Loading...
Resolution Number 12-12-11-04 RESOLUTION NO. 12-12-11-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE REATA PARK AND EVENT CENTER MASTER PLAN LOCATED AT 28632-28652 ORTEGA HIGHWAY, SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA (ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER: 125- 172-27) (REATA PARK AND EVENT CENTER) Whereas, on June 5, 2012, the City Council endorsed a Conceptual Master Plan, prepared and submitted by the San Juan Capistrano Open Space Foundation (SJCOSF), which would establish a passive community park on about 12 acres of the 18.4-acre site. The Conceptual Plan proposed several features, including a welcome center, event areas, equestrian staging areas (to access the nearby equestrian trail), native landscaping, parking areas, trails and restrooms on property located at 28632- 28652 Ortega Highway which is General Plan-designated "GOS" (General Open Space) and classified as "GOS" (General Open Space) on the Official Zoning Map; and, Whereas, on June 5, 2012, the City Council approved a Consultant Agreement with Ed Almanza & Associates for the preparation of the environmental review for the proposed Park Master Plan; and, Whereas, the proposed project has been processed pursuant to Section 9-2.301, Development Review of the Land Use Code; and, Whereas, the Environmental Administrator has prepared an Initial Study (IS) pursuant to Section 15063 and 15064 of the CEQA Guidelines; has issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to Section 15070 of those guidelines; has caused a Notice of Availability of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to be posted with the County Clerk-Recorder pursuant to Section 15072 of those guidelines; has provided the State Clearinghouse with the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for review by State agencies (State Clearinghouse No. 2012101033); has otherwise complied with all applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (1970); and all mitigation measures have been included herein; and, Whereas, on March 26, 2012, the Open Space, Trails & Equestrian Commission and the Parks, Recreation & Senior Services Commission conducted a joint meeting to review and provide comments on the Conceptual Passive Park Master Plan. The Commissions provided several comments and suggestions to staff and to the SJCOSF; and, Whereas, on April 5, 2012, the Design Review Committee reviewed the project and provided several design specific comments and requested that the project be referred back to the Committee for review of the project details; and, Whereas, on April 10, 2012, and April 24, 2012, the Planning Commission reviewed the project and provided comments; and, 1 12-11-2012 Whereas, on April 17, 2012, the Utilities Commission reviewed the project and provided comments; and, Whereas, on June 5, 2012, the City Council reviewed and endorsed the conceptual Master Plan and approved seven staff-recommended motions that allowed staff to commence the environmental review of the project. In addition, the City Council appropriated $100,000 to CIP 12201 to fund the CEQA consultant, staff time, maintenance plan and a security plan; and, Whereas, the Planning Commission conducted a duly-noticed public meeting on October 23, 2012, pursuant to the provisions of Title 9, Land Use Code, Section 9- 2.302, Public Meeting Procedures, Administrative Policy 409, and Planning Department Policy 510 to consider public testimony on the proposed project and has considered all relevant public comment; and, Whereas, the Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Administrator's determination pursuant to Section 15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has considered all project environmental documentation and technical studies; and, Whereas, the City Council conducted a duly-noticed public meeting on December 11, 2012, pursuant to the provisions of Title 9, Land Use Code, Section 9-2.302, Public Meeting Procedures, Administrative Policy 409, and Planning Department Policy 510 to the Environmental Administrator's determination pursuant to Section 15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and project environmental documentation and technical studies, and to consider public testimony on the proposed project and has considered all relevant public comment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Juan Capistrano does hereby make the following findings with respect to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND): 1. The City Council finds that on the basis of the evidence presented and the whole record before it, including the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), and comments received, that there is no substantial evidence in the record that the proposed project, after imposition of the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, will have a significant effect on the environment; and, 2. The City Council further finds that the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis; and, 2 12-11-2012 3. The record of proceedings on which the City Council's decision is based is located at City Hall for the City of San Juan Capistrano, located at 32400 Paseo Adelanto, San Juan Capistrano, California and the custodian of record of proceedings is the City Clerk. 4. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration subject to those mitigation measures established by Exhibit A, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program (MMRP), attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11" day of December 2012. i -JOHN TAYLOR, MAYOR ATTEST:: \ MAR 0 IS, CITY CL I� STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO ) I, MARIA MORRIS, appointed City Clerk of the City of San Juan Capistrano, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 12-12-11-04 was duly adopted by the Cit Council of the City of San Juan Capistrano at a Regular meeting thereof, held the 11` day of December 2012, by the following vote: AYES: C UNCIL MEMBERS: Byrnes, Kramer, Allevato and Mayor Taylor NOES: IC UNCIL MEMBER: Reeve ABSEN UNCIL MEMBER: None MR i Clerk ARkA 3 12-11-2012 RECEIVED POSTED OCT 0 9 2012 OCT 0 5 20112 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TOMDALY.MERPI RECORDER 4 DEPUT Y ft- NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9 From: Development Services Department 32400 Paseo Adelanto San Juan Capistrano,California 92678 -Subject: A Master Plan and Capital Improvement Project (CIP #12201) for the development of Reata Park and Event Center located at 28632-28652 Ortega Highway, San Juan Capistrano, California. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of San Juan Capistrano has prepared and intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND)in connection with the subject project.The MND identifies potential effects with respect to biological resources, cultural resources, hazards&hazardous materials,water quality and land use planning.The MND also includes proposed mitigation measures that will ensure that the proposed project will not result in any significant,adverse effects on the environment.The City's decision to prepare a MND should not be construed as a recommendation of either approval or denial of this project.The Initial Study which serves as the basis for the MND is available for public review and can be found on the City's website at http://sanivancar)istrano.oMLindex.aspx?pane=739 and is available in the Development Services Department at City Hall located at 32400 Paseo Adelanto. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is approval and implementation of a Master Plan which would establish a predominantly passive community park on about 12 acres of the 18.4-acre site. The Conceptual Plan proposes several features, including a welcome center (located in an historical ranch house), event areas (for weddings, parties and barbeques), equestrian staging areas (to access the nearby equestrian trail), native landscaping, parking areas, trails and restrooms. A portion of the park is within conservation easement lands enrolled in the Southern Sub- region Habitat Reserve, a planned 32,000 plus acre habitat reserve. These lands are subject to the conditions of the easement and to the terms of a sub-regional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), a Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) and a Master Streambed Alteration Agreement (MSAA). PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: the public review period is from Tuesday, October 9, 2012 to Thursday, November 8, 2012. PROJECT MANAGER: Mr. David Contreras,Senior Planner;phone:(949)443-6320;e-mail: dcontreras(asanivancapistrano.orq; Fax number: (949) 661-5451;mailing address: Development Services Department, 32400 Paseo Adelanto, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the City invites members of the general public to review EXHIBIT A and comment on this environmental documentation. Written comments may be mailed,-e- mailed, or faxed to the project manager. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Development Services Department located in City Hall at 32400 Paseo Adelanto.The City's Planning Commission and City Council will conduct public meetings at future dates to be determined. You will receive a separate public notice for those meetings. If you challenge this project in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised during the public review period on the proposed Negative Declaration (ND)or at the future public meetings. POSTED By order of William Ramsey,AICP Environmental Administrator OCT '0 5 2012 TON U&y.CLER4MMIMEH DEPU l i 2 Reata Park and Event Center Master Plan (CIP 12201 ) Public Review Draft Initial Study Development Services Department City of San Juan Capistrano 32400 Paseo Adelanto San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 prepared by Ed Almanza & Associates October 2012 3 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -2- City of San Juan Capistrano, California 1. PROJECT: Reata Park and Event Center Master Plan(Capital Improvement Project 12201) 2. LEAD AGENCY: City of San Juan Capistrano 3. CONTACT PERSON&PHONE: David Contreras,Senior Planner, Project Manager; (949)443-6320. 4. PROJECT LOCATION:The project is located at 28632-28652 Ortega Highway,San Juan Capistrano, California.The 18.4 acre site is on the south side of Ortega Highway,at the eastern limits of the City of San Juan Capistrano(see Exhibit 1,Regional Location Map;Exhibit 2,Project Vicinity Map and Exhibit 3, Project Site). 5. APPLICANT: San Juan Capistrano Open Space Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit, public benefit corporation 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The General Plan Land Use Element's Land Use Policy Map designates the site"GOS•(General Open Space)which provides for an individual use or combination of the uses listed in other open space and recreation designations including outdoor recreational facilities such as golf courses, swimming schools,tennis clubs and equestrian clubs; small neighborhood parks serving residential areas; major active recreation sites serving a larger population/geographic area; specialized forms of recreational activity;active and passive recreational activities serving a geographic area extending beyond the City; natural open space land preserving highly visible open space areas and allowing equestrian/hiking trails and public utilities. Site specific uses are determined during review of development applications. 7. ZONING: The site is zoned "GOS" (General Open Space) which provides for the possible combined development of several of the open space uses or the individual development of one of the uses specifically allowed by the other open space districts in accordance with the General Plan. 8. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:The project is approval and implementation of a Master Plan forthe site in the form of a conceptual park plan that identifies proposed amenities,improvements and park activities(see Exhibit 5, Conceptual Plan). Detailed descriptions of the project site, proposed uses and facilities are presented below: Project Site The 18.4 acre project site,part of a 132-acre open space acquisition,was purchased in January 2010 by the City of San Juan Capistrano from Rancho Mission Viejo with bond funding provided by the City's 2008 Open Space Bond effort(Measure Y)approved by City voters. The site was formerly part of the Rancho Mission Viejo's Ranch Plan (a 7,694 acre planned development approved by the County of Orange in 2004),which designated the site for future development as senior housing.(At the same time, the City also purchased Parcel 7, known as the"Riding Park', a 70.6 acre parcel immediately to the east of San Juan Creek.) The entire 132-acre property including the project site, along with Parcel 7,was annexed to the City in 2009. Exhibit 4 shows the site in its current state. Existing features onsite include: • A small orange grove(218 Valencia orange trees)has been planted on approximately 1.2 acres along the frontage on Ortega Highway; • A gravel road leading from the access driveway at Ortega Highway and Reata Road into the site's interior; • Eight existing structures: two vacant residences(formerly occupied by employees of Rancho Mission Viejo)each with a garage and shed;three enclosed bams;and one open-framed pavilion with a metal roof and concrete slab floor. 4 Redid Park and Event Center I INITIAL STUDY Viiia Park p 'S Ora ea D! Park Acres Garden Orange ` ElMwicna Grove Nmllrova f"Y 'rvasni�smn Norm Tustin as ster ss• V Tustin Santa Ana �•_, „��„a "''° cam main Er«k,a,n eo.00 Lata ie Iley Cknrna C?J Repsol Park Ponola Hills lohn'8lavne - va, Foothill f.npon Irvine Rat + Ornipe cauxr % Val Park Trmmo sanma Int C-... Heghtms - 4aaF•r Lake Forest Rancho Santa Costa Mesa o...n.. Q Margane Tum.Rasa ,n Laguna Newport e.,.- woods Mission Beach "'a, Viejo (H- 11) Bamoa ' Laguna Hills Coto De ci,W ca” Las Floras Caza sna-Paix 4 L.rnWarl neCoast se roil, ciao Viejo Galrvan Ca,,u kR•alon•I Pmt Laguna a«a Beach ,, Laguna Niguel p (14) SO Sooutr Sen Joan ,AREATAPARKAND Capistrano EVENTCENTER x+o.a:rn eee<i, .9>,=Ban Dane Point l'J San Clemente San emire 4 Slnle Beam v _. 5'urvrc:Googfr Map,2011 R Exhibit 7 ® Regional Location 5 � :ry r I/ REATA PARK Ortega 1- BtL a.Y .� •' - • AND EVENT CENTER wo 71� v ee i i E • ';L��i�`�� 'JacL � ' I� til � �N . y 7 1 tl l pY�; ; ( f [ Reata Park and Event Center INITIAL STUDY s f gnMY Mn' 1 K• •:p �� 4 iY' G� v RJ W� AM 40 ]WIA/ Y 1 s�,..«:C.-�Js�„/�•,,,�r.pa,.ono Exhibit 3 Aerial View of Proposed Park Site Reata Park and Event Center INITIAL STUDY Structure aro Ak- �„ Existing 1 _ � �"�'. R• �'S S' 1 ".",Y Lemon Grov� n. y �•" • f M 4 N • � Apo Sensitive x ; • Resource . x • rte` eAa - Area .r� 11 /^ r. & e Exhibit4 Reata Park Site- Existing Features I 1 1 [ I--- C-. Reata Park and Event Center INITIAL STUDY �p 13 i M. .Ix '' a ... q -. ..—..�ueIDr � N 4 1 'oarm-,out j ®w[xu�nxrumxv�rpum \ li °�• -::. V— � 0wxwa�.m:sm.twwxx �w F, n. n.nvumYwxw.v mnxvxma y: iu orw.n.n y:ux6nmsau'p°`mxowtw'ww.x< wmuawtxxxwxxwn buxw_.mx xt.c twn�iu bl_mx euocwumw ...mwv.wruas.uaa.om:cxMuu �xyN,StrN�gara amcuwnIIu nj. �U�w u.an .:u:.cav � ro .�as�cw+.w.xaw.. OO b. ru aJ�m�vuu nunrA' b.n.utnsn�w.urs g: ;m M�x:nu...rs &J mxnuum af....a umwmn.w n+uvuw.>ivm+o.:M V` wloYalOutM .vm[w[ao �xJ' tws'.`w`°..w� rs.[sv j. [ub bM j. wwm J. w:M. a,uv brn tnwr _ .mwrwo.mmmrtm:.w j. cawt atrrcutt Onnwmrmt.cwu:arnxuav :. som....L.,:d a..I Exhibit 5 Conceptual Park Plan Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -3- City of San Juan Capistrano.California • Several mature native sycamores,oaks and elderberry trees occupy the site,along with non-native pepper trees(Brazilian and California),elm,cypress,avocado and other fruit trees. Most of the non- native trees are in the vicinity of the residences. • The western 2 acres directly adjoining the Oaks Equestrian Center to the west is within an overhead transmission power line easement owned by Southern California Edison. This portion of the site is separated from the rest of the site by a fence and is occupied by horse corrals, under a lease arrangement with The Oaks, a privately owned equestrian facility, in addition to the overhead lines. • A narrow 1.06 acre strip immediately adjacent to Ortega Highway is Caltrans right-of-way. • The extreme eastern end of the property is the site of a concrete drop structure and service road owned and maintained by Santa Margarita Water District,which accommodates flow from a tributary of San Juan Creek. Under the provisions of the existing lease with Blenheim Farms, the site is currently used for overflow parking associated with special events at the Rancho Mission Viejo Riding Park at San Juan Capistrano. This use will be discontinued in December 2012 when the current lease expires. The City is presently negotiating the terms of a new lease with Blenheim and the overflow parking provisions will not be included in the new lease. Previous Entitlements and Conditions of Approval A portion of the park is within conservation easement lands enrolled in the Southern Sub-region Habitat Reserve, a planned 32,000 plus acre habitat reserve (The Reserve at Rancho Mission Viejo, 2012). These lands are subject to the conditions of the easement, which restricts the types of uses within the easement. The easement and reserve are also subject to the terms of a sub-regional Habitat Conservation Plan(HCP),a Special Area Management Plan(SAMP)and a Master Streambed Alteration Agreement(MSAA). In addition to conserving wildlife and habitat values,the open space preservation program associated with the conservation easement is also designed to allow for continuation of the area's ranching heritage(Rancho Mission Viejo, LLC,Jan.2010). Exhibits 4 and 5 show the Conservation Easement boundary along the southern edge of the park site. The easement extends into the San Juan Creek channel and includes associated riparian habitat. Also shown in Exhibits 4 and 5 is the boundary of a Sensitive Resource Area associated with the Conservation Easement. All uses within the Easement and Sensitive Resource Area are subject to the approval of the Reserve at Rancho Mission Viejo, the legal entity responsible for managing the Reserve under the provisions of the habitat conservation plan approved by the United State Fish&Wildlife Service(USFWS). Features of the Proposed Master Plan The principal component of the proposed Master Plan is the Conceptual Park Plan,shown in Exhibit 5 which would establish a predominantly passive community park on about 12 acres of the 18.4-acre site. The Conceptual Plan identifies the major features proposed for the park: •Welcome Center:The plan proposes a'Welcome Center'that will make use of three existing buildings in the northwestern portion of the site(the historical residence,the"car"or'limo*barn,and the hay barn). The center will include interpretive displays,historical artifacts,outdoor displays and a'heritage garden'. • Event Areas: The Conceptual Plan identifies three areas to accommodate group events with picnic tables, shade structures and built-in barbeque facilities(Areas I,J, and K on Exhibit 5). • Equestrian/Trail Uses:An equestrian/multi-use trail staging area(Area C in Exhibit 5)includes horse corrals,pens troughs and parking for horse trailers. These facilities are proposed near the proposed j 1 10 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 4- City of San Juan Capistrano California multi-use trail (see below). Equestrian facilities are for day use only (no overnight boarding of animals). ♦ Multi-use Trail and Bikeway: The Purchase and Sale Agreement with Rancho Mission Viejo(RMV) requires that the City construct and maintain regional trail and bikeway connections through the property. The Conceptual Plan shows a designated, Class 1 bikeway enter the site at the southwestern corner,round the planned parking area and traverse the center of the park to connect to the regional bikeway at the site's northeast corner. As the trail enters the site from the west, it crosses a proposed multi-use trail(equestrian,bike and hiking) in the area of proposed equestrian facilities. The equestrian/multi-use trail connects to the City-designated trail to the west,crosses the creek to the south and connects to a future, planned riding and hiking trail on the south side of San Juan Creek(see Exhibit 5). The short segment where the riding and hiking trail and Class 1 bikeway directly abut is designed with a 5-foot wide landscaped strip to separate the Class 1 bikeway from the multi-use trail users. ♦ Fencing:The Conceptual Plan identifies a lodge pole fence along the park's southern boundary near the creek. A green, four-rail fence, functioning more as a decorative feature than an impassable barrier,is planned along the northern boundary(between the Caltrans right-of-way on Ortega Highway and the orange orchard). ♦ Landscaping and Vegetation: More than a hundred trees are present onsite. The Conceptual Plan proposes to preserve all trees in place with the exception of three or four. Areas G and H of the Conceptual Plan are designated for'Native Existing Vegetation', although they presently have no native vegetation other than existing trees(no shrubs or understory).Area L is identified as the site of a future'Native Garden'for indigenous riparian vegetation and habitat restoration. ♦ Orchard:The frontage along Ortega Highway is planted with several hundred orange trees which will be retained as a'heritage grove'to commemorate the site's historical agricultural use as well as to visually buffer the project site from Ortega Highway and create a pastoral experience driving along Ortega Highway. ♦ Access: Vehicular access to the site is from Ortega Highway at a driveway toward the eastern end of the site. A secondary access is planned at the west end of the site with Phase 2(see below). The secondary access would be restricted to right turns into the site for east-bound traffic only. The main access is a signalized entry with right and left turns in and out for both directions. ♦ Drainage: Most of the site will remain in pervious surfaces, but new impervious surfaces will be created with the placement of parking areas, pathways and roads. Event areas, multi-use and garden areas will be ground-covered in mulch. The Master Plan proposes to direct surface runoff to treatment areas(basins,swales and trenches)where it will be allowed to infiltrate and pollutants will be removed prior to reaching San Juan Creek. (For a more detailed description of drainage plans for the park,see Section 16.8, Hydrology and Water Quality). Phase 2—SCE Easement Because the property within the SCE easement is currently leased to the neighboring landowner it will not be developed concurrently with the rest of the park. Development of this portion of the site will occur in a second phase,likely to occur in 3 to 5 years. The Conceptual Plan shows this two-acre area as a future parking lot with approximately 259 parking spaces. A secondary access to the site from Ortega Highway is also shown as part of Phase 2. ALLOWED USES In addition to general passive recreational uses,the park is planned to accommodate special events such as weddings and private parties. The Conceptual Plan anticipates this type of use in the designated event areas (I, J and K). Use of municipal park facilities by groups of eight persons or more is formally 11 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -5- City of San Juan Capistrano, California regulated by the City of San Juan Capistrano through a Facility Use Permit issued by the Community Services Department.The permit process,though sometimes difficult to enforce,provides a mechanism for regulating the use of alcohol,amplified music,catering and other features commonly associated with special events(such as balloons,candles and canopies),along with provisions for clean-up and security. REQUESTED DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS The discretionary action associated with this project is approval of the Master Plan for the Reata Park and Event Center. The Master Plan consists of the Conceptual Plan presented in Exhibit 5 and conditions of approval associated with the Master Plan. 9. SURROUNDING LAND USE(S) &PROJECT SETTING: The Reata Park and Event Center site is at the eastern city limits of the City of San Juan Capistrano, along Ortega Highway(State Highway 74). See Exhibits 1 through 4.Properties to the north and east are outside the city limits in unincorporated Orange County. Properties north of Ortega Highway are currently in agricultural use(citrus and avocado orchards)with residences at very low density. The site's eastern boundary is formed by the San Juan Creek channel and the Ortega Highway bridge across the channel. 10. OTHER REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS: Because of the site's location adjacent to sensitive habitat of San Juan Creek, and because of prior conditions of approval placed on the property through agreements associated with the Ranch Plan approval, implementation of the Master Plan will be subject to review and approval by agencies with jurisdiction over resources that might be affected by the project. These include the requirement to submit a Biological Resources Conservation Plan to be reviewed and approved by U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, in compliance with conditions of the Habitat Conservation Plan(HCP)that governs the site. The site is also part of a Special Area Management Plan (SAMP)and a Master Streambed Alteration Agreement (MSAA)previously approved by U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish& Game, respectively. 11. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: Uses proposed under the Ranch Plan were addressed as part of Final EIR 589 certified by the County of Orange in 2004 Addendum No. 1 to Final EIR 589 further addressed specific uses planned for Planning Area 1 with the approval of the Master Areas Plan and Subarea Plans. These documents are on file for public review at the City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services Department. 12. CONSULTATION: A. Federal,State,and Other Local Agencies Jonathan Snyder, U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service B. City of San Juan Capistrano David Contreras, Senior Planner Grant Taylor, Development Services Director William A. Ramsey,AICP,Assistant Director Nick Taylor,Associate Planner Mad Mazboudi, Senior Civil Engineer C. San Juan Capistrano Open Space Foundation Brad Gates, President D. Rancho Mission Viejo Richard Broming, Senior Vice President, Planning&Entitlement Laura Coley Eisenberg,Vice President, Open Space&Resource Management 12 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -6- City of San Juan Capistrano, California E. Documents& Resources: Altec Testing & Engineering, March 2007. Pre-demolition Asbestos Survey& Limited Hazardous Materials Investigation. Prepared for Rancho Mission Viejo. ARMC,2012.Report of Cultural Resources Assessment for Proposed Reata Park and Event Center, San Juan Capistrano, California. City of San Juan Capistrano, General Plan. City of San Juan Capistrano, General Plan Environmental Impact Report(1999). City of San Juan Capistrano,Title 9, Land Use Code. City of San Juan Capistrano, Environmental Review Guidelines. City of San Juan Capistrano,2009,Initial Study/MND,Saint Margaret's Episcopal School Master Plan County of Orange,2004. Final Environmental Impact Report, RMV Ranch Plan. County of Orange, Health Care Agency, Feb. 2011. Letter to Sam Couch, Rancho Mission Viejo Regarding Remedial Excavation(chlordane). EDR, 2010. Certified Sanborn Map Report, East Open Space. Prepared for City of San Juan Capistrano. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Geotechnical & Environmental Solutions, May 2003. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Planning Area 1 (Ortega Gateway). Geotechnical&Environmental Solutions,July 2009. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment,RMV Planning Area 1, Parcels 7 and 8. GMU Geotechnical, Inc., 2007. Report of Geotechnical Studies and Review of Preliminary Grading Huitt-Zollars,2012. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for Reata Park and Event Center. Kinder Morgan, Sept.20, 2012. Letter to Ed Almanza, re Proposed Passive Recreational Park. Lawson & Associates Geotechnical Consulting, Inc., 2009. Geotechnical due diligence, Rancho Mission Viejo Property, RMV Planning Area 1 —Parcels 7 and 8 in the County of Orange. Prepared for the City of San Juan Capistrano. Mestre Greve Associates,2012a.Air Quality Assessment for Reata Park and Event Center. Mestre Greve Associates, 2012b. Greenhouse Gas Assessment for Reata Park and Event Center. Plans for Tentative Tract 17053,Ortega Gateway, Rancho Mission Viejo,Orange County,Califomia. Petra Geotechnical Inc.,2010.Geotechnical Investigation,Proposed Park,East Open Space,Lemon Grove Site, City of San Juan Capistrano. Rancho Mission Viejo, LLC., January 2010. Conservation Easement Deed. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation, 36 CFR 67. The Reserve at Rancho Mission Viejo, March 2012. Letter from Laura Coley Eisenberg to David Contreras, City of San Juan Capistrano, re. Conceptual Plan for Parcel 8. UC Davis, January 2010. Southern California Mountain Lion Project. Annual Report to California Department of Fish and Game. Vickers,W.,2012. Unpublished data. Wildlife Health Center, U.C. Davis. 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 ® Biological Resources ® Cultural Resources ❑ Geology&Soils ® 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. DETERMINATION. (To be completed by lead agency)Based on this initial evaluation: 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 13 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -7- City of San Juan Capistrano, California 1 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 made by or agreed to by the project proponent.A MITIGATED NEGATIVE 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 a"potentially significant impact"or"potentially significant unless mitigated"impact on the environment,but at least one effect 1)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 on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Q 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 EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR 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 hereby approved: sAld_Qta&�, Date: October 4,2012 William amsey,AICP,Assistant DirectAr Environmental Administrator 16. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts which may result from the proposed project. For the evaluation of potential impacts,the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and answers are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis considers the project's short-term impacts(construction-related), and its operational or day-to-day impacts. For each question,the following should be provided: 1) 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 information 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 than significant."Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 14 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -8- City of San Juan Capistrano. California i 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation 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 may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,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 from 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 refined 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 for 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 form 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. ad T� r- E_� CL CM ts aur E �'n'35 �u� g Z 16.1 AESTHETICS. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees,rock outcroppings,and historic building along ❑ ❑ ❑ a State-designated scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality ❑ ❑ ❑ of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ❑ ❑ ❑ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Principal views of the site are from Ortega Highway. The Community Design Element of the City's General Plan designates all arterial roadways in the city as Scenic Corridors. As an arterial roadway, Ortega Highway is therefore a Scenic Corridor. Moreover,the site's location at the city's eastern boundary places it at a major gateway between the city to the west and the rural, panoramic views of the hills to the east, open space, agricultural lands, San Juan Creek watershed and undeveloped portions of Rancho 15 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -9- City of San Juan Capistrano, California Mission Viejo to the east. Any substantial modifications that adversely affect the viewshed from Ortega Highway must be considered significant. The view of the site from Ortega Highway is currently unobstructed. There are no visual barriers between the highway and the site to block views across the site and of the upper elevations of the hills to the east. The site's visual character is defined by the grove of orange trees planted along the frontage of Ortega Highway, along with the several mature and large-canopied trees (native oaks and sycamores) that occupy the central portion of the site. The several structures onsite (houses, barns and sheds) also contribute to its rural, farm-like character. None of these features substantially obstruct views of the surrounding landscape from within the site. The site's open, rural visual aspect is in keeping with the visual environment of the surrounding landscape. The Community Design Element calls for the protection of significant viewsheds(Policy 3.4, "Preserve important viewsheds") and identifies the following design criteria to ensure that scenic corridors are developed with care to aesthetic values. •Buffer to screen existing unsightly features outside of the right-of-way; • Use of innovative design features for bicycle,sidewalks, equestrian trails,boundary walls, and parkways; •Attention to building design features that are proposed adjacent to a scenic corridor. The features and improvements of the proposed Master Plan do not have the potential to significantly impact the site's visual character. The site will generally remain open and rural in appearance,with the orange grove,native trees and few ranch structures defining the overall visual character as they do in the site's present state. The proposed new features(picnic areas,horse corrals,recreational trails,etc.)are of a sufficiently small scale and low intensity that they will not significantly alter the fundamental visual character of the site. Their treatment,in terms of materials and color(e.g.,green rail fencing,mulch and decomposed granite)will effectively avoid introduction of elements that are visually incompatible with the i rural environment. Implementation of the Master Plan will result in a net reduction in the number of structures onsite, as some existing ancillary structures will be removed. Others will be renovated for adaptive reuse,along with renovation of existing landscaping,resulting in an overall improvement in their appearance. Views of the site from the public viewshed along Ortega Highway will not be impaired by the changes proposed in the Master Plan. Nor will proposed new facilities and improvements alter or obstruct public views of the surrounding landscape or modify panoramic views experienced by travelers as they traverse the city's eastem gateway. a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No impact. The proposed improvements are consistent with the current visual character of the site. None of the improvements are of sufficient scale or of a visually obtrusive nature to adversely alter views of the site. The significant scenic vistas in the vicinity(views from the City's eastern gateway along Ortega Highway)will not be adversely affected. b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited to, trees,rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a state scenic highway? No impact. The Master Plan proposes to preserve all but a few trees in place. The visual character of the site will remain fundamentally unchanged and, in some respects, enhanced through proposed improvements. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? No impact. See discussion above. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No impact. The Master Plan does not propose any new sources of light or glare, either in the form of artificial lighting or through building materials. 16 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -10- City of San Juan Capistrano. California The Master Plan will have no significant impact on aesthetics and visual resources. oe co � �s STEL0. 'c o, n 0L E J24E$ JN E Z 16.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance as depicted on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland ❑ ❑ ❑ Mapping and Monitoring Program of the CA. Resources Agency? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 Contract? c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- ❑ ❑ ❑ agricultural use? a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No impact. No portion of the site is Prime Agricultural Land(as defined by Government Code Section 51201(c)and 56064)or Agricultural Land(as defined by Government Code Section 56016). b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,ora Williamson Act contract? No impact.The site is not zoned for agricultural use. No Williamson Act contracts pertain to the site. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?No Impact. The low intensity, passive recreational uses are not incompatible with current agricultural uses in the vicinity and will not generate conflicts that might indirectly result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. The project will have no impact on agricultural resources. ,G E, a I4a � ,013 E C lC N C OI tl1 C CM0. N 73 $ N 0. 0.05 E -J H E in E 0 16.3 AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality ❑ ❑ ❑ plan? b. Violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected ❑ ❑ ❑ air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under the applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including ❑ ❑ ❑ releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ ❑ 17 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -11- City of San Juan Capistrano, California 19 � M f0 Q - 01 f0 c 'F M E 00 CL 4� d E $ mm° Q 0.0E � a2 _J E z e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ Land use and development projects commonly have two major sources of air quality impacts: (1) pollutant emissions generated during construction,and(2)long-term operational emissions after construction,such as vehicular emissions from new trips generated by the new land use. Air pollutant emissions generated as a result of implementing the Master Plan(both construction-related and operational emissions)were projected by technical analyses prepared specifically for this Initial Study (Mestre Greve, 2012a and 2012b). The following discussion of the Master Plan's potential effects on air quality draws on the findings of those studies. The improvements proposed in the Master Plan are of a small scale, relative to the air basin and the level of emissions considered significant by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The proposed improvements do not require extensive or prolonged construction stages with heavy, emission-generating equipment. The number of new vehicular trips generated by the park after development,usually the principal source of post-development operational emissions,will be relatively small(590 estimated trips per day). For these reasons,the Master Plan will not have significant air quality impacts,at the local or regional scales. The SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for formulating and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan(AQMP)for the South Coast Region Air Basin. The SCAQMD has established significance thresholds for construction (and demolition) emissions for six categories of pollutants.These thresholds are based on their potential adverse short-term health effects. The scale of proposed improvements and post-development effects of the Master Plan is not nearly great enough to exceed these thresholds. 75 pounds per day of Reactive Organic Compounds(ROC) 100 pounds per day of Nitrogen Oxides(NOx) 550 pounds per day of Carbon Monoxide(CO) 150 pounds per day of Particulates of less than 10 mm (PM,o) 55 pounds per day of Particulates of less than 25 mm (PM25) 150 pounds per day of Sulfur Oxides (SOx) CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Construction activities generally produce pollutant emissions through four categories of activity: demolition, grading,building construction and the application of architectural coatings. The improvements called for in the Master Plan will involve relatively few activities in these four categories at any significant level. Demolition will be limited to removal of four existing structures. The project requires only very minor grading to prepare the site, principally to create swales and other features to control drainage (see description of Water Quality Management Plan in Section 16.8,Hydrology and Water Quality). Building construction is also limited to very small scale structures such as restrooms, none of which require large,emissions-generating equipment or vehicles. 18 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -12- City of San Juan Capistrano, California TABLE 1 PEAK CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Pollutant Emissions(lbsJday) Activity ROG NOX CO Sox PM10 PM2.5 Demolition 9.2 73.2 44.9 0.1 5.3 3.6 Site Preparation 10.0 80.1 46.7 0.1 22.3 13.9 Grading 12.0 97.6 54.3 0.1 11.3 7.9 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No As shown in the table above,the project's construction emissions are below AQMD thresholds. LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS The principal sources of operational emissions of new development projects are vehicular trips generated by the new land use,combustion of natural gas for water and space heating,the use of landscaping equipment, and architectural coatings during maintenance. None of these sources is expected to increase significantly as a result of the project. As indicated above,the project will generate relatively few new vehicular trips(relative to the regional air basin). None of the Master Plan's proposed uses will result in significant energy use. Table 2 below presents projected long-term emissions of the Master Plan. TABLE 2 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Daily Emissions(lbs/day) Activity CO VOC NOx PM10 PM2.5 Sox Vehicular Emissions 4.4 11.4 41.6 0.1 8.7 0.53 Total Emissions 4 11 42 0 9 1 Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No Operational emissions are projected to be well below established significance thresholds. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Global Greenhouse Gas(GHG)emissions are measured in million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent ("MMT CO2EQ")units. A metric ton is approximately 2,205 lbs. Some GHGs emitted into the atmosphere are naturally occurring,while others are caused solely by human activities. The principal GHGs that enter the atmosphere because of human activities are: • Carbon dioxide(CO2)enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels(oil,natural gas, and coal), agriculture, irrigation,and deforestation, as well as the manufacturing of cement. 19 Initial Stud /Environmental Checklist -13- City of San Juan Capistrano, California • Methane(CH4)is emitted through the production and transportation of coal,natural gas,and oil, as well as from livestock. Other agricultural activities influence methane emissions as well as the decay of waste in landfills. Nitrous oxide(N20)is released most often during the burning of fuel at high temperatures. This greenhouse gas is caused mostly by motor vehicles,which also include non-road vehicles,such as those used for agriculture. Fluorinated Gases are emitted primarily from industrial sources, which often include hydrofluorocarbons(HRC),perfluorocarbons(PFC),and sulfur hexafluoride(SF6). Though they are often released in smaller ,uantitiesthe are referred to as High Global Warming Potential q Y Gases because of their ability to cause global warming. These gases have different potentials for trapping heat in the atmosphere, called global warming potential ( GWP ). For example, pound ound of methane has 21 times more heat capturing potential than one pound of p ,one of emissions the gases are converted to carbon dioxide carbon dioxide. When dealing with an array equivalents(CO2EQ)for comparison purposes. The analysis for this Initial Study uses the screening threshold recommended by the SCAQMD working group of 3,000 MTCO2e1yr. The greatest source of GHG emissions associated with development projects in Califomia,by far,is vehicular emissions. The second greatest source is emissions from energy consumption (both natural gas and electrical). Implementation of the Master Plan will emit relatively low emissions from these two sources. When construction emissions are amortized and combined with long-term operational emissions(perAQMD Guidelines) they yield the projected emissions presented below in Table 3. As indicated in the table, the Master Plan's CO2EQ emissions will be well below the screening threshold of 3,000 million tons per year. TABLE 3 ANNUALIZED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS CO2 CH4 N20 CO2EQ Annual Operational Emissions 1268.65 0.07 0.00 1270.45 Annualized Construction Emissions 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 Total Annual Emissions 1,272 0.1 0.0 1,274 Screening Threshold: 3,000 Exceed Threshold? No Greenhouse gas emissions are projected to be well below the screening threshold. The responses to the following questions are based on the analysis and thresholds of significance presented above. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct Implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No impact. The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin(SCAB),which is governed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD). A consistency determination is important in local agency project review 20 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -14- City of San Juan Capistrano. California by comparing local planning projects to the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in several ways. It fulfills the CEQA goal of fully informing local agency decision makers of the environmental costs of the project under consideration at a stage early enough to ensure that air quality concerns are addressed.The SCAQMD's CEQA Handbook states that"New or amended GP Elements(including land use zoning and density amendments),Specific Plans,and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP."Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the plan if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies.The Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency: • Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations,or delay timely attainment of national ambient air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP (except as provided for CO in Section 9.4 for relocating CO hot spots). • Whether or not the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in the year of project build- out. Because the proposed improvements will not substantially increase any sources of air pollutant emissions, the project will not result in significant local or regional air quality impacts based on the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. The park's long-term emissions are not great enough to exceed the thresholds of the Air Quality Management Plan (see above discussion). The project's development and long-term use will not obstruct implementation of the AQMP. Nor do the proposed improvements in anyway conflict with AQMP's underlying assumptions.The AQMP is based on emissions projections which assume land use composition and intensity from local general plan Land Use Elements. Because the land uses proposed with the Master Plan are consistent with the City's General Plan. Moreover,the park is a less intensive use than the residential use identified for the site in the previously approved Ranch Plan,prior to the site's purchase and annexation by the City. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less than significant impact. As noted in the discussion above,based on the limited scope of proposed improvements,the project's construction emissions and long-term,operational emissions are expected to be well below significance thresholds established by the AQMP for specific pollutants. The Master Plan will therefore not violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an air quality violation. c) Result In a cumulatively considerable net Increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region Is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than significant impact. A significant cumulative impact would occur if a project would,in conjunction with other projects, result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to pollutants for which the region is in non-attainment with respect to federal or state pollutant standards. Because the region is in non- attainment with respect to ozone, CO and PM1o, there could be a cumulatively significant impact if the project and related projects led to an exceedance of these standards or contributed to an existing exceedance. With regard to determining the significance of a proposed project's contribution to cumulative impact,SCAQMD recommends that a project's potential contribution be assessed utilizing the same significance criteria as those for project specific impacts. As the proposed project does not generate construction or operational emissions that exceed the SCAQMD recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts,the construction and operational emissions of the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable and would result in a less than significant impact.Referto discussion above. i 21 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -15- City of San Juan Capistrano. California d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than significant impact. Sensitive populations (i.e., children, senior citizens and acutely or chronically ill people) are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population. Land uses considered to be sensitive receptors typically include residences. Motor vehicles are the primary source of pollutants in the project vicinity. Traffic-congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate localized high levels of CO. However, as described in Section 5.15 below, the project is anticipated to generate relatively low traffic volumes and will not contribute to degradation of traffic conditions. No sensitive receptor uses occur within the vicinity(the nearest residences are>600 feet away).The project will not generate vehicular emissions in sufficient quantities to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Although construction of the project may result in extremely low levels of criteria air pollutants, these temporary emissions will not result in significant pollutant concentrations (see discussion above) and would not affect sensitive receptors. Temporary construction emissions generated on the site will not be significant enough to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Toxic Air Contaminants' are often a source of pollutants associated with specific activities. TACs are found in ambient air,especially in urban areas,and are caused by industry,agriculture,fuel combustion, and commercial operations(e.g.,dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations,even near their source(e.g., benzene near a freeway). Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about two-thirds of the cancer risk from TACs(based on the statewide average). Implementation of the Master Plan will not generate a significant number of diesel-fueled vehicular trips or other diesel-fueled emissions and will therefore not be a significant source of TACs. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No impact. The proposed Master Plan does not include any activities that would generate objectionable odors. The proposed Master Plan will not result in significant impacts to air quality at the regional or local levels. m 3 iOM ii m �� otf0 $ iiim c tf c tS E cc a in€ 5.aZ 8 d E Z 16.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 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 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 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, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,or other means? 'TACs refers to a diverse group of air pollutants regulated at the regional,state,and federal level because of their ability to cause adverse effects on human health. Ambient air quality standards have not been set for TACs because of the diverse number of air toxics and the fact that their effects on health tend to be localized rather than regional. i i 22 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -16- City of San Juan Capistrano California 13 0 *6 LM n a H25 erE z d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or ❑ ® El El 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 preservation policy/ordinance? F flict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, ral Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, ❑ ® ❑ ❑ nal,or state habitat conservation plan? Vegetation on the site consists of several large,mature trees, including native sycamore,oak and elderberry trees. Pepper trees(Californian and Brazilian)are abundant,along with ornamental species such as Cypress and various fruit trees in the area around the old houses. The large sycamores and oaks are generally spaced wide-apart, in a savanna-like setting, with very little understory (the site has recently been cleared of understory growth). The San Juan Creek channel, immediately offsite to the south, is well vegetated with riparian species, mostly willow. There is evidence of raptor use on the site,as well as deer,and use by large mammalian predators(mountain lions). The presence of mountain lions and deer is clearly associated with the site's location adjacent to the creek (and its natural function as a wildlife corridor) and the low level of activity and human use at the site. As indicated earlier,a portion of the site is identified as a Sensitive Resource Area,a designation originating in the Habitat Conservation Plan(HCP)for the RMV Ranch Plan. A portion of the proposed park is within the Conservation Easement, also established through the HCP which extends into the creek to the south (The Reserve at RMV,March 2012). The riparian habitat within the Conservation Easement has been identified as sensitive habitat for multiple species, some of which are federal and/or state-listed species. These include arroyo toad, western spadefoot toad, orange-throated whiptail, least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher,yellow warbler,yellow-breasted chat,steelhead trout,and others. The HCP not only identifies the Conservation Easement as important habitat for sensitive species,it also emphasizes the importance of San Juan Creek in providing habitat linkages and wildlife mobility to other major habitat areas and corridors in the subregion. Given the proposed park's location(adjacent to the sensitive habitat and species within San Juan Creek)and the resource conservation policies in place through the subregional HCP,the project must be considered to have significant adverse effects if it were to conflict with the policies,objectives and priorities of the HCP(as they affect the adjacent resources in the Conservation Easement)or otherwise impact the habitats,species and biological functions of the easement. The Adaptive Management Program for the RMV Open Space identifies several management goals, objectives and priorities for the management of riparian habitats and associated focal species within the reserve. Among the near-term habitat management priorities is: -Control of human access and recreational activities in wetland/riparian habitat areas Near-term species management priorities include: •Control of human activities around sensitive nesting areas -Control of terrestrial mesopredators (feral cats, dogs, skunks, raccoons, opossums) 23 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -17- City of San Juan Capistrano, California •Control of collections and harassment by humans •Control of artificial lighting and noise The Master Plan and its proposed activities are unlikely to have direct impacts to biological resources,owing to the near absence of significant resources on the site. The mature native trees onsite are likely to continue to serve as useful habitat for raptors (although perhaps to a lesser degree than at present). But the plan proposes to retain nearly all trees in place and this function would at least minimally be retained. The park is more likely to generate indirect impacts on resources within the adjacent Conservation Easement. The proposed use of the site as a public park will substantially increase the level of human activity over current conditions, and this activity level has the potential to introduce sources of indirect impacts to wildlife and habitat offsite. Potential sources of impact include lighting, noise, litter and improperly managed runoff. Lighting will be managed through provisions that restrict artificial lighting to areas outside the Sensitive Resources Area and require lighting elsewhere onsite to be shielded to prevent light spill into sensitive areas. These provisions are reinforced in Mitigation Measure BR4 below. Noise of particularly elevated levels has the potential to disturb wildlife in the adjacent Conservation Easement. Limitations on noise are prescribed in Mitigation Measure BR-5,below. Littering and the behavior of park visitors in general,including trespass into the Conservation Easement, must be managed through education and enforcement and through constant monitoring of activities and adaptive management throughout the lifetime of the park(see Mitigation Measure BR-6). Potential impacts related to water quality and drainage are addressed in Mitigation Measure BR-8 below,and in the Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the site(discussed in section 16.8,Hydrology and Water Quality). Among the potentially significant indirect impacts of the Master Plan is disturbance of the use by wildlife of San Juan Creek as a mobility corridor. Recent investigations demonstrate that mountain lions frequently move through the segment of the creek adjacent to the site(UC Davis,2010;Vickers,2012). As Rancho Mission Viejo is developed,the movement of mountain lions will be constrained to increasingly narrow corridors within the habitat that remains. Introduction of additional human use in an area immediately adjacent to an active corridor will increase the risk of negative interactions between humans and mountain lions. For these reasons, use of the park as an overnight campground is likely to impact wildlife movement, as well as introduce a significant safety hazard to overnight visitors. Because wildlife movement occurs mostly at night, and because active use of the corridor can easily be disrupted not only by noise and lighting,but by the mere presence of humans in close proximity,use of the park should not extend to nighttime hours. Implementation of this provision (see Mitigation Measure BR-5, below) will substantially reduce potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan on wildlife movement as well as impacts related to human safety. Mitigation of impacts to biological resources can be mitigated to a level below significant through implementation of these measures. Mitigation Measure BR-1: The Operations and Maintenance Plan for the park shall include detailed maintenance guidelines for the treatment of all landscaped areas and native plants in the park. Guidelines shall identify treatments and schedules for appropriate management practices for(at a minimum)the principal components of the park's landscape: (1)the lemon grove,(2)ornamental and native plants in the vicinity of the Welcome Center,(3)established native trees,(4)existing native vegetation within the Sensitive Resource Area,and(5)all new plantings throughout the park. The guidelines shall prescribe specific practices related to irrigation, pruning, litter removal and use of mulch, and shall identify measures to avoid impacts of overwatering or human use to root structures of mature trees. The plan shall include specific measures for the pruning and maintenance of existing trees,to be prepared by a qualified arborist,along with a schedule for their implementation.The plan shall also include an Integrated Pest Management Plan. Mitigation Measure BR-2: Prior to issuance of a permit for any vegetation removal,site grubbing,grading, demolition or construction work in areas directly abutting San Juan Creek,the boundaries of the Sensitive Resource Area and of the Conservation Easement shall be clearly marked to ensure that no direct impacts occur to the native habitat or to jurisdictional resources. f k 24 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -18- City of San Juan Capistrano,California Mitigation Measure 1BR-3: Any vegetation removal within the Sensitive Resource Area shall be limited to the period between February 15 and August 31. This will ensure that no active nests are disturbed and that habitat removal can proceed rapidly. In the event that it is not feasible to schedule vegetation removal outside the nesting season,all suitable habitat(all native plant communities as well as all native and non-naive trees) shall be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist before commencement of vegetation removals. If any active nests are detected,a buffer of at least 100 feet from active nests shall be delineated,flagged and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete as determined by the biological monitor. Prior to issuance of permits that allow the removal of vegetation during the nesting season,a survey shall be prepared and approved by the City. It active nests are detected,the approved plans shall include the required buffer area set forth above. Mitigation Measure BR-4: Trash receptacles in the park shall be of a wildlife-proof design. Artificial lighting shall be prohibited in the Sensitive Resource Area. Artificial lighting elsewhere in the park shall be shielded so that no spillover of light reaches the Sensitive Resource Area or Conservation Easement area offsite. The plant palette shall exclude all species on the Cal-IPC list and plant material used on the site shall be from a source that is certified to be free of fire ants. Mitigation Measure BR-6: In order to avoid impacts to the viability of San Juan Creek as an active wildlife corridor, all activities at the park shall cease and the park shall close to the public at dark. Dogs shall be prohibited within the Sensitive Resource Area (leashed or unleashed), except to cross the creek at the designated crossing(`Arizona crossing')during which time they shall be leashed(6-foot maximum leash)and prohibited from entering habitat in the conservation easement area. Mitigation Measure BR-6: The park's Operations and Management Plan shall include and provide for implementation of a Visitor Management Program,which at a minimum shall include educational brochures to inform visitors of the sensitivity of resources and of inappropriate(and disallowed)activities in specific areas of the park. The authorization of Special Events through the issuance of a Facility Use Permit shall include explicit educational information about sensitive onsite and nearby resources,and shall require written consent to comply with park restrictions and policies. The Program shall include provisions for regular and frequent monitoring of visitor use and of potential indicators of adverse effects of human use(such as signs of trespass into the offsite Conservation Easement,litter,dog waste,unauthorized use of fire,etc.)and identify adaptive management actions to address and mitigate observed impacts (e.g., increased presence of enforcement personnel,better placement of,or additional,signage;enhanced barriers to restricted areas;establishment of temporarily restricted areas to discourage trespass;establishment of no-entry habitat restoration zones,etc.). Mitigation Measure BR-7: Signage and interpretive devices that identify the presence of sensitive habitat, the hazards of wildlife and poison oak, and fire hazard shall be abundant and highly visible (without being incompatible with the site's natural setting),especially along the boundary of the Sensitive Resource Area and at the park's southern boundary with the offsite Conservation Easement.Plantings along the site's southern boundary(and the spacing between plantings) shall emphasize native species that deter trespass into the riparian habitat(e.g., Opuntia) Mitigation Measure BR-8: To protect steelhead critical habitat,habitat of the arroyo toad and other sensitive species within the riparian habitat offsite,all project-generated runoff shall be pre-treated by filtration through a vegetative swale or other treatment control measure(TCM)approved by the City's environmental engineer and as specified in the project's Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP), prior to being released off-site. During site preparation and construction,the project will implement and maintain all elements of the approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP). Further,the Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP)shall include treatment control measures that provide a sufficient level of pre-treatment to maintain the water quality for steelhead trout and arroyo toad habitat purposes. The park and its uses shall not increase flooding in off- site areas located downstream. No park-related activities shall occur within the Creek and no project-related debris shall be deposited into the Creek. Mitigation Measure BR-9: Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any portion of the park, the City shall submit and have approved by U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service a Biological Resources Conservation Plan that 25 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -19- City of San Juan Capistrano. California ensures the Master Plan and its proposed activities and management practices are consistent with the goals and objectives of the RMV Habitat Conservation Plan. Mitigation Measure BR-10: In order to reduce the risk of impacts (to onsite facilities as well as offsite habitats) due to overuse beyond the site's capacity, the Master Plan shall provide for no more than 20 additional parking spaces within the portion of the park developed in Phase 2(in the SCE easement on the west side of the park). Responses to questions of the Initial Study checklist are based on the potential impacts and mitigation measures identified above. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat mod cations,on any species idendfled as a candidate,sensitive,orspecial status species in local orreglonal plans,policies,or regulations,or by the Califomla Department of Fish and Game or the USFWS? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The Master Plan and its proposed activities have the potential to indirectly impact sensitive species and their habitats within the adjacent segment of San Juan Creek. These indirect impacts can be reduced to a level below significant through implementation of the mitigation measures(BR-2, BR-3 and BR-6 through BR-10)listed above. 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 Californla Department of Fish and Game(DFG)or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Riparian habitat in the adjacent Conservation Easement within San Juan Creek is subject to provisions of a subregional Habitat Conservation Plan. Impacts to the riparian habitat within the easement can be mitigated to a level below significant through implementation of Mitigation Measures BR-2 and BR-6 through BRA 0(listed above). (See additional discussion in Section 16.8,Hydrology and Water Quality, below.) 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, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)through direct removal,filling,hydrological Interruption,or other means? No Impact. No wetlands,as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,exist on the site.The project would not result in impacts to wetlands. d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or Impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impacts to the movement of resident and migratory wildlife can be mitigated to a level below significant through implementation of Mitigation Measures BR-5 through BR-10. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy/ordinance? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The City's Municipal Code(Section 9-2.349) regulates the removal of trees over six inches in diameter measured three feet above the ground and establishes the factors the City must consider before acting on the permit. Tree removal permits for trees between six inches and 24 inches in diameter may be administratively approved by the Development Services Department. Tree removal permits for trees measuring 36 inches in diameter or greater are defined as "heritage trees" require Planning Commission review and action. Mitigation provided below would ensure that the project does not conflict with the City ordinance. Mitigation Measure BR-11: For all trees(greater than six inches in diameter measured three feet above the ground) to be removed as a result of the project, the City shall process and secure approval of a tree removal permit application in accordance with Section 9-2.349 of the City's Municipal Code. The application shall be prepared so that it substantially complies with the project's approved landscape plan subject to determination by the Development Services Director or his/her designee. 26 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -20- City of San Juan Capistrano California f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Portions of the site and adjacent properties are subject to a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). Conflicts with provisions of the HCP can be avoided through implementation of Mitigation Measures BR-2 through BR-10 above. With the proposed mitigation measure,potential impacts to biological resources would be reduced below a level of significance. G Ccc L C Z5 ~ 8A ° —amu a urCco � a�EL 2Ca E CA a CL 05.i .°1i'��5 min E z 16.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical ❑ ® C3 El resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of CEQA? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ® 0 ❑ archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of CEQA? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site ❑ ❑ 0 or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? A Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared to address the potential for the Reata Park and Event Center Master Plan to impact significant archaeological or historical resources within (or adjacent to)the park site (ARMC, 2012). The assessment includes a records search through the South Central Coastal Information Center(Cal State University,Fullerton),consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission,a Sacred Lands File search,interviews and conversations with Native American representatives and with the historian of the San Juan Capistrano Historical Society. A principal task of the assessment was to determine whether any of the structures that exist onsite qualify as significant historical resources(under the criteria of CEQA Section 15064.5 and/or the City's Policy 601 related to cultural resources). The CEQA Guidelines provide four criteria for determining if a feature is a significant historic resource: 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; 2. Is associated with persons important in our past; 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. City Council Policy Number 601 of the City of San Juan Capistrano applies these definitions: a. Historic Resource — a district, site, building, structure or object significant in American history, architecture,archaeology or culture at the national, site or local level; b. Sensitive Area—an area that is located immediately adjacent to known sites, and/or an area that historic maps or reference materials indicates the presence of possible artifacts; c. Significant Historical or Cultural Resource—an artifact that can be associated with an event or person having a recognized significance in California orAmerican history,or recognized as having scientific importance in the prehistory period,has a special or particular quality,such as oldest,best example, or last surviving example of its kind; is a least 50 years old and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity,or involves important research questions that historical research as shown can be answered with archaeological methods; 27 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -21- City of San Juan Capistrano. California d. Significant Paleontological Site—an area where the presence of paleontological artifacts which have a particular scientific importance such as containing a complete species, or located in a unique stratigraphic location and/or geologic formation. 17 The Cultural Resources Assessment evaluated each of the 10 existing structures on-site to determine if they qualify as significant historical resources. The structures include two residences(one built in 1918 and the other in 1952)with associated garages and sheds, a barn, a limo barn, a sheet metal shed, and an open- framed pavilion. Of these structures,the assessment found that the 1918 residence qualifies as significant due to its historic age and its early to mid-twentieth century associations with ranching by the O'Neill Family. The residence (and associated shed) qualifies as significant under CEQA criterion 1 ("is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage") and under the City of San Juan Capistrano's Definition (a), "a district, site, building, structure or object significant in American history,architecture,engineering,archaeology or culture at the national,state or local level." The remaining structures are either not of historic age(at least 50 years old)or do not meet any of the criteria. In addition to these structures,a previously recorded prehistoric site(CA-ORA-27)is located within the park. The site has been described as a substantial scatter of millingstone assemblage artifacts and a small amount of abalone shell. Archaeological investigations suggest that the site may have been a base camp with several activity areas that has been heavily disturbed since the 1930s by various activities, such as agriculture and road building (see ARMC, 2012, page 10). The site was further disturbed during the recent widening of Ortega Highway (2010). A relatively undisturbed portion of the archeological site may be present on the southeastern portion of the park site. The Master Plan proposes to retain several of the existing structures onsite for future use, including the historically significant residence,but not its associated shed. The house is in good condition and amenable to a viable adaptive re-use as an element of the proposed Welcome Center,while the shed,which is a small, wood-frame structure with corrugated metal sides,is in fair condition. The Cultural Resources Assessment recommends preservation and adaptive reuse of the shed, if feasible under the design of the project. Adaptive re-use of the residence must conform to applicable CEQA standards in order to avoid significantly impacting the historic resource and its integrity. The CEQA Guidelines are very explicit in defining what constitutes a significant adverse impact to historic resources: A substantial adverse change in the signirrcance of a historic resource means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired.2 The Guidelines go on to state that"fflhe significance of an historic resource is materially impaired when a project . . . jdjemolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance.n' In determining the impact of a project on an historic resource,CEQA regulations apply the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to the question of whether the project results in a substantial adverse change to the resource and in particular to those physical characteristics,or character defining spaces and features,that convey historic significance. CEQA review applies not only to impacts on the resource itself, but also to the related features and setting of the resource. Thus, an assessment of potential effects on an historical resource must evaluate changes to the grounds and exterior features of the property(i.e.,landscaping and external structures)as well as to the structure itself. Generally,a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards is considered to have avoided or successfully mitigated significant impacts.The Standards are presented below,followed by discussion of the project elements and their compliance with the standards. 2 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(b)(1). 3 CEQA Guidelines,Section 15064.5(b)(2). 28 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -22- City of San Juan Capistrano California 1.A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2.The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved.The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3.Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time,place,and use.Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings,shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time;those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6.Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced.Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature,the new feature shall match the old in design,color,texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7.Chemical or physical treatments,such as sandblasting,that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9.New additions,exterior alterations,or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property.The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing,size,scale,and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10.New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future,the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Impacts to significant cultural resources can be effectively avoided through preservation and adaptive re-use of the historical residence and monitoring during earth-moving activities(grading and trenching)in the vicinity of the residence(and its shed), and in the'sensitive area'comprised of the remnant of prehistoric site CA- ORA-27. These actions are further delineated in the following mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures The following measures are provided to ensure the Master Plan does not result in significant adverse effects to cultural resources. Mitigation Measure CR-f:All actions implementing adaptive re-use of the historical residence shall conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Mitigation Measure CR-2:A qualified archaeologist,defined as an archaeologist on the List of Certified Archaeologists for Orange County and/or a professional member of the Register of Professional Archeologists (RPA), shall be present at pre-construction meetings to advise construction contractors about the sensitive nature of cultural resources located in the'Sensitive Area'of the site associated with CA-ORA-27(identified in Appendix B of the Cultural Resources Assessment,ARMC, 2012),as well as monitoring requirements. A qualified monitor (defined as an individual with a Bachelors' Degree in 29 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -23- City of San Juan Capistrano.California anthropology with archaeological monitoring experience),supervised by the qualified archaeologist,shall observe construction activities that result in grading, and/or excavating more than 18-inches below the original ground surface.Should non-human 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.All archaeological resources unearthed by construction activities shall be evaluated in accordance with City Policy 601. 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. Mitigation Measure CR-3:Mitigation Measure CR-2 shall also apply to all subsurface excavation and disturbance in the immediate vicinity of the historical residence. Mitigation Measure CR-4:A Native American monitor shall observe excavating and/or trenching more than 18-inches below the original ground surface. The Native American monitor shall consult with the 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. Mitigation Measure CR-5: Within 90-days of final inspection by the City's construction inspector and preservation planner, the City will have secured the submission of the final reports for any historical, cultural, archaeological or paleontological resources recovered from the project site during grading or construction have been filed with the appropriate information repository. Reports shall include recommendations on disposition of recovered sub-surface cultural resources. Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of CEQA? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.The Master Plan proposes to retain and adaptively re-use the historically significant residence. Adaptive re-use that complies with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards will avoid significant impacts to the resource.The mitigation measures identified above will ensure that implementation of the proposed improvements does not inadvertently result in significant impacts to historical resources. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the signiflicance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 95064.5 of CEQA?Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.The site includes a remnant of a previously recorded archaeological site, CA-ORA-27,which qualifies as a'sensitive area' under the City's Policy Number 601. Subsurface disturbance in this area has the potential to adversely impact archaeological resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-2, CR-4 and CR-5 will successfully mitigate impacts to a level below significant. c. Directly orindirectly destroya unique paleontological resource orsite or unique geologic feature? No impact. The site is underlain by alluvium to depths ranging from approximately 20 to 70 feet. The Monterey Foundation,a geologic unit that has the potential to be fossil-bearing,lies far below the surface (GMU, 2007). Grading to implement the Master Plan will be limited to relatively shallow depths in previously disturbed alluvium and will not disturb bedrock or fossil bearing soils. d Disturb any human remains, Including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Actions prescribed by Mitigation Measures CR-2 and CR-4 will effectively mitigate any impacts should human remains be encountered. Level of Significance after Mitigation With implementation of the mitigation measures provided above,the project will avoid significant impacts to cultural resources. 30 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -24- City of San Juan Capistrano California r3 ` o � Cc C 0 N 3 a N C a i1 m d N J N J N E Z 16.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving (t) 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 evidence of a known fault (Refer to DM&G Pub.42)?; or, (it)strong seismic ground shaking?; or, (iti) seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction?;or, (iv) landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 El ❑ 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 landslide,lateral spreading,subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 1994 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ UBC, creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not ❑ ❑ ❑ available for the disposal of waste water? Responses to questions related to soils and geology are based on a geotechnical investigation prepared for the site and proposed park(Petra, 2010). Would the project. a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving. 1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) No impact. According to the geotechnical study,no active or potentially active faults are known to cross the site(Petra,2010, page 4). The site is not with an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore,the potential for primary ground rupture due to faulting onsite is considered very low to negligible. 2) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than significant impact.Southern Califomia is a seismically active region likely to experience, on average, one earthquake of Magnitude 7.0, and ten (10) earthquakes of Magnitude 6.0 over a period of 10 years.There are several active and potentially active fault zones in the region that could affect the site. The faults within these zones include the Newport-Inglewood,Whittier,San Andreas,San Jacinto,Malibu-Coast-Raymond,Palos Verdes,San Gabriel,and Siena Madre-Santa Susana-Cucamonga faults.The Master Plan proposes to preserve and re-use existing structures which are unlikely to conform to current seismic standards(owing to their date of construction). Rehabilitation of these structures,and the design and construction of the few minor structures proposed in the Master Plan,will be required to conform to the 2007 CBC,the City's Seismic Hazard Mitigation Ordinance,and other applicable standards,as a standard condition of approval.Conformance with standard engineering practices and design criteria would reduce the effects of seismic ground shaking to less than significant levels. 31 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -25- City of San Juan Capistrano, California 3) Seismic-related ground failure,Including liquefaction? Less than significant impact. Liquefaction occurs when saturated,cohesionless soils temporarily lose shear strength(liquefy)due to increased pore water pressures induced by strong, cyclic ground motion during an earthquake. The site is within a State of California Hazard Zone for Liquefaction,owing to the depth of alluvium and loose fill soils and relatively high ground water that underlies the site. Impacts related to liquefaction and lateral spreading can be readily avoided through conformance with recommendations of the geotechnical study (Petra, 2010)which calls for excavation and removal of loose or soft fill soils during remedial grading where structural improvements are proposed. 4) Landslides? No impact. The site is flat (except for a very minor grade change in the eastern portion). There is no risk of landslide at the site or on neighboring properties. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?No impact Minor amounts of soil disturbance are anticipated with proposed improvements. There will be no large scale site preparation,excavation or trenching during the construction phase that might displace soils and temporarily increase the potential for soils to be subject to wind and water erosion. Implementation of the plan will be required to comply with standard engineering practices for erosion control including a Water Quality Management Plan and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP). See discussion on Hydrology and Water Quality,Section 16.8. Soil erosion impacts will be effectively avoided through implementation of these procedures. 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- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less than significant impact. Potential impacts related to liquefaction, subsidence and lateral spreading are readily mitigable through remedial measures prescribed in the geotechnical study(Petra,2010)and through standard practices of the California Building Code. d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined In Table 18-1-B of the California Building Code(1997), creating substantial risks to life orproperty? Less than significant impact.Expansive soils are known to exist onsite. Section 1805.8.2 of the CBC 2007 prescribes footing and floor slab specifications to treat medium expansive soils such as those found onsite. Compliance with recommendations of the geotechnical investigation(Petra,2010)and with requirements of the 2007 CBC will sufficiently mitigate potential impacts. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No impact. The project does not include the implementation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. (Restrooms onsite are proposed to operate through composting or be pump serviced.) The project does not have the potential to result in significant impacts related to geology and soils. `0 r c tS a o a CM CX 05E �H � ��E i X 16.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through ❑ ® ❑ ❑ the routine transport, use,or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable conditions involving the release of hazardous ❑ ® ❑ ❑ materials into the environment? 32 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -26- City of San Juan Capistrano.California c 1501 51 oL° o p S v at n ulama$ � C, E a6.52mn �'y5 min E z° c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing ❑ ❑ ❑ or 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 ❑ [10 a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 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 or ❑ ❑ ❑ public use airport,would the project result in safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project ❑ ❑ ❑ area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ❑ ® ❑ ❑ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Several studies have investigated the presence of toxic and hazardous materials at the site (Altec, 2007; County of Orange,Health Care Agency,2011;EDR,2010;Geotechnical&Environmental Solutions,May 2003 & July 2009; Lawson & Associates, 2009). The site has been the subject of remediation to address the presence of chlordane in soils within the area formerly occupied by lemon groves. Removal of chlordane- impacted soil was conducted in accordance with standards of the County Health Care Agency(County of Orange,2011). Asbestos-bearing materials have been detected in several of the structures onsite,including the main ranch house proposed in the Master Plan for adaptive reuse as a Welcome Center. Additional remediation of soils is warranted in the vicinity of the Limo Barn(formerly the location of a maintenance shop and gas tanks)where resting of shallow soils indicates elevated concentrations of lead,TPH-d and TPH-mo at two locations, impacting an estimated 50 cubic yards of soil. An active 16-inch pipeline conveying refined petroleum products traverses the western portion of the site,within the SCE power line easement. An inactive 10-inch line also traverses the site in the eastern portion. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The proposed improvements and associated activities do not involve the routine use of hazardous materials. However,some removal,transport and disposal of hazardous materials are necessary in association with remediation of the site. In particular, asbestos-containing material within existing structures must be removed, as well as contaminated soils in the vicinity of the Limo Barn (Geotechnical&Environmental Solutions,2009). Implementation of the following measures will effectively avoid any significant impacts from these two sources. Mitigation Measure HM-9: Prior to demolition or renovation of existing structures onsite,the removal and legal disposal of asbestos-containing materials shall be performed by a licensed and regulated asbestos abatement contractor. Mitigation Measure HM-2: Contaminated soils shall be removed in accordance with County of Orange Health Care Agency standards. Confirmation of removal from the Health Care Agency shall be provided to the City Development Services Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. 33 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -27- City of San Juan Capistrano, California There is also the potential for accidental release of hazardous substances such as spilling of hydraulic fluid or diesel fuel associated with construction equipment maintenance. However, the level of risk associated with the accidental release of these hazardous substances is not considered significant,due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials. The contractor will be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures which would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the environment. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The proposed improvements will not result in the presence of hazardous materials onsite. None of the activities proposed with the Master Plan involve the use of hazardous materials. The presence of an active pipeline poses a potential hazard, particularly during construction activities. To avoid a substantial risk of upset or accident associated with the 16" pipeline that might release hazardous materials associated with the release of hazardous materials,the following measure is provided: Mitigation Measure HM-3: The use of mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within 2 feet of the alignments of the two pipelines that traverse the site(as identified in Kinder Morgan,2012). Any activities that disturb the ground surface within 10 feet of the alignments shall be monitored by a representative of the owner and operator of the pipelines (Kinder Morgan). Future park uses and activities in Phase 2(within the SCE Easement)shall be designed to avoid significant hazards related to the presence of the active 16"pipeline and the overhead power lines that traverse the easement. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. See responses to(a)and(b)above. 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, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?No impact.The project site is not included on a list of sites containing hazardous materials and does not present a significant hazard to the public or to the environment. e) Fora project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working In the project area?No impact. The site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. John Wayne Airport (Santa Ana), located 14 miles northeast of the project site, is the nearest airport(commercial or general aviation). f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?No impact. The site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing orworking in the project area. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No impact. The proposed improvements will have no effect on an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project will not result in a significant increase in traffic congestion that might impede mobility during an emergency (see Traffic discussion in Section 16.15).Nor will it result in physical obstruction of any street or highway that is critical to evacuation in the event of an emergency. g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The site is adjacent to a wildlands area and is in an area identified in the City's General Plan as a 'Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone'(Figure S-5 of Safety Element). For this reason,activities in the proposed park must be 34 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -28- City of San Juan Capistrano.California carefully regulated to ensure that park uses do not increase the risk of wildfires. The measure below will avoid increased risk of fire hazard. Mitigation Measure HM-4:The Operations and Management Plan for the park shall limit the use of fire to built-in barbeque facilities. Open fires shall be prohibited, including the use of candles. Smoking shall be prohibited within the Sensitive Habitat Area. The Operations and Management Plan shall include additional restrictions and provisions, as deemed necessary, to be stipulated by the County Fire Marshall prior to opening of the park for its first use. The O&M Plan shall provide for signage and other notices to the public to ensure that fire safety measures are clearly identified for park users. With implementation of the four mitigation measures identified above,the proposed Master Plan will not result in potential impacts related to hazards and/or hazardous materials. 8 � 14� o i4� a Cl0 C °° a°us r °� N S co z 16.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 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 existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a ❑ ❑ ❑ manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off- site? 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 increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other ❑ ❑ ❑ flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would ❑ ❑ ❑ impede or redirect flood flows? i. 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 dam? j. Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ li 35 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -29- City of San Juan Capistrano. California io 3 �i m a i4 C CL � 8 �mCL E IL 9 Ja 5 �N� 2 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)? 9 I. 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? O ® ❑ ❑ 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(d)list? If so,can it result in an increase in any ❑ ® ❑ ❑ pollutant for which the water body is already impaired? q. Tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? If so, can it ❑ ® ❑ ❑ exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions? r. Have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water ❑ ® ❑ ❑ quality 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 receiving water quality objectives or degradation of ❑ ® ❑ ❑ beneficial uses? u. Impact aquatic,wetland,or riparian habitat? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ v. Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction or post ❑ ® ❑ ❑ construction? 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? x. Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ beneficial uses of the receiving waters? y. Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or ❑ ❑ ❑ volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? z. Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or ❑ ❑ ❑ surrounding areas? 36 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -30- City of San Juan Capistrano, California The watershed of San Juan Creek is within State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB)Region 9—San Diego. San Juan Creek is an impaired (303(d) listed)water body due to excess levels of bacteria, DDE(a breakdown product of DDT), phosphorus, selenium,and nitrogen. Other pollutants of concern include: -Heavy Metals -Nutrients(Ammonia, Nitrate, and Total Phosphorus) -Pesticides -Toxic Organic Compounds -Suspended Solid Sediments -Trash and Debris -Oil and Grease •BacteriaNirus Pathogens The County of Orange Local WQMP also identifies organic compounds and oxygen-demanding compounds as pollutants of concern. Typical organic compounds in urban runoff are pesticides,petroleum hydrocarbons, and vegetative debris. Oxygen-demanding substances are often conveyed in urban trash and debris,such as biodegradable food and vegetation waste,which contribute to ammonia and nutrient levels. In the site's current condition, stormwater runoff drains across the site to San Juan Creek. Generally speaking, the site is hydrologically isolated, with only minimal surface flows from off-site (only a very small portion of Ortega Highway drains to the site). The site consists pre-dominantly of pervious surfaces, consisting of bare soil and decomposed granite,except for the areas occupied by structures. Because of its sandy substrate, the site has an extremely high rate of infiltration (percolation of the design storm occurs within 24 hours),providing natural conditions for the treatment of stormwater through infiltration prior to runoff entering the creek channel. The site has no structural drainage features. The proposed Master Plan will introduce impervious surfaces principally through the placement of driveways, parking lots,bike paths and trails. Parking areas and trails are proposed to be surfaced with Portland Cement Concrete and a mix of decomposed granite with 5 percent Portland Cement (impervious materials). The Master Plan will add approximately 120,154 square feet of impervious surface to the site, increasing the overall impervious area from 4 percent(under current conditions)to 29.5 percent. The principal mechanism for ensuring project compliance with water quality and waste discharge standards is implementation of an effective Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The submittal, approval and implementation of a WQMP are among the standard conditions of approval for development projects in the City.The City requires a project-specific WQMP to meet the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System requirements and other relevant water quality standards established by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City of San Juan Capistrano. A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP)was prepared to address water quality issues related to the proposed park and its activities (Huitt-Zollars, 2012). The WQMP identifies methods for managing runoff to ensure that pollutants of concern do not enter downstream waters,except at very minimal levels that fall below the standards established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The plan includes best management practices (BMPs) that manage the sources of runoff, the amount and rate of flow of runoff generated onsite, as well as potential pollutant sources. Because San Juan Creek is considered a large water body by the Regional Water Quality Control Board(with flows greater than 2,600 cfs),projects that drain directly into the creek are exempt from standard requirements to modify rates of runoff into the creek. The WQMP's strategy consists of: (1)reducing or eliminating project runoff,(2)controlling sources of pollutants; and (3) treating storm water runoff before it reaches San Juan Creek and other downstream waters. The management plan proposes to manage runoff by dividing the site into six drainage areas. Runoff from each area will be directed through a system of strategically placed pipes to one of four concentration points,where in turn it will be directed to an infiltration trench, infiltration basin or a natural buffer strip. In addition,sources of pollution are controlled by the plan. For example,equestrian uses are prohibited within a defined buffer area in the southern half of the site nearest the creek. These features are the primary treatment control methods for the treatment of runoff from the developed park. These BMPs,when combined with other site 37 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -31- City of San Juan Capistrano. California design and source control BMPs prescribed in the Water Quality Management Plan,will effectively mitigate impacts related to the water quality pollutants of concern. In addition to the WQMP, the City will enforce requirements for the project to implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP is a requirement by the State Water Resources Control Board, under the General Construction permit for any project over 1 acre. It is a document that describes what BMPs will be used during construction to prevent impacts to State waters. Implementation of a SWPPP will be a standard condition of approval for the Master Plan. Implementation of the WQMP and SWPPP are the City's standard methods for ensuring avoidance of significant water quality impacts from activities during and after construction. To ensure that impacts at this sensitive site are mitigated to a level below significant,the following Mitigation Measure is provided. Mitigation Measure WQ-1: The Reata Park&Event Center's Operations and Maintenance Plan shall integrate and implement the BMPs and maintenance requirements of the project's Water Quality Management Plan(Huitt-Zollars, 2012). Would the project. a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.As noted above,water quality standards and waste discharge requirements are implemented on a project-specific basis through a Water Quality Management Plan.Compliance with the City's standards for WQMP implementation and with applicable RWQCB permit requirements would result in less than significant impacts to water quality. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies orinterfere 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 existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact. The Master Plan will have no effect on groundwater supplies,groundwater recharge or aquifers. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,Including through the alteration of the course of stream or river,In a manner which would result In substantial erosion orslltation on- or off-site? No impact. The project will slightly alter the direction of drainage to facilitate its treatment onsite prior to flowing offsite.This will be a beneficial effect. Proposed improvements will not increase the amount or rate of runoff from the site. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site orarea,Including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,orsubstandally increase the rate or amount of surface runoff In a manner which would result In flooding on-or off-site? No impact. Refer to Response(c),above. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No impact. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. See previous discussion and response to(a)above. g) Place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The proposed project does not include housing. h) Place within a 100-yearflood hazard area structures which would Impede or redirect flood flows? No impact. According to FEMA maps,the site is well outside all 100-year flood hazard areas. f 38 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -32- City of San Juan Capistrano. California i) 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 dam? No impact. The Floodplain Management Element of the City's General Plan indicates that the site is well outside of the area of potential inundation resulting from catastrophic failure of Trampas Canyon Dam,the only levee or dam of concern in the city. j) Inundation by selche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. There are no anticipated impacts to the proposed project from seiche,tsunami or mudflow,as no topographical features or water bodies capable of producing such events occur within the project site vicinity. k) Result in an Increase In pollutant discharges to receiving waters? Consider water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical stonmwater pollutants (e.g. heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives,synthetic organics,sediment, nutrients,oxygen-demanding substances,and trash)? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. See response to(a)above. i) Result In significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated See response to(a)above. m) Could the proposed project result in increased erosion downstream? No impact. See response to (a)above. n) Result In Increased impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Implementation of the Master Plan will result in an increase in impervious surfaces. The project's Water Quality Management Plan identifies feasible methods for accommodating runoff from the site. See response to(a)above. o) Create a significant adverse environmental Impact to drainage patterns due to changes In runoff flow rates or volumes? No Impact. See response to(c)above. p) Tributary to an already impaired water body,as listed on the Clean WaterAct Section 303(d)list? If so, can It result in an increase In any pollutant for which the water body Is already Impaired? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The site is tributary to an impaired water body, San Juan Creek. However,with implementation of the Water Quality Management Plan,the project will result in a net decrease in pollutants (compared to existing conditions) through the introduction of treatment facilities.See previous discussion. See also response to(a)above. q) Tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? if so, can It exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. See Response to(a) and (p) above. r) Have a potentially significant environmental Impact on surface water quality to either marine, fresh,or wetland waters? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. See Response to (a)above. s) Have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality? No impact. See Responses to(a)and (b)above. t) Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. See Responses to(a), (b), (c), (f)and (p)above. u) Impact aquatic,wetland,orripadan habitat? Less than significant impact with mitigatlon incorporated. See Response to(a)above. See also Response 16.4(b)and(c)related to Biological Resources,above. 39 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -33- City of San Juan Capistrano. California v) Potentially Impact stormwater runoff from construction orpost construction? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.See Responses to(a), (c)and(1)above. 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 handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? No impact.Park activities associated with the Master Plan do not include the storage or handling of waste or hazardous materials. No outdoor storage of materials is proposed. x) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? No Impact. See Response to(a)above. y) Create the potential forsignificant changes In the flow velocity or volume of stormwaterrunoff to cause environmental harm?No Impact. See Response to(a), (c)and (1) above. z) Create significant increases In erosion of the project site or surrounding areas?No Impact.See Responses to(a)and (1)above. The project will have no significant adverse effects relative to hydrology and water quality. .�c t0� c� a 14p 14 a c c ff �c ea !c t5 E c crj . 0 0 C a y C O_ m Q!� � m df Q O am s E z 16.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 Plan, 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 conservation plan? Land uses on and around the site are illustrated in Exhibit 4, Existing Features. a) Physically divide an established community? No impact. Proposed uses are consistent with current zoning and General Plan designations for the site and its surroundings. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,orreguladon of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan,local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding ormidgating an environmental effect?Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The Master Plan and its proposed uses have the potential to conflict with the subregional HCP that governs the Conservation Easement along the park's southern boundary. Mitigation measures (BR-2 through BR-10) in the Biological Resources discussion above effectively avoid these potential conflicts,if properly implemented. Other applicable plans and regulations include a Special Area Management Plan(SAMP)and Master Streambed Alteration Agreement(MSAA), both of which apply to the Conservation Easement and RMV Reserve.The Master Plan's consistency with the SAMP and MSAA must be affirmed by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game, respectively. The following measure is provided to ensure compliance: f f 40 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -34- City of San Juan Capistrano California Mitigation Measure LU-1:Prior to issuance of any grading permit for the site,the City's Community Development Department shall have received written confirmation from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Fish and Game that the Master Plan does not conflict with the SAMP and MSAA, respectively, as they apply to the adjacent conservation easement lands and reserve. See also discussion in Section 16.15, Transportation/Traffic on prior conditions of approval related to weekday PM peak trips. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The site is subject to an approved Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) established in conjunction with the Ranch Plan Planned Community Zoning. Mitigation measures presented in the discussion of Biological Resources,Section 5.9,will ensure that the Master Plan does not conflict with the HCP. With the implementation of mitigation measures,the Master Plan will have no impacts related to land use. 0 c �a � e 0 M� is t _ _ � {p F O t4 0. � V �I � HE = m CL u�l a $ �i is ay �ams -3N 9 2 16.10 MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that ❑ ❑ ❑ would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other ❑ ❑ ❑ land use plan? a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. There are no locally-important mineral resources underlying the site. There are no mineral recovery sites on or near the site. b) Result in the loss of availablllty of a locally-important mineral resource recoverysite delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. Refer to Response(a),above. The project will have no impact on mineral resources. _ c — _ 2 = _ 2 _ U & 01 = N1. N.0 G N = t0 E CL CL Y) J'to JN9 Z 16.11 NOISE. Would the project: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or ❑ ❑ ❑ applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ❑ ❑ ❑ vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ ❑ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 41 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -35- City of San Juan Capistrano. California 0 �� � is g 4Z E « o o. 'a' was � p,ii o E _ y a E z �i7 d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the project vicinity 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 miles of a public airport or ❑ ❑ ❑ public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? F project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project e people residing or working in the project area to excessive ❑ ❑ ❑ IDlevels? Noise from Ortega Highway likely ranges from 60 CNEL to 70 CNEL over most of the site,with levels greater than 70 CNEL in the area nearest the highway. This range of noise is generally compatible with the type of use proposed for the site,which consists principally of outdoor,recreational activities(see,Noise&Land Use Compatibility Matrix from Aircraft Noise Impact Planning Guidelines for Local Agencies;for Ortega Highway noise levels see City of San Juan Capistrano, Manch 2009). Noise impacts on nearby properties from activities at the park are unlikely because of the nature of park activities. The only potential source of substantial noise is amplified music or the use of public address systems which might be associated with special events at the park. However, these sources can be regulated through the City's Operations and Management Plan and through restrictions of the Facility Use Permit as it is applied to special events. Because of the park's location,there are no sensitive uses in the immediate vicinity. The nearest residences are more than 1000 feet away from the areas of the park site where special events would be held(Areas H, I and J). From this distance, even amplified sounds are unlikely to exceed accepted levels of noise for residential areas. i The same is true for construction-generated noise. Noise generated during construction is not expected to be severe, largely because implementation of the Master Plan does not require extensive grading. While there will be some earth-moving equipment(graders, bulldozers, backhoes,trucks,payloaders),their use will be limited to remedial grading and spot grading in some areas to develop drainage swales, level the terrain for trails, parking areas and paths,and prepare the site for the few structures proposed in the plan. The noise generated by these pieces of equipment, along with occasional pumps and generators will result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels. However, this increase will not be great enough to adversely affect sensitive users. The City's Noise Ordinance limits construction and demolition hours to 7 AM to 6 PM, Monday through Friday and 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM on Saturday. Construction activities are not permitted on Sunday or on national holidays. Compliance with the ordinance would ensure the project's conformance with adopted noise thresholds and avoidance of any adverse impacts related to noise. Would the project result In: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels In excess of standards established In the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? No impact. Neither the construction nor the long-term activities associated with the proposed improvements will generate significant noise. The site is not currently exposed to noise levels in excess of established standards and implementation of the Master Plan will not alter this condition. b) Exposure ofpersons to orgeneration of excessive groundborne vibration orgroundborne noise levels?No impact. Groundborne noise and groundborne vibration is transmitted through rock or other ground media and results from pile-driving or the use of heavy earthmoving equipment such as bulldozers and heavy tracked equipment. The improvements proposed in the Master Plan do not require pile-driving. The use of earth moving equipment will be moderate and will not generate excessive vibration or groundborne noise. l 42 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -36- City of San Juan Caoistrano California c) A substantial permanent Increase In ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No impact. The proposed improvements and associated activities will not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels. See above discussion. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels In the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than significant impact. Construction noise will result in a temporary short-term increase in ambient noise levels. Because of their very short duration, noise events generated during some of the proposed improvements are extremely unlikely to reach levels that are incompatible with neighboring land uses. There are no noise-sensitive users in the project vicinity. Compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance,which prohibits construction activities outside the hours of 7 AM through 6 PM Monday through Friday and 8:30 AM through 4:30 PM on Saturday,will effectively ensure that the project does not exceed adopted standards and successfully avoids significant noise impacts. 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 or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No impact. The site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. The Master Plan will not create significant noise impacts. c -0 c o 1c ti H p a cc CL a $ a s E CL 0 _j-ro .5i'n E z 16.12 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 extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ ED construction of replacement housing 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 Infrastructure)? No impact. The improvements proposed with the Master Plan will not induce growth,either directly through development of new homes and business, nor indirectly through the expansion of infrastructure that might enable growth. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No impact. The project will not displace any housing. c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No impact. Refer to Response 4.12a and 4.12b, above. The project will have no impacts on population and housing. 43 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -37- City of San Juan Capistrano. California ISO U 30 Mrs ��� � C oia � � s � �a o a°i'n E y e min B z 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: Fire Protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Police Protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks? D ❑ O Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 1) Fire protection? No impact. The project will not generate an increased demand for fire protection services over existing conditions. It will not induce growth or substantially increase, either directly or indirectly,the need for public services over existing conditions. The proposed structures and the adaptive re-use of existing facilities onsite will meet the most recent Fire Code requirements.The site is within the service area for Orange County Fire Authority's(OCFA)Del Obispo Street Fire Station and can be served from that location in accordance with the service standards. 2) Police protection? No impact. There are no significant impacts related to police protection or service anticipated with implementation of the Master Plan. 3) Schools? No impact.The proposed improvements will not result in any increase in student population or otherwise affect school services. 4) Parks? No impact. Implementation of the proposed Master Plan and development of the site as a municipal park will have a beneficial effect by enhancing the capacity of local parks to meet demands for outdoor passive recreation. The potential for adverse environmental effects is addressed throughout this Initial Study. 5) Other public facilities? No impact. The proposed improvements will not result in any increase in the resident population or in a significant increase in employees. It will not increase the demand for public facilities other than the demand met by the proposed facilities themselves. The project will have no impact on public services. 44 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -38- City of San Juan Capistrano California i �— E ris a t�aa 14 EL tsE ainE a�J $ m E Z 16.14 RECREATION.Would the project: 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 effect on the environment? 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 occurorbe accelerated? No Impact. The proposed park and its Master Plan will not increase use of existing parks. Development of the new park may have the beneficial effect of temporarily reducing use at other parks by increasing the overall capacity of local parks,at least until the population increases in the park vicinity as a result of development of Rancho Mission Viejo. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No impact. The potential for the park's facilities to have adverse physical effects on the environment is discussed throughout this Initial Study. The proposed facilities will have no significant adverse physical effects if all mitigation measures identified throughout the Initial Study are implemented. Z.CC.. O t `� o c!E� Im E «! C CLr7,'E" r ii o CL in .°1.i'9 3 in E z 16.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC.Would the project: 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 increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service standard established by the county congestion/management agency for Cl ® ❑ ❑ designated 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? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g., farm ❑ ❑ ❑ equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ alternative transportation(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 45 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -39- City of San Juan Capistrano, California Undercurrent conditions the site generates very few vehicle trips. It is occasionally used for overflow parking in association with special events at the Riding Park, but this use is generated by the Riding Park, not the Reata Park and Event Center site. Trip generation for the proposed uses of the Master Plan is difficult to estimate,owing to the lack of published standard rates for passive community parks of this type. A technical analysis prepared for this assessment(Damell&Associates, Inc.2012)applied a SANDAG estimate of 50 trips per acre(a rate believed to be high for the proposed use). If non-functional areas(such as the Caltrans right-of-way)are factored out of the site's 18.4 gross acres,the remaining 13.88 acres yield a projected 694 daily trips,using the SANDAG rate.(During the park's initial phase,before the portion under the 2-acre SCE easement is added to the park,the functional park acreage will be 11.79 acres,yielding 590 daily trips.) The magnitude of projected daily trips, although it is surely an overestimate, is too small to warrant a complete traffic impact analysis of local intersections and road capacities. However, the number of future trips generated from the site during the weekday PM peak is constrained through a prior condition of approval(and through the City's purchase agreement for the site)not to exceed 203 trips,in combination with the PM peak trips concurrently generated from the San Juan Capistrano Riding Park(Blenheim lease site). The technical analysis therefore provided worst case projections for weekday PM peak trips from both the Reata site and the Riding Park. Worst case projections for the Reata Park and Event Center are based on the 694 daily trips of the fully developed park (including the SCE easement area). Applying the standard rate of 13%to the daily trips to estimate PM trips yields 62 weekday PM trips. The Riding Park generates trips during special events, most of which are scheduled for weekends. On a few occasions each year, equestrian or sports events are scheduled for weekdays. Assuming a worst case scenario with all six fields in use at the same time,the weekday PM peak could be as high as 186 trips. When this is added to the 62 trips from Reata,the total of 186 trips during the weekday PM peak hour is 17 less than the cap of 203. These worst case estimates indicate that the proposed uses of the Master Plan are unlikely to exceed the established PM peak threshold. However,the tandem nature of this threshold,involving both the Reata site and the Riding Park, indicates that scheduling for special events at both sites,during weekdays, must be managed to ensure the PM peak cap is not exceeded. Compliance with this PM peak limit will be facilitated through this mitigation measure: Midgatlon Measure T-1: The Operation and Management Plan for the Reata Park and Event Center shall require that the City of San Juan Capistrano monitor and manage the scheduling of special events at both Reata Park and Event Center and San Juan Capistrano Riding Park to ensure that weekday events do not in combination generate more than 203 PM trips(between 4:45 PM and 5:45 PM). In the case that special events scheduled at one or both sites have the potential to exceed the 203 weekday PM peak limit,the City shall deny approval of Facility Use Permits until events are rescheduled to avoid exceeding the 203 PM trip threshold. The technical study also looked at the Master Plan's parking demand and its ability to meet that demand. A parking demand of 15 spaces per acre was applied to the Master Plan's functional acreage(13.88 acres with the SCE easement; 11.79 acres without the easement). This rate applied to the park site(without the SCE easement included) yields a parking demand of 177 standard spaces. The proposed plan provides 197 spaces in Areas B, C and F. Without the SCE easement, the Master Plan provides 20 more spaces than warranted by the estimated demand. When the SCE easement area is included,if it is developed to provide 62 additional standard parking spaces, as indicated in the Master Plan, the park will have an excess of 82 spaces above the estimated parking demand. Inasmuch as the park will not be used for overflow parking from the Riding Park(or from other sites) this surplus parking is likely to go unused,except perhaps for very high attendance special events at the Reata site. Such events would be on a grand scale, with upwards of 160 attendees (in addition to all other 197 spaces onsite being used concurrently), to make use of the full surplus of parking. Assuming a vehicle occupancy rate of 2.25 persons per vehicle,the number of park users visiting the site during a peak event of this magnitude is likely to be approximately 583 persons. This number is surely beyond the capacity of the park's planned facilities(other than for parking)and would likely result in adverse impacts to the proposed facilities and increase the likelihood of impacts to sensitive offsite resources. 46 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -40- City of San Juan Capistrano California Would the project: 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 Increase In either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,orcongesdon atintersecdons)?Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The proposed improvements are not expected to result in a substantial increase in vehicle trips and will therefore not substantially affect existing traffic loads or the capacity of the street system. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1 will ensure that weekday PM peak hour capacity is not exceeded. b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Refer to Response(a), above. c) Result In a change In air traffic patterns,Including eltheran Increase in traffic levels or a change In location that results In substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project will have no effect on air traffic. The site is not in the vicinity of an airport or under a flight path. The project will not generate increased air travel. 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 Master Plan provides primary access to the site at a signalized intersection(thus avoiding dangerous entries and exits). Future secondary access (with Phase 2)will be restricted to an eastbound right turn into the site only and no exits. The project does not introduce any incompatible uses that might introduce a safety hazard to circulation. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No impact. See above response. Access and internal circulation of the proposed Master Plan will be reviewed by the Orange County Fire Authority to ensure emergency access is adequate. g) Result in Inadequate parking capacity? No impact. See discussion above. The Master Plan provides more than enough parking capacity for proposed uses in excess of the visitation capacity of the park. h) Conflict with adoptedpolicies,plans,or programs supporting alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? No impact. The Master Plan implements,in part,adopted policies,plans and programs supporting alternative transportation through its inclusion of onsite alignments and connections for regional biking, hiking and equestrian trails. The Master Plan will have no adverse impacts on transportation and traffic. E .9 c c tf o fi iL4 5 � R oCL n a ay�O° 2 a d U) J'ur mi' s 3 Z 16.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional ❑ ❑ ❑ Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction ❑ ❑ ❑ of which could cause significant environmental effects? 47 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 41- City of San Juan Capistrano, California ra 1 p r C C C ~ G U 3.20 W c3� � EX gV E 'Of is r� Cp$ a o+a o a. E J'a � 01i�n E 2 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 environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded ❑ ❑ ❑ entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve ❑ ❑ ❑ the project=s projected demand in addition to the provider=s existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ❑ ❑ ❑ accommodate the project=s solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations related ❑ ❑ ❑ to solid waste? a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?No impact.The proposed project will not increase demand for wastewater treatment, nor will it adversely impact existing wastewater services or facilities,or otherwise impede compliance with Regional Water Quality standards.The site and its uses are not proposed to be served by wastewater services or facilities. b) Require orresult in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?No impact. The project will not result in a significant increase in water or wastewater treatment facilities. c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?No impact. The project proposes to modify site conditions so that stormwater runoff is directed into treatment areas onsite. These minor improvements are within the site's boundaries. No offsite improvements or expansions are proposed or necessary. (See the discussion in Section 16.8, Hydrology and Water Quality,for a description of drainage improvements). d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No impact. No new or expanded entitlements are required to implement the Master Plan. Water supply(both potable and non-potable)will be supplied by the City of San Juan Capistrano through existing mains to the site. e) Result In a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?No impact. Refer to Response(a),above. f) Be served by a landfill with suff tient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?No impact.The project will not substantially increase solid waste generation. g) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No impact. Refer to Response(f), above. The project will have no impact on utilities and service systems. 48 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -42- City of San Juan Capistrano, California co ae o!& m of $ d.�E r C Z 16.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.Would the project: a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the 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 community, ® El 0 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 prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the ❑ ❑ 0 disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable ("Cumulatively considerable" means the ❑ ❑ El project's incremental effects are considerable when compared to the past, present,and future effects of other projects)? d. Does the project have environmental effects which will have 0 ❑ El substantial adverse effects on human beings,directly or indirectly? a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the 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 community, 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 orprehistory? Less than significant with mitigation. The proposed improvements do have the potential to adversely affect biological resources offsite. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BR-1 through BR-10 will reduce impacts to fish and wildlife species, populations and their habitats to a level below significant. The project also has the potential to inadvertently impact cultural resources. Mitigation Measures CRA through CR-7 will ensure avoidance of these significant effects. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?No Impact. The project does not jeopardize long-term environmental goals in favor of short-term environmental goals. The Master Plan and its proposed uses are consistent with the long-term goals for the site adopted by the City as reflected in the site's zoning and General Plan designation,and will implement these goals without significant environmental effects or conflicts with long- term environmental goals. c) Does the project have Impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable ("Cumulatively considerable" means the project's incremental effects are considerable when compared to the past,present,and future effects of otherprojects)? No impact. The project would not result in incremental effects of this type. Potential impacts are limited to those that can be mitigated to a less than significant impact and which do not have un-mitigable incremental effects that are cumulatively considerable. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will have substantial adverse effects on human beings,directly or Indirectly? Less than significant with mitigation. The potential risk of adverse effects to humans is exists in the presence of both the overhead power lines and an active 16' pipeline that traverse the site in the SCE easement. The proposed park is also in a designated Very High Fire Hazard 49 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 43- City of San Juan Capistrano,California Severity Zone.These risks can be avoided through careful site planning for this portion of the site(during Phase 2)and through implementation of Mitigation Measures HM-3 and HM-4. 17. PREPARATION. This initial study was prepared for the City of San Juan Capistrano by Ed Almanza& Associates. 50 and comment on this environmental documentation.Written comments may be mailed,-e- mailed,or faxed to the project manager. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Development Services Department located in City Hall at 32400 Paseo Adelanto.The City's Planning Commission and City Council will conduct public meetings at future dates to be determined. You will receive a separate public notice for those meetings. If you challenge this project in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised during the public review period on the proposed Negative Declaration (ND)or at the future public meetings. l�QQGCGIw .�• POSTED By order of William Ramsey,AICP Environmental Administrator OCT p 5 2412 "MY.CIkA •REcoRDER pEPNY 51 EXHIBIT "B" MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) Reata Park and Event Center Master Plan (CIP 12201) INTRODUCTION The City of San Juan Capistrano has adopted this Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program (MMRP) in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6 and Section 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the proposed project complies with all applicable environmental mitigation and permit requirements. Mitigation measures for the project have been adopted by the City's approving body in conjunction with certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Those adopted mitigation measures are integrated into this MMRP. Within this document, approved mitigation measures are organized and referenced by subject category (e.g. Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, etc.). Each mitigation measure is provided with a numerical reference. This form also includes information on the method and timing of verification and the responsible party that will ensure that each measure is implemented. For each project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires the Lead Agency to monitor performance of the mitigation measures included in any environmental document to ensure that implementation does, in fact, take place. The City is the designated lead agency for the Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program and is responsible for review of any monitoring reports, enforcement actions, and document disposition. Mitigation Monitoring&Reporting Program CIP 12201 Reata Park&Event Center Master Plan_ DATE METHOD OF TIMING OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLETED 8 NO. MITIGATION MEASURE VERIFICATION VERIFICATION STAFF INITIALS Blolo lcal Resources The Operations and Maintenance Plan for the park shall include detailed maintenance guidelines for the treatment of all landscaped areas and native plants in the park. Guidelines shall identify treatments and schedules for appropriate management practices for (at a minimum) the principal components of the park's landscape: (1)the lemon grove, (2) ornamental and native plants in the vicinity of the Welcome Center, Development (3) established native trees, (4) existing Services native vegetation within the Sensitive Department- Resource Area, and (5) all new plantings Planning throughout the park. The guidelines shall Review of Prior to Division& BRA Prescribe specific practices related to Operations and approval of public Works irrigation, pruning, litter removal and use of Maintenance Landscape Department's mulch, and shall identify measures to avoid Plan Plans public Lands & impacts of overwatering or human use to Facilities root structures of mature trees. The plan Division shall include specific measures for the pruning and maintenance of existing trees, to be prepared by a qualified arborist, along with a schedule for their implementation. The plan shall also include an Integrated Pest Management Plan that conforms to the recommendations of the California Department of Fish & Game (DFG) as outlined in their November 8, 2012 comment letter to the City on this project and/or through direct consultation with DFG. Prior to issuance of a permit for any vegetation removal, site grubbing, grading, demolition or construction work in areas Prior to Development directly abutting San Juan Creek, the Issuance of Services boundaries of the Sensitive Resource Area Plan Check& Grading Department- BR-2 and of the Conservation Easement shall be Construction Permits or Planning clearly staked and marked with bright Monitoring Tree Division& orange fencing at the direction of a qualified Removal Building biologist to ensure that no direct impacts Permits Division occur to the native habitat or to jurisdictional resources. Any vegetation removal within the Sensitive Resource Area shall be prohibited during Prior to the period between February 15 and Issuance of Development September 15. This will ensure that no Plan Check& Grading Services BR-3 active nests are disturbed and that habitat Construction Permit or Department- removal can proceed rapidly. In the event Monitoring Tree Building that it is not feasible to schedule vegetation Removal Division removal outside the nesting season, all Permits suitable habitat all native plant communities Exhibit T' , page 2 of 9 Mitigation Monitoring&Reporting Program CIP 12201. Reata Park&Event Center Master Plan DATE METHOD OF TIMING OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLETED a NO. MITIGATION MEASURE VERIFICATION VERIFICATION STAFF INITIALS as well as all native and non-naive trees) shall be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist before commencement of vegetation removals. If any active nests are detected, a buffer of at least 100 feet from active nests shall be delineated, flagged and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete as determined by the biological monitor. Prior to issuance of permits that allow the removal of vegetation during the nesting season, a survey shall be prepared and approved by the City. It active nests are detected; the approved plans shall include the required buffer area set forth above. Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in the Sensitive Resource Area for the arroyo toad (Buffo californicus). Exclusion fencing shall be erected within 300 feet of any known arroyo toad population in the area of San Juan Creek for construction occurring outside of the toad aestivation period (August 1 to i January 1 . Trash receptacles in the park shall be of a wildlife-proof design. Artificial lighting shall Prior to be prohibited in the Sensitive Resource Review of Issuance of Area. Artificial lighting elsewhere in the park Operations and Building Development shall be shielded so that no spillover of light Maintenance Permits; Services BR-4 reaches the Sensitive Resource Area or Department- Plan, Building prior to Conservation Easement area offsite. The Permits and approval of Planning plant palette shall exclude all species on the Landscape Plan Landscape Division Cal-IPC list and plant material used on the Plan site shall be from a source that is certified to be free of fire ants. In order to avoid impacts to the viability of San Juan Creek as an active wildlife corridor, all activities at the park shall cease and the park shall close to the public at dark (civil twilight) with the exception of park and emergency uses that may be permitted Development pursuant to the Biological Resources Review of Prior to Services Construction Plan (ERCP) and/or Operations and BR-5 Park Department- Operations & Management Plan (O&MP) to Management Opening Planning be developed with the Resource Agencies Plan Division pursuant to Mitigation Measure BR-9. Dogs shall be prohibited within the Sensitive Resource Area (leashed or unleashed), except to cross the creek at the designated crossing ('Arizona crossing') during which time they shall be leashed 6-foot maximum Exhibit "B", page 3 of 9 Mitigation Monitoring&Reporting Program C!P 92201 Reata Park&Event Center Master Plan DATE METHOD OF TIMING OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLETED& NO. MITIGATION MEASURE VERIFICATION VERIFICATION STAFF INITIALS leash) and prohibited from entering habitat in the conservation easement area. The park's Operations and Management Plan shall include and provide for implementation of a Visitor Management Program, which at a minimum shall include educational brochures to inform visitors of the sensitivity of resources and of inappropriate (and disallowed) activities in specific areas of the park. The authorization of Special Events through the issuance of a Facility Use Permit shall include explicit educational information about sensitive onsite and nearby resources, and shall require written consent to comply with park Review Development restrictions and policies. The Program shall Operations and Prior to Services BR-6 include provisions for regular and frequent Management Park Department- monitoring of visitor use and of potential Plan Opening Planning indicators of adverse effects of human use Division (such as signs of trespass into the offsite Conservation Easement, litter, dog waste, unauthorized use of fire, etc.) and identify adaptive management actions to address and mitigate observed impacts (e.g., increased presence of enforcement personnel, better placement of, or additional, signage; enhanced barriers to restricted areas; establishment of temporarily restricted areas to discourage trespass; establishment of no-entry habitat restoration zones, etc.). Signage and interpretive devices that identify the presence of sensitive habitat, the hazards of wildlife and poison oak, and fire hazard shall be abundant and highly visible (without being incompatible with the site's Review of Development natural setting), especially along the Operations and Prior to Services BR-7 boundary of the Sensitive Resource Area Management Park Department- and at the park's southern boundary with the Plan; Review of Opening Planning offsite Conservation Easement. Plantings Landscape Plan Division along the site's southern boundary (and the spacing between plantings) shall emphasize native species that deter trespass into the riparian habitat e. ., Opuntia). To protect steelhead critical habitat, habitat Development of the arroyo toad and other sensitive Prior to Services species within the riparian habitat offsite, all Plan Check issuance of Department- BR-8 project-generated runoff shall be pre-treated and/or Permit Grading or Planning by filtration through a vegetative swale or Review Building Division& other treatment control measure (TCM) Permits Public Works approved by the City's environmental I I I Department- Exhibit "B", page 4 of 9 Mitigation Monitoring&Reporting Program CIP 12201, Reata Park&Event Center Master Plan DATE METHOD OF TIMING OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLETED& NO. MITIGATION MEASURE VERIFICATION VERIFICATION STAFF INITIALS engineer and as specified in the project's Engineering Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), Division prior to being released off-site. During site preparation and construction, the project will implement and maintain all elements of the approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Further, the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall include treatment control measures that provide a sufficient level of pre-treatment to maintain the water quality for steelhead trout and arroyo toad habitat purposes. The park and its uses shall not increase flooding in off-site areas located downstream. No park-related activities shall occur within the Creek and no project-related debris shall be deposited into the Creek. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any portion of the park, the City shall submit and have approved by U.S. Fish and Wildlife USFWS Development Service a Biological Resources Approval of Prior to Services BR-9 Conservation Plan (BRCP) that ensures the Biological issuance of Department- Master Plan and its proposed activities and Resources Grading Planning management practices are consistent with Conservation Permits Division the goals and objectives of the RMV Habitat Plan (BRCP) Conservation Plan. In order to reduce the risk of impacts to onsite facilities and to avoid significant impacts to offsite habitats due to overuse Development beyond the site's capacity, prior to future Review of Services BR- development in the SCE easement area Site Plan 10 (Phase 2), the City shall evaluate the Master Preliminary Site Review Department- Plan and levels of public use to ensure that Plan for Phase 2 Planning Division parking capacity at the site is consistent with overall parking demand and does not exceed the carrying capacity of park uses. For all trees (greater than six inches in diameter measured three feet above the ground) to be removed as a result of the project, the City shall process and secure Prior to Development BR- approval of a tree removal permit application Plan Check Issuance of Services 11 in accordance with Section 9-2.349 of the and/or Permit Tree Department- City's Municipal Code. The application shall Review Removal Planning be prepared so that it substantially complies Permits Division with the project's approved landscape plan subject to determination by the Development Services Director or his/her designee. BR- Prior to opening the park to public use, the Adoption of the Prior to Public Works 12 City shall develop, adopt and implement an Operations& park Department Operations & Management Plan which will Management opening and Exhibit " ' , page 5 of 9 Mitigation Monitoring&Reporting Program C/P 12209 Reata Park&Event Center Master Plan DATE METHOD OF TIMING OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLETED 6 NO. MITIGATION MEASURE VERIFICATION VERIFICATION STAFF INITIALS include provisions to implement all Mitigation Plan (O&MP) Development Measures contained in the approved Services Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Department (MMRP)for the project, along with additional implementing actions that may be identified in conjunction with the Biological Resources Construction Plan (BRCP), subject to approval by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the approved Water Quality Management Plan (BR-8 and WQ-1), the Integrated Pest Management Plan (BR-1), the Visitor Management Program (BR-6) and the Peak Hour Traffic Management Plan (T-1). Cultural Resources All actions implementing adaptive re-use of Review of Prior to Development the historical residence shall conform to the Operations and Issuance of Services Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Maintenance CR-1 Rehabilitation. Plan and Demolition Department- Demolition and or Building Planning Buildin Plans Permits Division A qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist on the List of Certified Archaeologists for Orange County and/or a professional member of the Register of Professional Archeologists (RPA), shall be 117 present at pre-construction meetings to advise construction contractors about the sensitive nature of cultural resources located in the 'Sensitive Area' of the site associated with CA-ORA-27 (identified in Appendix B of the Cultural Resources Assessment, ARMC, 2012), as well as monitoring requirements. A qualified monitor (defined as an individual with a Prior to Development Bachelors' Degree in anthropology with Services CR-2 archaeological monitoring experience), Plan Check Issuance of Department- supervised by the qualified archaeologist, Grading Planning shall observe construction activities that Permits Division result in grading, and/or excavating more than 18-inches below the original ground surface. Should non-human cultural resources be discovered, the monitor shall have the authority 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. All archaeological resources unearthed by construction activities shall be evaluated in accordance with City Policy 601. In the event that human remains are discovered, Exhibit "B", page 6 of 9 Mitigation Monitoring&Reporting Program C!P 12209, Reata Park&Event Center Master Plan DATE `f! METHOD OF TIMING OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLETED 8 NO. MITIGATION MEASURE VERIFICATION VERIFICATION STAFF INITIALS 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. Mitigation Measure CR-2 shall also apply to Prior to Development all subsurface excavation and disturbance Issuance of Services- CR-3 in the immediate vicinity of the historical Plan Check Grading Planning residence. Permits Division A Native American monitor shall be retained to observe excavating and/or trenching more than 18-inches below the original ground surface. The Native Development • American monitor shall consult with the Prior to Services archaeological monitor regarding objects Issuance of CR-4 and remains encountered during grading Plan Check Grading Department- that may be considered sacred or Permits Planning important. In the event that evidence of Division human remains is discovered, the Native American monitor shall verify that the archaeologist has notified the Coroner. Within 90-days of final inspection by the City's construction inspector and preservation planner, the City will have secured the submission of the final reports for any historical, cultural, archaeological or Development Prior paleontological resources recovered from CR-5 the project site during grading or Plan Check Finall Department- Services construction have been filed with the Inspection Planning Division appropriate information repository. Reports shall include recommendations on disposition of recovered sub-surface cultural resources. Hazards&Hazardous Materials Prior to demolition or renovation of existing Prior to Development structures onsite, the removal and legal Issuance of Services HM-1 disposal of asbestos-containing materials Plan Check Demolition Department- shall be performed by a licensed and or Building Environmental regulated asbestos abatement contractor. Permits Administrator Contaminated soils shall be removed in accordance with County of Orange Health Prior to Development Care Agency standards. Confirmation of issuance of Services HM-2 removal from the Health Care Agency shall Plan Check Grading Department- be provided to the City Development Planning Services Department prior to issuance of a Permits Division grading permit. The use of mechanical equipment shall not Prior to Development HM-3 be permitted within 2 feet of the alignments Plan Check and Issuance of Services of the two pipelines that traverse the site Permit Review Grading Department- Exhibit "B", page 7 of 9 Mitigation Monitoring&Reporting Program C1P 12201 Reata Park&Event Center Master Plan DATE METHOD OF TIMING OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLETED S NO. MITIGATION MEASURE VERIFICATION VERIFICATION STAFF INITIALS (as identified in Kinder Morgan, 2012). Any Permits. Planning activities that disturb the ground surface Division within 10 feet of the alignments shall be monitored by a representative of the owner and operator of the pipelines (Kinder Morgan). Future park uses and activities in Phase 2 (within the SCE Easement) shall be designed to avoid significant hazards related to the presence of the active 16" pipeline and the overhead power lines that traverse the easement. The Operations and Management Plan for the park shall limit the use of fire to built-in barbeque facilities. Open fires shall be prohibited, including the use of candles. Smoking shall be prohibited within the Development Sensitive Habitat Area. The Operations Approval of Prior to Services HM-4 and Management Plan shall include Operations and Park Department- additional restrictions and provisions, as Management Opening Planning deemed necessary, to be stipulated by the Plan Division County Fire Marshall prior to opening of the park for its first use. The O & M Plan shall provide for signage and other notices to the public to ensure that fire safety measures are clearly identified for park users. H drology& Water Quality The Reata Park & Event Center's Operations and Maintenance Plan shall Prior to Public Works H-1 integrate and implement the BPlan Check Park MPs and Department- maintenance requirements of the projects Engineering Water Quality Management Plan (Huitt- Opening Division Zollars, 2012). Land Use&Planning Prior to issuance of any grading permit for the site, the City's Community Development Department shall have Prior to Development received written confirmation from the U.S. Issuance of Services LU-1 Army Corps of Engineers and the Plan Check first Department- Department of Fish and Game that the Grading Planning Master Plan does not conflict with the Permit Division SAMP and MSAA, respectively, as they apply to the adjacent conservation easement lands and reserve. Transportation & Traffic The Operation and Management Plan for the Reata Park and Event Center shall Review of Development require that the City of San Juan Services Operation and Prior to Park T-1 Capistrano monitor and manage the Department- Management Opening scheduling of special events at both Reata Plan Planning Park and Event Center and San Juan Division Capistrano Riding Park to ensure that Exhibit "B", page 8 of 9 Mitigation Monitoring&Reporting Program CIP 12201Reata Park&Event Center Master Plan DATE METHOD OF TIMING OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLETED 3 NO. MITIGATION MEASURE VERIFICATION VERIFICATION STAFF INITIALS weekday events do not in combination generate more than 203 PM trips (between 4:45 PM and 5:45 PM). In the case that special events scheduled at one or both sites have the potential to exceed the 203 weekday PM peak limit, the City shall deny approval of Facility Use Permits until events are rescheduled to avoid exceeding the 203 PM trip threshold. T-2: Prior to the first construction phase, the City shall submit to Caltrans District 12 a Traffic Management Plan for construction vehicles, in order to minimize impacts to Submission of Ortega Highway. Hauling of materials on Traffic Prior to Public Works T-2 Management construction Department- State facilities during demolition and Plan (TMP)to phase Traffic Division construction shall not occur during the AM Caltrans and PM peak periods of travel. All vehicle loads shall be covered to prevent materials from blowing onto roads and rights-of-way. f I Exhibit "B", page 9 of 9