce .substantial 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 irtfrctstructure,)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would improve the local water system, providing water for existing and General Plan - anticipated development within the City,of San Juan Capistrano. The City's goal with this project is to increase the water sources to reach the treatment capacity of the GWRP with the re-establishment of two wells and the introduction of the pipeline to convey. The project would provide up to approxitnately 2,583 acre-feet per year Initial Stud ]Environmental Checklist -39 City of San Juan Capistrano, California (2,30-mgd) of additional potable water. The proposed project would not directly contribute to the creation of additional ]lousing or jobs within the, City of San Juan Capistrano or the County ofUrange. Water supplied from the local groundwater basin for potable use would reduce the demand for imported water. As the project is designed to serve existing and General flan, -anticipated development within the City of San Juan Capistrano, the project would not induce unplanned population growth. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Displace substantialnumberrnfaximinghou in�;,necessitatingthecon tructionvfrephicementhousing alsewher e? No Impact The proposed project is limited to the installation of water main conveyance pipeline underground with no permanent change in above -ground laird uses, and re-establishment of two wells at their current locations. The project would not displace any (lousing, c) Displace suhstaiiiial iifiii?.hery (?fpeople, ?ieceSsitciting th(,,con truction of replac6,itleni housing Ll..sewl7er("? No Impact. See response 16.12 a) and 16.12 b) above. 1) Fire protection? No Impact. Proposed project implementation would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, 2) Police pf otection? No Irripact. There are no significant impacts related to police protection or service anticipated with implementation of the proposed prosect. 3) Schools? No Impact. 16.13 .PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services, Fie Protection? F1 El 0 Z Police Protection? ❑ ,^..., ❑ E Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Other public facilities? 1) Fire protection? No Impact. Proposed project implementation would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, 2) Police pf otection? No Irripact. There are no significant impacts related to police protection or service anticipated with implementation of the proposed prosect. 3) Schools? No Impact. Initial Stud /Environrnental Checklist -40- City of San Juan'Ca istrano California Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the need for the construction o(additional school facilities. Therefore, no impacts in this regard will occur. 4) Par=ks? No Impact Irnplem. entation of the proposed project will not affect any existing park facilities nor increase the demand for additional recreational facilities. Wherefore, no impacts to parks are anticipated as a result of this project. 5) Otlzer• Izrablic facilities? No Iftapact. No significant impacts to other public facilities are anticipated to occur with project irnplementation. ca) Would the project increase the use of aristing neighbor hood and regionalparlcv or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of thefitcility m1ould occur or he accelerated? Lass drat SigniTcant with A itigation Incorporated. The proposed project would construct an underground water pipeline and re-establish two existing wells. The project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities and no impact would occur. Nor would the proposed project require the construction of additional recreational facilities. However, the project would temporarily disrupt the bike path during constt action of the pipeline resulting in a potentially significant impact to recreation. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure REC-1, which would require a bike path construction detour plan, impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures REC-1: Prior to the issuance of the construction permit the contractor shall prepare and implement a construction detour plan for the bike path subject to Utilities Department review and approval in consultation with the Community Services Department. h) Does the prgject include recreational farcilifies or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities Which Might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. See response 16.14a) above. TP 12K 16.14 RECREATION. Would (lie 2Loject., a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical ❑ ❑ ❑ deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical 0 Q ❑ effect on the environment? ca) Would the project increase the use of aristing neighbor hood and regionalparlcv or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of thefitcility m1ould occur or he accelerated? Lass drat SigniTcant with A itigation Incorporated. The proposed project would construct an underground water pipeline and re-establish two existing wells. The project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities and no impact would occur. Nor would the proposed project require the construction of additional recreational facilities. However, the project would temporarily disrupt the bike path during constt action of the pipeline resulting in a potentially significant impact to recreation. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure REC-1, which would require a bike path construction detour plan, impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures REC-1: Prior to the issuance of the construction permit the contractor shall prepare and implement a construction detour plan for the bike path subject to Utilities Department review and approval in consultation with the Community Services Department. h) Does the prgject include recreational farcilifies or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities Which Might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. See response 16.14a) above. Initial Stud (Environmental Checklist -41- City of San Juan Capistrano, California a) Would the prnject ca=e an increase to tra c which is substantial in relation to the crisling trgf c load and capacity of the street. system (i. e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Less than Significant with Mitigation .incorporated. The pipeline would be installed within a five month period, and would temporarily disrupt individual segments for Iess, tithe. These segments include a parking lot area, as well as some roadway and bike path crossings. Asa result, the construction activity would have the potential to have temporary construction impact. However, the implementation of a traffic control platy during construction would reduce traffic firipacts to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures TRAMS -I: Prior to the issuance of the construction pert -nit the contractor shall develop and implement a traffic control plan subject to prior review and approval by the City Engineer or his designee. The traffic.control plan] shall include the limitation of constructions to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Saturday. Construction is prohibited all day Sunday and on Federal holidays. b) Exceed, either individually or Cumulatively, a level clf ,service standard established by the counttt congestion management agency,for designated roads or highways? Less than Significant. See response 16.15 a) above. c) Result in a change inair traffic patterns, including either can inCaease in traffic levels or a change in location that, i-esults in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The project will not induce unplanned population growth, and therefore would not affect increased air traffic patterns (see section 12.1 (a) above). No impact would occur. 16.15 TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would the ro'eet.. a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing; traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial E-1❑ increase in either the number of vehicle trips, thevolume to capacity ratio on ❑ roans or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestionhnanage€neat agency for designated ❑ ❑ j� (� roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic ❑ levels or a Change in location that results in substantial safety risks? ❑ Q d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or 11 El Eldan ,erm intersections or incom atible uses e.., farm a ui €nent ? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting; alternative ❑ ❑ N ❑ transportation (e. Y., bus turnouts, bicycle racks ? a) Would the prnject ca=e an increase to tra c which is substantial in relation to the crisling trgf c load and capacity of the street. system (i. e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Less than Significant with Mitigation .incorporated. The pipeline would be installed within a five month period, and would temporarily disrupt individual segments for Iess, tithe. These segments include a parking lot area, as well as some roadway and bike path crossings. Asa result, the construction activity would have the potential to have temporary construction impact. However, the implementation of a traffic control platy during construction would reduce traffic firipacts to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures TRAMS -I: Prior to the issuance of the construction pert -nit the contractor shall develop and implement a traffic control plan subject to prior review and approval by the City Engineer or his designee. The traffic.control plan] shall include the limitation of constructions to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Saturday. Construction is prohibited all day Sunday and on Federal holidays. b) Exceed, either individually or Cumulatively, a level clf ,service standard established by the counttt congestion management agency,for designated roads or highways? Less than Significant. See response 16.15 a) above. c) Result in a change inair traffic patterns, including either can inCaease in traffic levels or a change in location that, i-esults in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The project will not induce unplanned population growth, and therefore would not affect increased air traffic patterns (see section 12.1 (a) above). No impact would occur. Initial Stud lEnvlronmental Checklist -42- City of San Jinn Capistrano, California d) ,Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No impact The proposed :project would not clzange the configuration (alignment) of area roadways, and would not introduce types of vehicles that are not already traveling on area roads. The project would not result in increased hazards to design features. e) Result in inadequate entergency access? ,Gess than Significant impact. The project would be subject to City and/or Caltrans emergency access plans (depending upon the pipeline segment). The project involves temporary, minor disruptions of land area and traffic and parking patterns for short amounts of time (up to five months in total). The project would comply with temporary traffic control plans, and its impact would be less than significant. ,J) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Less than Significant. The project would temporarily disrupt parking at Calle Arroyo Cottages parking lot and it would add a short term parking demand for construction workers and construction vehicles as the crew moves along the installation alignment, As a result, the construction activity would have the potential to have temporary parking impact on on -street guest parking. However, the implementation of a traffic control plan during construction would reduce parking impacts to below a level of significance. Operation of the proposed project would not result in parking dernand except for limited maintenance vehicles. Maintenance vehicle parking could be accommodated along the shoulders of area roadways or in park parking lots. See mitigation measure Trans- I' above. gj Conflict with aclopted ,policies, plans; 0" programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Less than Signgricartt Impact The community of San Juan Capistrano has an extensive network of bike and pedestrian trails. As the project pipeline will be installed under area bike paths, temporary disruption would occur. However, no permanent changes would occur, Re -surfacing of the bike path where disrupted for the pipeline would comply with City requirements and the Uniform Building Code. Impact would be temporary and less than significant. C G Q b A 71 15.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Applicable Regional Water QualityControl Board'? ❑ ❑ ❑ b. Require or result in the construction of nes' water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could ❑ ❑ ❑ CD cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause ❑ ❑ ❑ significant enviromuctital effects`) d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or ex andcd entitlements needed? 11 F1 ❑ Initial Stud /Environmental Checklist -43- City of Sats Juan Capistrano, California a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable regional LPater Qualify Control Board? No Impact. The proposed project is limited to the construction and operation of a recycled water pipeline and two wells. Water would be treated to potable water standards at the GWRP. however, the proposed project would affect any wastewater treatment infrastructure_ No impact would Occur. h) Require, or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment f rcilities or expansion of existing,facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. Water conveyed by the project would be treated to potablewater standards at the existing GWRP. The project would. not require the construction of a new water or wastewater treatment plants or other such facilities. Therefore, no impacts would occur. c) Require or- result in the construction of new stormwater drainage,facilities or expansion of existing .facilities,the construction (?f which could cause significant environniental effects? No Impact. The project would not require the construction of new storinwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, no impacts would occur. d) Have ,sufficient watersupplies• available to serve theprgjest from e-visting entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlensents needed? No Impact, The proposed project is consistent with the San Juan Capistrano General flan, (Sark Juan Capistrano, 1999) and the San Juan Capistrano Water Master Plan. The project would enhance service flexibility of the system. No adverse impacts to the water supply would occur; a beneficial impact would result. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which sen es or Wray serve the prgject, that it has ackquate capacity to serve the projects projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? No Impact. See response 16.16 d) above. f) Be served by a landfill with sttfcient permittee/ capacity to accommodate the projecf',r ,solid waste disposal needs? Less than Significant Impact. Solid waste generation would be limited to minimal construction activities; however much of the pipeline alignment requires demolition of existing pawing and asphalt. This would create construction debris that could add to area landfill demands, on a temporary basis during demolition. z a e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or in ay serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projects ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 projected demand in addition to the provider=s existing commitments? £ Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accormrnodate the projeet-s solid waste disposal needs`? El El ❑ g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid ❑ E) Elwaste? a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable regional LPater Qualify Control Board? No Impact. The proposed project is limited to the construction and operation of a recycled water pipeline and two wells. Water would be treated to potable water standards at the GWRP. however, the proposed project would affect any wastewater treatment infrastructure_ No impact would Occur. h) Require, or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment f rcilities or expansion of existing,facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. Water conveyed by the project would be treated to potablewater standards at the existing GWRP. The project would. not require the construction of a new water or wastewater treatment plants or other such facilities. Therefore, no impacts would occur. c) Require or- result in the construction of new stormwater drainage,facilities or expansion of existing .facilities,the construction (?f which could cause significant environniental effects? No Impact. The project would not require the construction of new storinwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, no impacts would occur. d) Have ,sufficient watersupplies• available to serve theprgjest from e-visting entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlensents needed? No Impact, The proposed project is consistent with the San Juan Capistrano General flan, (Sark Juan Capistrano, 1999) and the San Juan Capistrano Water Master Plan. The project would enhance service flexibility of the system. No adverse impacts to the water supply would occur; a beneficial impact would result. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which sen es or Wray serve the prgject, that it has ackquate capacity to serve the projects projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? No Impact. See response 16.16 d) above. f) Be served by a landfill with sttfcient permittee/ capacity to accommodate the projecf',r ,solid waste disposal needs? Less than Significant Impact. Solid waste generation would be limited to minimal construction activities; however much of the pipeline alignment requires demolition of existing pawing and asphalt. This would create construction debris that could add to area landfill demands, on a temporary basis during demolition. Initial Stud (Environmental Checklist -44- Ci of San Juan Ca istrano, California The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) required each local jurisdiction to divert 50 percent of discarded materials from landfills beginning on January 1, 2004 and to maintain that level of diversion in subsequent years. Diversion includes recycling and reuse, where applicable. As part of the City's diversion program, it established a Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste Recycling Program (Ordinance No. 887 and Resolutions No. 03-11-04-04) to help in diverting C&D waste ft-onr landfills. The ordinance will require during demolition that the project divert of 50 percent of project concrete and asphalt construction debris, and 15 percent of its remaining debris. The ordinance further requires that, 50 perrent diversion of all construction debris associated with construction (following dernolition) efforts. With implementation of the City's diversion program, project impacts would be considered less than significant. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid 1vaste? No :frraparct. The contractor would be required to comply with all pertinent regulations regarding the disposal of solid waste generated by construction activities, including the safe disposal of any hazardous materials. Therefore, no impacts would occur. cr) Does the prgject have the potential to substantially degrade the duality of the environment, ,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wilcllife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop helox, set(- sustaining efsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a fare or endangered plant or to airnal or chininate important e amples g f the ma jorperiocl.s of Ca4fornica histoay or prehistory? Gess thatr Sigarir1caant with Mitigation Incotpora led. Based on the analysis above (sections 16.1 through 16.16), the proposed underground municipal pipeline and well project with mitigation incorporated (as specified where appropriate above) will not degrade the quality of the envirortirient or substantially reduce the habitat offish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife species population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the `,.% W 16.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNII:ICANCE. Would the project. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality ofthe environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to decrease below self- sustaining levels, threaten to �] ® ❑ ❑ eliminate a plant or animal co"mi ruaity, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or rehistoty? b. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable ("Cumulatively considerable" means the projects ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ incremental effects are considerable when compared to the past, present, and future effects of other ro'ects ? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will have substantial Cl ® © ❑ adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirect) ? d. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -tern to the disadvantage ❑ ❑ Z ❑ of fon -term, environmentalgoals? cr) Does the prgject have the potential to substantially degrade the duality of the environment, ,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wilcllife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop helox, set(- sustaining efsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a fare or endangered plant or to airnal or chininate important e amples g f the ma jorperiocl.s of Ca4fornica histoay or prehistory? Gess thatr Sigarir1caant with Mitigation Incotpora led. Based on the analysis above (sections 16.1 through 16.16), the proposed underground municipal pipeline and well project with mitigation incorporated (as specified where appropriate above) will not degrade the quality of the envirortirient or substantially reduce the habitat offish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife species population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the Initial Study 1 nvlronmental Checklist -45- City of San Juan Capistrano, California number or restrict the range of a tare or endangered plant or animal species, or elitninate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, Potential impacts associated with the implementation of the pipeline project would be less than significant. b) Doan the prgject have inzpacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the increntental effects of cr project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects gfpctst prefects, the gfleats cfother current. prgjects, and the L�ffecfs cfprobably future prgfects)? Less titan Significant Impact. The proposed project's environmental impacts would be limited to short-term construction impacts which would be reduced to less -than -significant levels with implementation of mitigation measures identified in this document. Therefore, the project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts. c) Have environmental efleery that will cense substantial adverse c feca on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Leet than Significant with Mitigation Incorparcttccl. The responses to the environmental checklist questions above (see sections 16.1-16.16) show that the project would not have environmental effects that would have substantial adverse impacts on humans, with impletrentation of the proposed mitigation treasures. d) Have the potential to achieve short�term environmental goaly to the disadvantage of long-terin environmental goals? Less than Significant Impact, The proposed project would improve the water distribution systetr in the City. All impacts from the proposed project arc temporary in nature, limited in extent, and would be reduced to less -than -significant levels with implementation of mitigation treasures identified in this document. The proposal project is consistent with future growth that is anticipated as pant of the City of Santa Juan Capistrano General flan (San Juan Capistrano, 1999). As a result, the project does not achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long- terin environmental goals. 17. PREPARATION. The initial study for thesubject project was prepared by: Kevin Smith, Project Manager Environmental Science Associates *Q % STATE OF CALIFORNIA VEMWS OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH STATE CLE0WGHOUSEAn PLVMNG U 't' " AMMU)SMMEMOGM Lxoa �nx Bss�3ra Dt�scrnR Januazy2l, 2010 UTILITY DEPARTMENT Joe Mankawich JAN 2 8 201D City of San Juan Capistrano 32400 Paseo Adalanta CETy OF San Juan Capistrano, CA 92575 SAN JUM JSTRANO Subject: San Juan Capistrano Eastern Wells and Pipeline Project SCEW 2009121056 Dear Joe Ma;nkawich The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on January 19, 2010, and no state agencies submitted consents by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pumnatat to the California Eanviro=ental Quality Act. Please can the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-061:3 if you have any questions regarding the envimnrndntal review process. If you have a question about the above-namod project, please refer to the fizz -digit State Clearingbouse number wbim contacting this ofEce. Sinceieiy, tt Mama Acting Director, State Clearinghouse 140010thStreet P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, Callforuaa 95812 4044 (916} 445-0613 PAX(916)325-3018 v.opr.ea.gov Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2009921058 PiWect title San Juan Capistrano Eastern Wells and Pipeline Project Lead Agency San .loan Capistrano, City of Type MND Mitigated Negative declaration Aescrfpdon The proposed project would consist of the construction of two replacement groundwater production wells, along with a collection pipeline. The proposed South Cook Parte Well and Well 5A are two of the seventeen wells identified In the diversion permit. The proposed collection pipeline would connect the tura replacement wells, South Cook Park Well and Well 5A, plus a third existing well, Tirador Well, to form a groundwater collection system in the vicinity of San Juan Creek and south of Calle Arroyo. The collection system would supply wafer from the San Juan Groundwater Basin (basin) to the City of San Juan Capistrano's Groundwater Recovery Plant (GWRP, located at 32470 Paseo Adelanto) for treatment before being introduced Into the pubilo water supply system. The treatment consists of removing iron, manganese and total dissolved solids (TDS) from the groundwater. The current capacity of the GWRP Is 5.1 mgd (5,712 afy) which Is within the limits allocated by the diversion permit of 8,026 afy. The addition of the proposed South Cook Parse Well and Well 5A along with the current operating wells will not exceed the allotted amount of water to be extracted under the diversion permit. The GW RP is currently fed by six (8) wells In the basin. Danoe Hall, "nrador, CVWD No, 9, CVWD No. 2, SJBA No, 2, and SJBA No. 4. Phase 1 of the GWRP required 8 wells to feed the GWRP. The South Cool Parte Well and Well 5A will complete the well roquirements under Phase 1 for the GWRP, and will allow for effective management of the basin water. The purpose of the two replacement !^astern Wells (South Cook Park Well and Well 5A) Is to provide system reliability and ultimately Improve the flexibility of portable water production from these existing group of wells. Lead Agency Contact Mame Joe Mankawich Agency City of San Juan Capistrano ;Phone 949-4874313 Fax email Address 37400 Paseo Adelanto City San Juan Capistrano State CA 2Jp 92675 Project Location County Orange City San Juan Caplstrano Region Lail Long Cross Streets Calle Arroyo and Rancho Viejo Road Parcel No. Township Range Section Baso Proximity to. Highways Airports Railways Waterways Schools Land Use This project site has a General Pian land use designation of San Juan Creek and the adjolninrJ bank areas as "1.0 -General Open Space", and C. Russell Cook Park is designated "1 .3- Community Park". The zoning "GNS"i (general open space); Park is 'CP' Community Park. HWY 5, 74 OCTA Metrolink RR San Juan Creek, Oso Creek, Trabuco Creek. Homo Creak Note: Sl`diilCq in dstn fnrrfc rP.SI IIf fmm [Mel EFFEr Ian i„fr wr,n+u . ..... A'4 -.r 1... t....,, ..--- - - Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base Project Issues Water Supply; Water Quality; Vegetaion; iraffic/Circulatlori; Toxlc/H=rdous; Sol] i roslan/Contpaction/Crading; Public Services; Noise; Geologic/ Seismic; Landuse; Cumulative Effects; Drainage/Absorption; Biological Resources; Archaeologic-Hisioric; Air Quality; Aesthetic/Visual Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Game, Region b; Department of Parks and Recreation; Agencies Department of Water Resources; Califamla Highway PaW; Caltrans, District 92; Depar#ment of Health Services, State Water Resources Control Board, Divison of Financial Assistance; State Water Resources Control Hoard, Division. of Water nights; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8; Native American Heritage Commission; Public utilities Commission Date Received IMI/2oo9 Start Of Rovlew 12/2112009 End AfRevieW 01/19/2010 Note: Blanks In data fields result from insufficient information nrav,ded by unci ohonmj