17-0321_DUDEK_Agenda Report_F2a3t21t2017
F2a
City of San Juan Capistrano
Agenda Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Æ"Siegel, City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Steve May, Public Works and Utilitie s Director./r'1.1-e
Ken Al-lmam, Chief Financial Officer
PREPARED BY: Michael Marquis, P.E., Associate Civil Engineer
DATE:
SUBJECT:
March 21,2017
Consideration of Amending the Scope of the Riding Park Fire Flow
and Recycled Water Supply Project (ClP 17201) to Add a Sewer
Line; Appropriation of Funds for the Added Sewer Line; Adoption of
a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project, and Amendment toa Professional Services Agreement for Design of the 2015
Recycled Water Conversion Project (Dudek) (ClP 16601 )
RECOMMENDATION:
By Motion:
1. Amend the scope of the Riding Park Fire Flow and Recycled Water Supply
Project (ClP 17201) to add a sewer line to provide sewer service to the site; and,
2. lncrease the budget for CIP 17201 for the added sewer line by appropriating
$462,900 from the Agricultural Preservation Tax Fund and $92,300 from the
Eastern Open Space Fund; and,
3. Adopt a Resolution Approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the amended
project; and,
4. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the
professional services agreement with Dudek in the amount not to exceed
$10,000 for the 2015 Recycled Water Service Conversion Project to include
design of the Riding Park irrigation system conversion to recycled water use (ClP
16601).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This report addresses water and sewer service needs for the City-owned Rancho
Mission Viejo Riding Park at San Juan Capistrano. The property is currently served by
well water from an adjacent property. That water supply could be discontinued at any
City Council Agenda Report
March 21,2017
Pase 2 of 5
time at the discretion of the adjacent property owner with g0 days' notice, or failure of
the well pumping systems. There is a budgeted project to supplant the well water supply
with domestic water for fire protection and incidental domestic water uses, and with
recycled water for irrigation purposes. Staff is recommending that the City Council
augment the current project by adding sewer service for current or future use of the
property. This report also recommends amending a contract with the engineering firm of
Dudek to add design for converting the property's irrigation system to recycled water to
the citywide project for conversion of irrigation systems from domestic water to recycled
water (ClP 16601).
ln accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) requirements for a
capital project, an lnitial Study was prepared to analyze the potential environmental
impacts of a project that would furnish the proposed water and sewer facilities. The
lnitial Study determined that, while there was a potential for environmental impacts,
mitigation measures were identified that would reduce any potentially significant impacts
to a level of less than significant. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was determined to
be the appropriate CEQA document for the project. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND) was released for public review and comment for a 30-day period
as required by law beginning on January 16,2017, and ending on February 15,2017. ll
is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) adopting the
Final IS/MND (Attachment 2).
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
On October 18, 2016, the City Council approved a contract with MBF Consulting lnc. for
design of the Riding Park Fire Flow and Recycled Water Supply Project. The following
sections describe the components of the Project and the proposed addition of sanitary
sewer service to the Project.
Recycled Water Service Component
The Riding Park site uses a substantial amount of water for irrigation and is an ideal
site for conversion to recycled water for irrigation. Also, as previously mentioned, the
Riding Park is currently furnished with irrigation water from a private well on the
adjacent parcel, which is not a reliable source for the long-term. The City
constructed a 12-inch recycled water conveyance pipeline through the property in
December 2013, which will provide a reliable service connection point from the City's
recycled water line to the Riding Park irrigation system. The irrigation system must
be converted for the use of recycled water as described in the following section. The
project to supply recycled water service to the site and to convert the irrigation
system to use recycled water is included in the Fiscal Year 2016-2017 adopted CIP
budget.
Recvcled Water Service Conversion Design Contract Amendment:
On November 3, 2015, the City Council approved a professional services agreement
(Attachment 5) with Dudek for design of the 2015 Citywide Recycled Water Service
City Council Agenda Report
March 21,2017
Paqe 3 of 5
Conversion Project, which involves conversion of irrigation systems to accept
recycled water at various locations in the city. Since award of that contract, the
Riding Park irrigation system was identified as a viable system for conversion to
recycled water. Design for the conversion of the existing irrigation system to recycled
water would involve a detailed assessment of the existing water systems and
identification of points where non-irrigation water systems would need to be
disconnected from the irrigation systems. lt is recommended that the City Council
approve an amendment (Attachment 4) to the professional services agreement with
Dudek in the amount of $10,000 to design the recycled water conversion for the
Riding Park. This is an increase of slightly less than 10% over the current contract
amount of $106,020. Funding for the recycled water service conversion for the
Riding Park irrigation is already included in the budget for the Riding Park Fire Flow
and Recycled Water Supply Project.
Domestic Water Service
The Riding Park currently is provided fire protection water from a remote hydrant
that is connected to the private well discussed above. ln order to improve fire
suppression reliability, a 12-inch domestic water line is proposed from the terminus
of the City's existing line at the end of San Juan Creek Road to a new hydrant at the
front of the Riding Park offices. This domestic water service will also provide for
other incidental water uses that cannot be recycled water, such as drinking water
and wash area water. The domestic water line is part of the budgeted Water Supply
Project.
San itarv Sewer Service:
The Riding Park site does not have a sewer service connection. Staff is
recommending that the City Council amend the project scope to include a sewer line
that extends from an existing sewer manhole near the end of San Juan Creek Road
to a point north of the existing soccer fields. This proposed sewer line will serve the
long term sewer needs of the Riding Park site, including collection of waste water
from the wash racks used for equestrian events, potential future restroom facilities,
administrative offices, and other facilities requiring sewer service. The current project
and budget does not include funding for the sewer line, which is projected to cost
$555,200. Staff recommends that the City Council amend the scope of the Project to
add a sewer line and appropriate funds for the sewer line as described in the Fiscal
lmpact section of this report.
Proiect Schedule
Design for the Project is in progress. Following is the anticipated schedule for the
Project through construction :
. Design Completion - April 2017
o Competitive Bidding - May 2017
. Construction - July 2017 thru January 2018 (Accommodates Blenheim Facilities
Management Schedule of events)
City Council Agenda Report
March 21,2017
Paqe 4 of 5
FISCAL IMPACT
The Fiscal Year 2016-2017 budget for the Riding Park Fire Flow and Recycled Water
Supply Project (ClP 17201) is $515,000, funded by the Agricultural Preservation Fund
(Fund 13). Staff recommends that the City Council increase the budget to $1 ,070,200 to
provide funding for the proposed sewer systems by appropriating an additional
$555,200 as follows:
o $462,900 from the Agricultural Preservation Fund (Fund 13); and
o $92,300 from the Eastern Open Space Fund (Fund 19).
lf approved, the appropriation from the Agricultural Preservation Fund would deplete the
funds on hand.
The recycled irrigation system conversion design and construction work is included in
the $515,000 Water Supply Project budget (ClP 17201). There are currently $398,000
unencumbered funds in that Project, which is sufficient to cover anticipated costs for
water facilities and the recycled irrigation system coversion.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
On January 12,2017, a Notice of lntent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was
filed with the County Clerk. A mitigated negative declaration was determined to be the
appropriate CEQA document for the project. The lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (|S/MND) was released for public review and comment for a 30 day period
as required by law beginning on January 16,2017,and ending on February 15, 2017.
Comments were received from the California Department of Transportation and the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. These comments have been addressed in
Appendix D of the lS/MND. lt is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution
(Attachment 1) adopting the IS/MND (Attachment 2).
As part of the CEQA process, and in compliance with Assembly B¡ll 52, the City sent a
letter to the two tribes that requested notification of proposed projects - the Soboba
Band of Luiseno lndians and the Juaneno Band of Mission lndians, Acjachemen Nation
- inviting them to consult with the City on this project. The City did not receive a written
response from either tribe regarding consultation on the Riding Park Project. However,
the City did consult over the phone with Joyce Stanfield Perry of the Juaneno lndians on
February 17, 2017, and again on February 23, 2017. A record of this consultation is
included as Attachment 3. The lnitial Study did not indicate sensitivity for cultural
resources within or near the project boundaries, and a cultural resources survey
concluded that the project would have no impact relating to any cultural resources.
Nonetheless, a Tribal Cultural Resources representative, professional archeologist, and
professional paleontologist will be present during all ground disturbing activities.
City Council Agenda Report
March 21,2017
Paoe 5 of 5
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
. On June 21, 2016, the City Council adopted the budget for Fiscal Years 2016-
2017 and 2017-2018, which included $515,000 for the Riding Park Fire Flow and
Recycled Water Supply Project (ClP 17201), but which did not include funding for
the sewer line.
. On October 18, 2016, the City Council approved a Professional Services
Agreement for the preparation of plans and specifications for the Rancho Mission
Viejo Riding Park Water System.
PRIOR COMMISSION/COMMITTEE/BOARD REVIEW
On September 20, 2016, the Utilities Commission recommended that the City
Council approve a Professional Services Agreement with MBF Consulting in the
amount of $58,968 for design of the project.
On February 21,2017, the Utilities Commission recommended that the City
Council adopt a resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
authorize staff to bid the project, authorize addition of a sewer line to the project,
and increase the project (ClP 17201) budget to fund the sewer line.
NOTIFICATION:
o On January 12, 2017, a Notice of lntent to Adopt a Negative Declaration and
lnitial Study was posted with the Orange County Clerk recorder, where it
remained posted for a period of 30 days.
. Blenheim Facilities Management
. UtilitiesCommissioners
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Resolution to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
Attachment 2: Final lnitial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Attachment 3: Assembly Bill 52 Consultation with Juaneno Band of Mission Indians
Attachment 4: Amendment 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Dudek for
design of the 2015 Recycled Water Service Conversion Project
Attachment 5: Professional Services Agreement with Dudek for design of the 2015
Recycled Water Service Conversion Project
a
o
RESOLUTTON NO. 17 -03-21 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN
CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION (MND) FOR THE RANCHO MISSION VIEJO RIDING PARK
AT SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES PROJECT
Whereas, the "Rancho Mission Viejo Riding Park at San Juan Capistrano Waterand
Sanitary Sewer Facilities Project" (the "proposed Project" or "Project") includes construction
of water and sanitary sewer pipelines and associated appurtenances at the Rancho
Mission Viejo Riding Park; and
Whereas, the City of San Juan Capistrano ("City") is both the entity carrying out the
Project, and the Lead Agency for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources code, S 21000 et seq.) and the state cEeA
Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, S 15000 et seq.); and
Whereas, to determine whether the proposed Project would result in potentially
significant impacts to the environment, the City directed preparation of an lnitial Study
pursuant to CEQA; and
Whereas, the lnitial Study concluded that all potentially significant adverse
environmental impacts that may result from the activities contemplated under the project
can be mitigated to a level of insignificance, therefore the City's Environmental
Administrator has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration ('MND') shall be
issued for the proposed Project, and an MND was prepared pursuant to CEQA and the
State CEQA Guidelines;
Whereas, the City, as CEQA lead agency, publicly circulated for review a CEQA
Notice of lntent to adopt an lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration on January 16,
2017, pursuant to Section 15072 of the CEQA guidelines, provided a 30 day public
comment period from January 16,2017 to February 15,2017 , and has otherwise complied
with all applicable provisions of CEQA; and,
Whereas, the City Council has considered the Environmental Administrator's
determination pursuant to Section 15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA); and,
Whereas, adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), is subject to the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) which is attached hereto as Exhibit
"4" arìd incorporated herein; and,
Whereas, on March 21, at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting, the public
was afforded an opportunity to comment on the Project and MND/lnitial Study, and the City
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 1 of6
Council discussed and considered the Project, the MND/lnitial Study, all oral and written
comments provided to the City relating to the Project; and
Whereas, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED, as follows
SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and adopted as the
findings of the City Council.
SECTION 2. As the decisionmaking body for the proposed Project, the City
Council does hereby make the following findings as established by the California
Environmental QualityAct (CEQA) after having reviewed and considered the information
contained in the MND/lnitial Study, and the entirety of the administrative record before the
City:
1. The City Council finds that the MND/lnitial Study has been completed in
compliance with and the State CEQA Guidelines, contains a complete and
accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the
proposed Project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City; and
2. The City Council finds on the basis of the evidence presented and the whole
record before it, including the MND/lnitial Study, and oral and written
comments received, that there is no substantial evidence supporting afau
argument that the Project, as mitigated, may result in a significant effect on
the environment; and,
3. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), a copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit "4" and incorporated herein, will assure
compliance with the mitigation measures during Project implementation;and,
4. The record of proceedings on which the City Council's recommendation 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 Development Services Department
Administrative Specialist.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby adopts the MND/lnitial Study.
SECTION 4. The C ity Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP) which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
incorporated herein.
SECTION 5. The Development Services Director or his designee is hereby
authorized and directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 2 ol 6
Clerk's Office within five working days of adoption of this Resolution as
required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15075.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21't day of March 2017
KERRY FERGUSON, MAYOR
ATTEST
MARIA MORRIS, CITY CLERK
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 3 of 6
EXHIBIT "A''
Mrrrclnoru MorulroRrNc & RepoRTrNG PRocRRru (MMRP)
Rancho Mission Viejo Riding Park at San Juan Capistrano
Water & Sanitary Sewer Facilities Project
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 (CEOA) 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.9. Biological Resources, Hazards & Hazardous Materials). 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.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 4 of 6
J
!Â)
(o o (t
l o -r
t o)
DATE COMPLETED & INITIALSRESPONSIBLE STAFF Development Services Department-Planning Division &Public Works Department Development Services Department-Planning Division &Public Works Department Development Services Department-Planning Division &Building Division
TI
M
I
N
G
OF
VE
R
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
Pr
i
o
r
to
th
e
st
a
r
t
of
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Pr
i
o
r
to
th
e
st
a
r
t
of
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
Pr
i
o
r
to
th
e
st
a
r
t
of
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
Ch
e
c
k
&
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Pl
a
n
Ch
e
c
k
&
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
ME
T
H
O
D
OF
VE
R
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
Pl
a
n
Ch
e
c
k
&
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
ME
A
S
U
R
E
To
en
s
u
r
e
av
o
i
d
a
n
c
e
of
im
p
a
c
t
s
to
se
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
an
d
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
ha
b
i
t
a
t
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
th
e
tr
i
b
u
t
a
r
y
dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
ar
e
a
on
s
i
t
e
,
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Al
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
B
fo
r
th
e
Re
c
y
c
l
e
d
Wa
t
e
r
Li
n
e
sh
a
l
l
be
el
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
fr
o
m
th
e
fi
n
a
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
de
s
i
g
n
.
Th
e
Re
c
y
c
l
e
d
Wa
t
e
r
Li
n
e
sh
a
l
l
be
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
us
i
n
g
ei
t
h
e
r
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Al
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
A
or
C.
Pr
i
o
r
to
an
y
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
wo
r
k
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
st
a
g
i
n
g
of
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
or
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
,
th
e
bo
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
of
th
e
"S
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Ar
e
a
"
sh
a
l
l
be
cl
e
a
r
l
y
ma
r
k
e
d
to
en
s
u
r
e
th
a
t
no
di
r
e
c
t
im
p
a
c
t
s
oc
c
u
r
to
th
e
na
t
i
v
e
ha
b
i
t
a
t
or
to
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
lf
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
ar
e
sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
to
oc
c
u
r
du
r
i
n
g
th
e
bi
r
d
ne
s
t
i
n
g
se
a
s
o
n
(F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
1
th
r
o
u
g
h
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
15
)
,
a
qu
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
fi
e
l
d
bi
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
sh
a
l
l
co
n
d
u
c
t
a
ne
s
t
i
n
g
su
r
v
e
y
no
mo
r
e
th
a
n
th
r
e
e
da
y
s
pr
i
o
r
to
th
e
st
a
r
t
of
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
to
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
pr
e
s
e
n
c
e
.
lf
th
e
bi
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
fi
n
d
s
an
y
ne
s
t
i
n
g
bi
r
d
s
wi
t
h
i
n
30
0
fe
e
t
of
th
e
li
m
i
t
s
of
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
(o
r
ne
s
t
i
n
g
ra
p
t
o
r
s
wi
t
h
i
n
50
0
fe
e
t
)
,
th
e
bi
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
sh
a
l
l
cl
e
a
r
l
y
ma
r
k
th
e
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
ne
s
t
(w
i
t
h
st
a
k
i
n
g
an
d
fl
a
g
s
)
an
d
,
if
wa
r
r
a
n
t
e
d
,
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
fe
a
s
i
b
l
e
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
to
av
o
i
d
an
y
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ad
v
e
r
s
e
ef
f
e
c
t
s
on
ne
s
t
i
n
g
bi
r
d
s
.
Ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
ma
y
in
c
l
u
d
e
at
t
e
n
u
a
t
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
no
i
s
e
(t
h
r
o
u
g
h
so
u
n
d
-
d
a
m
p
e
n
i
n
g
bo
a
r
d
s
or
ot
h
e
r
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
)
to
a
le
v
e
l
of
60
dB
A
(a
s
me
a
s
u
r
e
d
in
th
e
vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
of
th
e
ne
s
t
)
or
ot
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
li
m
i
t
i
n
g
di
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
s
wi
t
h
i
n
a
ce
r
t
a
i
n
di
s
t
a
n
c
e
of
th
e
ne
s
t
un
t
i
l
ne
s
t
i
n
g
is
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
.
lf
th
e
le
v
e
l
of
60
dB
A
ca
n
n
o
t
be
ac
h
i
e
v
e
d
,
or
if
th
e
bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
mo
n
i
t
o
r
ot
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
s
it
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
to
av
o
i
d
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
im
p
a
c
t
s
,
th
e
bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
mo
n
i
t
o
r
sh
a
l
l
be
pr
e
s
e
n
t
du
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
to
en
s
u
r
e
th
a
t
ne
s
t
i
n
g
bi
r
d
s
ar
e
no
t
di
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
.
Th
e
bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
mo
n
i
t
o
r
sh
a
l
l
ha
v
e
au
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
to
ha
l
t
an
y
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
to
be
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
di
s
t
u
r
b
i
n
g
th
e
ne
s
t
i
n
g
of
an
y
bi
r
d
.
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ma
y
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
wh
e
n
th
e
mo
n
i
t
o
r
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
s
th
e
ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
ca
n
be
ca
r
r
i
e
d
ou
t
wi
t
h
o
u
t
di
s
r
u
p
t
i
o
n
of
ne
s
t
i
n
g
,
or
wh
e
n
th
e
ne
s
t
is
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
to
ha
v
e
fl
e
d
g
e
d
or
fa
i
l
e
d
.
Bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
NO
.
BR
-
1
BR
-
2
BR
-
3
DATE COMPLETED & INITIALS
Ha
z
a
r
d
s
&
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
RESPONSIBLE STÀFF Development Services Department-Building Division &Planning Division Development Services Department-Environmental Administrator and Construction lnspector
TI
M
I
N
G
OF
VE
R
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
Pr
i
o
r
to
th
e
st
a
r
t
of
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
Pr
i
o
r
to
st
a
r
t
of
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
ME
T
H
O
D
OF
VE
R
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
Pl
a
n
Ch
e
c
k
-
P
e
r
m
i
t
Re
v
i
e
w
&
Fi
e
l
d
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
US
F
W
S
Ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
Bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
(B
R
c
P
)
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
ME
A
S
U
R
E
Pr
i
o
r
to
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
of
fi
n
a
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
s
an
d
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
fo
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
pi
p
e
l
i
n
e
,
th
e
Ci
t
y
sh
a
l
l
su
b
m
i
t
an
d
wi
l
l
ha
v
e
se
c
u
r
e
d
U.
S
.
Fi
s
h
an
d
Wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
of
a
Bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
(B
R
C
P
)
th
a
t
en
s
u
r
e
s
th
a
t
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
fo
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
pi
p
e
l
i
n
e
(a
n
d
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
me
t
e
r
st
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
pr
e
s
s
u
r
e
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
va
l
v
e
)
ar
e
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
wi
t
h
th
e
go
a
l
s
an
d
ob
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
of
th
e
Ra
n
c
h
o
Mi
s
s
i
o
n
Vi
e
j
o
Ha
b
i
t
a
t
Co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
.
Pr
i
o
r
to
an
y
tr
e
n
c
h
i
n
g
or
ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
th
e
Ci
t
y
sh
a
l
l
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
an
d
ma
r
k
th
e
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
Ki
n
d
e
r
Mo
r
g
a
n
pi
p
e
l
i
n
e
in
th
e
vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
pr
o
j
e
c
t
.
Th
e
us
e
of
me
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
sh
a
l
l
no
t
be
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
wi
t
h
i
n
tw
o
fe
e
t
of
th
e
al
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
s
of
th
e
tw
o
Ki
n
d
e
r
Mo
r
g
a
n
pi
p
e
l
i
n
e
s
th
a
t
tr
a
v
e
r
s
e
th
e
si
t
e
(a
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
in
Ki
n
d
e
r
Mo
r
g
a
n
,
20
1
2
)
.
An
y
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
th
a
t
di
s
t
u
r
b
th
e
gr
o
u
n
d
su
r
f
a
c
e
wi
t
h
i
n
10
fe
e
t
of
th
e
al
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
s
sh
a
l
l
be
mo
n
i
t
o
r
e
d
by
a
qu
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
,
as
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
by
Ki
n
d
e
r
Mo
r
g
a
n
,
of
th
e
ow
n
e
r
or
op
e
r
a
t
o
r
of
th
e
pi
p
e
l
i
n
e
s
(K
i
n
d
e
r
Mo
r
g
a
n
)
.
NO
.
BR
4
HM
-
1
-.
1
--
{
tl
o
$E=
iu O)
r
Rancho Mission Viejo Riding Park
at San Juan Capistrano
Water and Sanitary Sewer Facilities Project
FINAL
Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Development Services Department
City of San Juan Capistrano
32400 Paseo Adelanto
San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
March 2017
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 1 of 94
PREFACE
This document is the Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration to address environmental
effects of proposed improvements at the Rancho Mission Viejo Riding Park at San Juan Capistrano.
Proposed improvements include water and sanitary sewerfacilities to serve the Riding Park site. The Initial
Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were prepared by the City of San Juan Capistrano in
fulfillment of requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The draft Initial
Study/MND was circulated for a public review period for 30 days (ending on February 15, 2017).
The Final Initial Study/MND consists of several components:
• Public Draft Initial Study/MND, with its two technical appendices (the technical Air Quality &
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis and the Biological Resources Assessment);
• Description and analysis of minor project changes (Appendix C);
• Response to written comments received on the Public Draft Initial Study/MND (Appendix D);
• Discussion ofthe project's compliance with AB 52 (Appendix E);
• Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Appendix F).
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 2 of 94
Rancho Mission Viejo Riding Park
at San Juan Capistrano
Water and Sanitary Sewer Facilities Project
Public Review Draft
lnitial Study
Development Services DePartment
c ity of s a n rJ;å:ii:l:i:
San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
March 2017
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 3 of 94
1. PROJECT: Water & Sanitary Sewer Facilities Project
Rancho Mission Viejo Riding Park at San Juan Capistrano
2. LEAD AGENCY: City of San Juan Capistrano
3 . CONTACT PERSON & PHONE : Sergio Klotz, Assistant Development Services Director; (949) 443-6334 .
4. PROJECT LOCATION: The project site is the Rancho Mission Viejo Riding Park at San Juan Capistrano
(Riding Park) in the northeast portion of the City of San Juan Capistrano in Orange County, California . The
approximately 70.6 acre site is owned by the City of San Juan Capistrano and is located at the southwest
corner of the Ortega Highway (SR 73) and La Pata Avenue intersection. The alignments of the proposed
pipelines and locations of related facilities are almost entirely within the Riding Park boundaries, with
connection points in the City-owned right-of-way for the San Juan Creek Road extension, immediately to
the southwest of the site. See Exhibits 1 through 4. Although the pipeline alignments and facility locations
comprise a relatively small portion of the Riding Park, the Riding Park along with the area to the
immediate southwest in which the proposed pipelines would connect to existing facilities are referred to in
this document as the "project site".
5. APPLICANT: City of San Juan Capistrano
6 . GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION : The General Plan Land Use Element's Land Use Policy Map
designates the Riding Park 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. The property immediately to the southwest, is
designated OSR, Open Space Recreation (north of the San Juan Creek Road extension alignment) and
PC (COP 86-2) (south of the San Juan Creek Road extension alignment).
7. ZONING: The Riding Park site is zoned "OSR" (Open Space Recreation) 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 . The
property immediately to the southwest, is zoned 2 .0 Very Low Density Residential.
8. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project includes construction of water and sanitary sewer pipelines and
associated appurtenances at the City-owned park site known as the Rancho Mission Viejo Riding Park at
San Juan Capistrano . The purpose of the project is to provide reliable, long-term water and sewer service
to the site . Water is currently provided to the site through two sources : (1) Domestic water comes from a
sub-metered connection sourced from the adjacent property, which has a metered connection to the City's
domestic water line ; and (2) Irrigation water comes from a privately owned water well on the neighboring
property to the south conveyed to the Riding Park through a privately owned pipe. Municipal water is
provided by the City of San Juan Capistrano, which is the local purveyor of domestic and recycled water.
The Riding Park does not currently have its own service connection to the City's domestic or recycled
water line . The off-site well, which has provided water to the site for many years , since before the City's
purchase of the park site in 2010, will no longer be an available source of water after September 2017.
The City is therefore undertaking this project to provide municipal water connections (both domestic and
recycled) to the site. As a result of the project, connection to off-site facilities will be severed and new
services from the City's water pipelines will be established.
The project does not propose any change in the activities or land use at the site. Nor does the project
propose a change in water demand generated at the site, or in the amount of water used at the site,
compared to current water use. Current water sources and water use are presented in the following table,
along with projected future water use with project implementation.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 4 of 94
RANCHO MISSION VIEJO RIDING PARK WATER & SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES I CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
Ga rden
Grove
·-tt
®
®
shlr\iiOI\
Squ re
t-
1 ,
Santo An
H gtits
Costa Mesa
Newpon
Beach
8AIIl03
111 nd
Bnlboa
Source: Google Maps
N
E!J
Vtlla Park
5~
Orlnge
PartiAcres
Orange El Modena Cowan
H ont• n \ell
North Tusttn
Cry talCo •
St te Pat •
Sanu 9<1
C nyon Stl~ rado
• Lrntl*lon
Cnnvon
R lonn l P ~
Fool htll
Ranch
6 Or ng Councy
Gre t P r
ake Fores t
@ Laguna
Woods
Laguna HNis
Mission
ViejO
Portola Hills
')
J r lluco
Canvon
Rancho Santa Rotltnson R~ncn Margarita
. .' (ill) Colo De
Caza ---L ~Flores
I, • ..
l 91n1 Co 1
WMer neu P AI so Viejo Gall van ...._ • C sper
Re I PIIIt
Laguna
Bach
South
l guna
.t ona r(:l\
a cit
ban a
73
aguna
Niguel
,.
11('1
OtOI
...
Lid••
RIIIICih
v @
®0 3 ..
San "uan '---PROJECT
Capistrano LOCATION
' ~·
San
Cl rnen te
• ss Onofre
t Beech
Exhibit 1
Regional Location
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 5 of 94
RANCHO MISSION VIEJO RIDING PARK WATER & SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES I CITY OF sAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
Source: Google MaPs Exhibit 2
Project VicinitY
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 6 of 94
o
RA
N
C
H
O
MI
S
S
I
O
N
VI
E
J
O
R¡
D
I
N
G
PA
R
K
WA
T
E
R
&
SA
N
I
T
A
R
Y
SE
W
E
R
FA
C
I
L
¡
T
I
E
s
I
CI
T
Y
OF
SA
N
JU
A
N
CA
P
I
S
T
R
A
N
O
I
n2
t'
J
g#
,
1
"
,
I
\'l x\#^
I I-
ì
il
I
St
a
b
l
e
s
Tu
r
f
Fi
e
l
d
\
f 't
¿,i
Èt
ã,
t'
'
¿
'
è
å
L
Ri
d
i
n
g
!a
*;'
í
;
.,
/
.
I
Ar
e
n
a
s
o t
.È a a a J
,íl d
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Lo
t
.î
q
s
\
i
4
o
)F
Se
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Ar
e
a
s
tt
t
.r
l
\t
¿¿
g
0 ì0Û :0q
{(
'#
l
#
dü
-:
.
,
,
!0)
(o o {o -h (o À
Exhibit 3 Site Features
l9
u
r
r
,
l
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
Ju
a
n
Ca
p
i
s
t
r
a
n
o
RA
N
C
H
O
M|
S
S
|
O
N
VT
E
J
O
Rt
D
t
N
G
PA
R
K
WA
T
E
R
&
SA
N
I
T
A
R
Y
SE
W
E
R
FA
C
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
I
CI
T
Y
OF
SA
N
JU
A
N
CA
P
I
S
T
R
A
N
O
4
4
/a
,
"\
,.
.
-
Êr
:
.
:
"
-
:
'
-
-P
'
T
"
'
"
*
Íc
l
,e
"c
aa
!
,
Si
t
e
.+t
I ì I l I
,Ñ'r'..
rc
I
;l
Dp
m
e
s
t
#T
r
Li
n
e
{
/.
¡i
.
,
.
,
f
se
d
Re
c
y
c
l
e
d
Li
n
e
-
Al
t
.
A
a
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
12
Re
c
y
c
l
e
d
Wa
t
e
r
Li
n
e
Wa
t
e
r
L¡
B
q
4
a'
-
r
.
¿!
Se
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Ar
e
a
s
7
¡t
r
I
:Ù
\\
,ê
ù
0 1!ú la{æF¡ft
:
tl
c
{
¡:rF
{a
r
i.
:
r.
i
,
I
â
4:
a
t*
'.
f
t
-
,
T 0)
(o o @ o +l
(o À
Exh¡b¡t 4
N}
,
r
r
r
r
t
Ci
t
l
of
Sa
n
Ju
a
n
Ca
p
i
s
t
r
a
n
o
Proposed Facilities
CURRENT WATER USE AT RIDING PARK
Water Use Water Source Acre-Feet per
Year
Irrigation Off-site Well 101-167
Office, Riding Area Wet Down, Domestic Water line 1-2 Stable Wash Racks
Fire Suppression None -------
PROJECTED WATER USE WITH PROPOSED FACILITIES
Water Use Water Source Acre-Feet per
Year
Irrigation Recycled Water from City 101-167
Office, Riding Area Wet Down, Domestic Water line 1-2 Stable Wash Racks (new)
Fire Suppression Domestic Water line None.* (new)
* Emergency use only (annual average is not applicable)
The project also proposes to ins tall a metered service on the City's domestic and recycled water lines.
This will enable the City's Utilities Department to monitor local water use at the site. All project
components are more fully described in the section entitled 'Proposed Project Components'. Their
proposed locations are depicted in Exhibit 4, Proposed Facilities.
Project Site
The 70.6-acre Riding Park, part of a 132-acre open space acquisition, was purchased in January 2010 by
the City of San Juan Capistrano from the Rancho Mission Viejo Company 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 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 residential use. (At the same time ,
the City also purchased the Reata Park site , an 18.4 acre parcel immediately to the north-west of San
Juan Creek.) The Riding Park site , along with the entire 132-acre acquisition was annexed to the City in
2009.
The Rancho Mission Viejo Riding Park at San Juan Capistrano is a multi-use venue for competitive
recreation events and shows, such as English horse shows, Olympic style horse jumping, annual Rodeo ,
soccer tournaments, antique car shows, dog shows , other youth athletic events and other recreational
activities. Although many events are equestrian, there is no permanent boarding of horses or other
animals on site. The facility is currently operated for the City by Blenheim Facilities Management Company
(BFM) which books the various events and maintains the property.
Existing features onsite are labeled in Exhibit 3 and include:
Small office buildings and trailers;
Large turf field;
Large unpaved parking area;
Seven equestrian arenas;
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 9 of 94
Maintenance and storage areas;
Several hundred horse stables (for temporary use, not boarding).
Wash-down racks for horses
The extreme eastern area of the property is the site of a well-vegetated drainage area that is tributary to
San Juan Creek (offsite). The southwest portion of the Riding Park is traversed by an overhead
transmission power line easement owned by Southern California Edison. An active, subterranean 16-inch
pipeline conveying refined petroleum products also crosses the site, within the power line easement,
owned and operated by Kinder Morgan Energy Partners. The Riding Park site is traversed by the Chiquita
Outfall Pipeline, a 42-inch pipe buried at a depth of 15 feet. The outfall line, installed in 1986, is owned by
the Santa Margarita Water District (SMWD). It extends from the site's northeast corner to the San Juan
Creek road extension south of the site. In 2013 the City of San Juan Capistrano installed a Recycled
Water Pipeline (CIP 13603) across the site . The pipeline follows the alignment of the Chiquita Outfall
Pipeline along most of its length. The Recycled Water Pipeline was the subject of an Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration (along with a Biological Resources Construction Plan approved by U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service) prepared by the City to address potential environmental effects of its
construction and long-term operation. Other utilities (power distribution, drainage and irrigation pipelines)
also exist within the project site .
. PROPOSED PROJECT COMPONENTS
The project consists of four components , each of which is described below:
1. Domestic Waterline -The city owns and operates an existing domestic waterline that terminates
near the end of the San Juan Creek Road extension southwest of the Riding Park property line. A 12-
inch fire service connection will be extended from the end of the City's waterline into the Riding Park,
an approximate distance of 985 linear feet , to a new fire hydrant adjacent to the Riding Park office
building. (See Exhibit 4, dotted blue line on exhibit.) The waterline extension will be placed in a
trench that is six feet deep and 24 to 30 inches wide.
2 . Recycled Waterline-The City owns and operates an above grade recycled water pressure reducing
station (PRS) near the end of the San Juan Creek Road alignment, approximately 50 feet southwest
of the Riding Park property line. The project proposes to construct an 8-inch line from the PRS, or
from a new connection point along the existing 12-inch recycled water line on the site, to connect to
the existing irrigation system. The connection will follow one of the three alternative alignments (A, B
or C) depicted in Exhibit 4 (dotted purple lines). Depending on which alignment is selected, the 8-inch
line will be from approximately 150 feet to 360 feet in length. The new recycled water line will be
placed in a trench that is 6 feet deep and 24 to 30 inches wide. A 6-inch meter and pressure
reduction valve, and meter, will connect the City's recycled pipeline to the Riding Park's existing
irrigation line. This phase will include concurrent on site conversion work (signage, cross connection
testing, installation of backflow devices on existing fixtures.)
3 . Metering Stations -A 2-inch Service Meter will be installed that will measure the flow of domestic
water provided to the site. A 6-inch meter and backflow device will be constructed where the
Domestic line crosses the irrigation line, for use as an emergency supply to the irrigation line if
recycled service is unavailable for an extended period of time.
4 . Sewer Pipelines-An 8-inch PVC sewer pipeline is proposed, extending from a point in the north
central portion of the site to an existing sewer connection just outside the Riding Park's southern
boundary in the San Juan Creek Road extension alignment. The sewer line will extend approximately
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 10 of 94
2,120 linear feet with nine 4-foot diameter manholes along its length . The sewer line will drain the
office facility, and will collect runoff from the existing wash down racks located within the paddock
area west of the proposed line. Approximately five lateral sewer connections are proposed to extend
from the wash down areas to the sewer line. The sewer line will be placed in a trench that ranges
from 8 to 14 feet in depth and 24 to 32 inches in width. The lateral lines will be placed at similar
depths with a trench width of 12 to 18 inches. The sewer line is shown as a light green line on Exhibit
4. The laterals are shown as dotted light green lines.
Construction Phasing
Construction phases of the major proposed project elements are illustrated in the timeline below. (The
metering stations will be installed concurrently with the domestic water line.)
Recycled
Water
Line
IIWJ§:tl
Construction Equipment
PROJECT TIME LINE
Domestic
WaterLine
3-4 weeks
Sewer Line
6 -8 weeks
Sewer
Laterals&
Manholes
Mt''4§i£M
Construction equipment that would be used to install each of the project components is given below.
Domestic Waterline: Caterpillar 416C combination backhoe/loader.
Recycled Water Line: Caterpillar 416C combination backhoe/loader.
Eight-inch Sewer Line. laterals and manholes: Construction equipment will include an excavator, a loader,
a dump truck and two small pick-up trucks. Excavation of the lateral lines will use a smaller combination
excavator/loader.
In the event that water is needed before the permanent, buried fire and recycled waterlines can be
constructed , it will be necessary to run a temporary pipeline on the ground surface between the City and
customer connection points (in a steel sleeve where it crosses roadways within the site). This highline
would furnish the Riding Park with water while the permanent buried supply line is constructed . It is likely
that the highline would run along one side of the dirt driveway, and the buried line would be constructed on
tHe other side, leaving the middle open to maintenance vehicles. It is anticipated that the highline pipe
material will be 6 or 8 inch diameter grooved aluminum.
Previous Entitlements and Conditions of Approval
The Riding Park is 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), all of which were
established prior to purchase of th e property by the City when the property w as part of Rancho Mission
Viejo . In addition to conserving wildlife and habitat values, the open space preservation program
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 11 of 94
associated with the conservation easement is also designed to allow for continuation of the area's
ranching heritage (Rancho Mission Viejo, LLC, 2010). The HCP designates Sensitive Resource Areas
within and adjacent to the Riding Park site, along with a Do Not Disturb riparian habitat area within San
Juan Creek, west of the Riding Park. These are shown in Exhibit 3.
REQUESTED DISCRETIONARY ACTION
The discretionary action associated with this project is disbursement of City funds to enable construction
of the proposed facilities.
9. SURROUNDING LAND USES & PROJECT SETTING:
The project 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 within Rancho Mission Viejo
and are currently being developed as residential, recreational , commercial and Institutional uses. The
site's eastern boundary is formed by La Pata Avenue.
10. OTHER REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS:
Because of the proximity of proposed facilities to designated Sensitive Resource Areas (see Exhibit 4),
and because of prior conditions of approval placed on the property through agreements associated with
the Ranch Plan, approval and implementation of the project 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 Construction Plan for review and approval by U .S. Flsh and
Wildlife Service, in compliance with conditions of the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that governs the
site.
11. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT AT ION: 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 . In 2013, the City prepared and adopted an Initia l Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration to address potential environmental effects of constructing a 12-inch recycled water
pipeline across the project site (City of San Juan Capistrano, 2013). The document identified mitigation
measures to address potential impacts related to biological resources and hazards. Specific impacts
addressed in mitigation measures include poten tial disturbance of nesting habitat for migratory birds,
construction-phase impacts to the Sensitive Resource Areas onsite, and potential construction-related
hazards associated with presence of the Kinder-Morgan refined petroleum pipeline. All potential impacts
were successfully avoided through mitigation measures. In addition, a Biological Resources Construction
Plan was developed for the project and approved by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service . 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
•William Miller, Biomonitor, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
•Jonathan Snyder, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
B. City of San Juan Capistrano
•Ken AI Imam, Chief Financial Officer
•Eric Bauman, Utilities Engineer
•James Fournier, GIS Specialist, Utilities Department
•Sergio Klotz, Assistant Development Services Director
•Michael Marquis, Associate Civil Engineer
•Ben Siegel, City Manager
•Charles View, Project Manager
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 12 of 94
C. Rancho Mission Viejo
.Laura coley Eisenberg, Vice President, open space & Resource Management
D. Documents & Resources:
.ARMC, 2013. Report of Cultural Resources Assessment for Proposed San Juan Creek Recycled
Water Pipeline, San Juan Capistrano, California'
.Cadence Environmental Consulting, December, 201ô. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas lmpact
Analysis for the Rancho Mission Viejo Riding Park water System lnitial study.
.Cityof San Juan Capistrano, General Plan'
.City of San Juan Ca'pistrano, General Plan Environmental lmpact 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, 2013, lnitial Study/MND'
.City of San Juan ðã'ó¡.tr"no, 2012, tnitial Studi/MND,r,eata P_ark and Event Center Master Plan
.County of Orange, ZbO¿, f¡nat Environmental lmpact peP9ft, RMV Ranch Plan.
.EDR, 2010. cert¡iieo Sanborn Map Report, East open Space. Prepared for City of San Juan
Capistrano.
.EEl Geotechnicat & Environmental Solutions, July 2009. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment'
RMV Planning Area 1, Parcels 7 and 8'
,Federal Emeìgency Management Agency, Flood lnsurance Rate Maps.
.Hamitton e¡orogilãi ñóu"ti¡"t g,2oi6.EíiotogicatsurveyReport, RW/DW utilityProject, cityof san
Juan CaPistrano, Orange CountY, Ca'
,Kinder Morgan,'Sept. ã0, 2012. Letter to Ed Almanza, re Proposed Passive Recr.eational Park'
.Lawson & Associates Geotechnical Consulting, Inc., 2009. Geotechnical due diligence, Rancho
Mission V¡ejo property, RMV Planning Area 1 -Þarcels 7 and 8 in the County of Orange. Prepared
for the City of San Juan Capistrano'
13. SUMMARY oF ENVIRoNMENTAL FACToRS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The ENV ONMCNTAIfACTOTS
checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a
;Èotentially Significant lmpäct" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages:
n Aesthetics !
X BiologicalResources D
X Hazards & Hazardous Mats. n
¡ MineralResources tr
tr Public Services ¡
f] Utilities & Service Systems X
Agricultural Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology & Water QualitY
Noise
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
tr Air Quality
¡ Geology & Soils
X Land Use & Planning
n Population & Housing
tr Transportation & Traffic
14.
B
w
@
E
DETERMINATION. (To be completed by lead agency) Ba99d on this initialevaluation:
I find that the proposeJ proi""t bOUm'UOT hãve a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
";iil á significãnt effect ih this casé because revisionJin the project have been made by or agreed
to by the ploject 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 signific-ant impact" or "potentially.significant
unless mitigated" impacion tn" environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed
in an earlier oocumeni-furiuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures båsed on the 'earlier analysis as described on attached sheets' An
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 13 of 94
n
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that rernain to
be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially siginificant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DEbLARAT]OÑ pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuantto
that eartier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
ENVTRONMENTAL 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:
15.
Date: January6,2017
Sergio , Assistant Development Services Director
1 6. 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 lnitial Study Checklist are stated and answers
are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the lnitial Study, The analysis considers the
projbct's short{erm impacts (construction-related), and its operationalor day-to-day impacts. For each
question, the following should be provided:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No lmpact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
A 'iÑo lmpaót" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact siinpty does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.9., the project falls outside a fault
rupture zonei. A "No lmpact" answer should be explained where it is based on projecþspecific factors
as well as geheral 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 indicatá whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less
than signifìcant. "Potentially Significant lmpact" is appropriate if there is substanlial evidence that an
effect ñray be significant. lÍ thère are one or more "Potentially Significant lmpact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) ,'Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation lncorporated" applies where the' inco-rporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from ''Potentially Significant lmpact" to a
,'Lesé Than Significãnt lmpact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how thêy 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 ElR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(cX3XD).
ln this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. ldentify and state where they are available for review.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 14 of 94
b) lmpacts Adequately Addressed. ldentify which effects from the above checklist were within the' scope of and adeqúately 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' lncırporated," 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) lncorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.9., 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) lnclude a source list and list of individuals contacted or consulted.
8) This form is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) Guidelines and all lnitial
Studies performed on projects within the city must use this format.
g) 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.
p¡ncipal public views of the site are from portions of Ortega Highway and La Pata Avenue' The
Communiiy Design Element of the City's General Plan designates all arterial roadways in the city as
Scenic Coiridors. As an arterial roadway, Ortega Highway is therefore a Scenic Corridor. The same
significance must be attributed to public views from La Pata Avenue, owing to its status as an arterial
roãdway. Moreover, the site's location at the city's eastern boundary places it at a major gateway between
the city io the west and the rural, panoramic views of the open space, agricultural lands, San Juan Creek
waterðhed and portions of Rancho Mission Viejo to the east. Any substantial modifications that adversely
affect the viewshed from Ortega Highway or La Pata Avenue must be considered significant.
The proposed pipelines do not have the potential to significantly impact the site's visual character. The
pipetlnes will be entirely underground. Only the very relatively small ancillary features (fire hydrants and
m'etering station) will bô aboveground. While these minor features will be visible from some portions of
the Ridiñg Park site, they will noi be visible from the public viewshed as seen from Ortega Highway or La
pata Ave-nue. Nor will ihey Oe of sufficient scale or prominence to significantly alter the site's visual
character. Views of the site from the public viewshed will not be impaired by the pipelines or by activities
of the construction phases. During the construction phases, materials and equipment will be present and
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 15 of 94
>!
.98*
oc\o.Y'cfL Ø:
c!
- o0)
FEgEFË= 9
!4 Ê> ı
_g ?:Ê
ccııc O€!F Oø'= O
3.ÞÊJU)È
o
Go.
.E
oz
16.1 AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista ?n X
b Substantially damage scenic resources, i ncluding, but not
limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building along
a State-designated scenic highway?
tr
c Substantially degrade the existing visual character or qua lity
of the site and its surroundings?tr n X
d.Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?n
visible from some portions of the site. Some of these materials and/or construction activities may be
briefly visible to passing motorists from portions of Ortega Highway or La Pata Avenue . Their scale and
distance from viewers along these public view corridors are such that they would not substantially alter the
visual character of the site or local viewshed. Their presence is temporary and because th 'ey would not
introduce permanent visual elements , they will not alter the visual character of the site.
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No impact. The underground pipelines will not
be visible and, therefore, significant scenic vistas in the vicinity (views from the City's eastern gateway
along Ortega Highway and from La Pata Avenue) 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. Construction of the pipelines will
not disturb, damage or obstruct any scenic resources at the site. No trees will be removed . The
topography will be unchanged after project completion.
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 substantia/light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area? No impact. The project does not propose any new sources of light or glare, either in
the form of artificial lighting or in the materials of its proposed facilities .
The proposed pipelines will have no significant impact on aesthetics and visual resources.
1ij ~ al <:
>--"'-tl ="' ~E§~ .s;: <:
.!!! l3--lS-"' l'l., 0 0. c:~~ ~;::rog ""0 .§ V) ·-C') en·-m s~o. <II §,:;:; 8 <II c ~ o .!21 E Q) .!21 E 0 o..cn_ ~ 'ii)::;;; £ -'en-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 0 0 0 [gJ
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the CA. Resources Agency?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act 0 0 0 [gJ Contract?
c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-0 0 0 [gJ
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, or a 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 proposed facilities 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.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 16 of 94
>=EE
tsE Oı-E
O.Y'EfL Ø:
c -\ !65 d)E= -ELL=!9' !q.Y ıÈirPfâÊ.9ıö.s,Ë IJØ¿=
c(t-
!c
-G oÉ
Ø=Gø *oo.Y',cJ<D!
o(úo
E
oz
16.3 AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applica ble air quality
plan?!!X
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)?
tr n n
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?tr tr LJ X
e Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial num ber of people?n tr tr X
lnfrastructure and utility projects commonly have two major sources of air quality impacts: (1) pollutant
emissions generated during construction, and (2) long{erm operational emissions after construction. Air
pollutant emissions generated as a result of the pipelines (both construction-related and operational
emissions) were projected by technical analyses prepared specifically for this lnitial Study (Cadence
Environmental Consulting, 2016). The following discussion of the project's potential effects on air quality,
including greenhouse gas emissions, draws on the findings of that study which is presented in its entirely in
Appendix A.
The proposed pipelines and associated construction activities are of a very small scale, relative to the air basin
and ihe level of emissions considered significant by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The
pipelines' placement does not require extensive or prolonged construction stages with heavy, emission-
generating equipment. The pipelines will not generate new vehicular trips, except for a small number of trips
during the temporary construction phase. For these reasons, the project will not have significant air quality
impacts, at the local or regional scales.
CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
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 emissions for six categories of
pollutants. These thresholds are based on the potential adverse short-term health effects of each pollutant.
As discussed below, the scale of proposed improvements and posGdevelopment effects of the facilities are
not nearly great enough to exceed these thresholds.
Project construction is estimated to occur over a period of approximalely 17 weeks for all pipelines and related
infràstructure. (See Project Time Line, page 5 of Project Description section.) The equipment anticipated to
be active during that period (backhoe, loader and excavator, with some trucking to import materials)were
applied as assumptions for input to the CalEEMod (California Emissions Estimator Model) to calculate
projected construction emissions. Peak daily construction emissions projected for the construction period are
presented in Table 1, Peak Construction Emissions, on the following page.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 17 of94
TABLE 1
PEAK CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Pollutant Emissions (lbs.lday)
Activity VOG NOx co SOx PM1o PM2.s
Peak Construction 1.3 10.5 8.4 <0.1 1.6 1.1
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
(Source: Cadence Environmental Consulting, 2016)
As shown in the table above, the project's construction emissions are below AOMD thresholds.
LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
The principal sources of operational emissions of development projects are usually vehicular trips generated
by a new land use, combustion of natural gas for water and space heating of new structures, the use of
landscaping equipment, and architectural coatings during maintenance of structures. None of these sources
will increase as a result of the proposed facilities. Operational emissions associated with urban water use are
generated indirectly as a result of energy used to provide water to users.
The City's current water system includes both potable and recycled water. The project would replace some of
the potable water used at the Riding Park with recycled water . The City's potable water supply is partly
derived from local wells and partly transpprted from distant sources by MWD, either from northern California
or the Colorado River. The energy expended in transport associated with the long-term operation of the City's
potable water system necessarily generates operational emissions. The energy required to pump water from
local wells is also significant. By contrast, the recycled water provided to the site through the proposed
pipeline is of a local source. Its use does not require the expenditure of energy to transport water from long
distances. The use of recycled water in place of potable water currently used for irrigation on site will therefore
result in a reduction of energy use -and of resultant air emissions -associated with water transport.
While it is difficult to quantify the magnitude of decreased energy use (and consequently also difficult to
quantify the actual reduction in emissions), it is clear that the increased use of locally sourced water that would
directly result from the project would reduce energy used in water transport . The energy used in treatment
and distribution of recycled water is comparable to the energy expended to treat and distribute the equivalent
amount of potable water under current conditions. Electrical generation (and its associated air emissions)
occurs outside the regional air basin. The reduced electrical energy consumption resulting from the project
will not directly benefit the South Coast Regional Air Basin . Nevertheless, the net effect will be a minor (and
immeasurably small) decrease in operational emissions after the project is implemented.
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 within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which Is governed by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD). A project is considered to be consistent with the Air Quality
Management Plan if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD's
CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency :
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 18 of 94
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 spedfied 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 pipelines 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 project's minor short-term construction emissions are not great enough to exceed the
thresholds of the Air Quality Management Plan (see above discussion). The long -term operation of
proposed facilities will likely result in a small net decrease in emissions related to energy consumption
(although that decrease will occur outside the South Coast Air Basin). Nor will construction and operation
of the water and waste water facilities conflict in any way with the AQMP 's underlying assumptions. The
AQMP is based on emission projections which assume land use composition and intensity from local
general plan Land Use Elements. Because the project does not include any change in land use or
activities at the Riding Park site , nor would it re~ult in an increase in overall water use at the site , the
project will not induce growth (directly or indirectly) that might be inconsistent with the City's General Plan
orAQMP.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation? No impact. As noted in the discussion above , based on the project's very small scale , the
construction emissions will be well below significance thresholds established by the AQMP for Individual
pollutants. Thus, the project will 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)?
No 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 , nitrogen dioxide (N02), PM1o and PM2.5, 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. Because the proposed facilities would not
generate construction or operational em i ssions 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. Refer to discussion
above.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No 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 . In some areas, traffic-congested roadways and intersections have the
potential to generate localized high levels of CO. However, provision of water and waste water services to
the site will not generate traffic volumes and will not contribute to degradation of traffic conditions . No
sensitive uses occur within the vicinity (the nearest residences are approximately 100 feet away). The
project will not generate construction emissions in sufficient quantities to expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 19 of 94
Although construction of the pipelines will result in extremely low levels of criteria air pollutants , these
temporary emissions will not result in significa nt 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. Maximum daily
em issions during construction phases are well below the SCAQMD's Local Significance Thresholds (See
Cadence Environmental Consulting, 2016, Table 4, in Appendix A).
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)1 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 cleane rs). TACs are typically found in low
concentratio ns, 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 T ACs (based on
the statewide average). Construction of proposed facilities will not generate a significant number of
diesel-fueled vehicular trips or other diesel-fueled emissions and will therefore not be a significant source
ofTACs.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No impact. Construction and
operation of the proposed facilities will not include any activities that would generate objectionable odors.
The proposed waste water pipeline and latera ls will be entirely enclosed and free of emissions .
The proposed pipeline will not result in significant impacts to air quality at the reg iona l or local levels.
However, to assure compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules and City
requirements, the following project design features will be implemented:
PDF AQ-1: During clearing , grading , earth moving , or excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust
emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust preventive measures using the following
procedures, as specified in South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403:
• All material excavated or graded will be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
Watering will occur at least twice daily with complete coverage , preferable in the late morning and
after work is done for the day.
• All material transported on-site or off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to
prevent excessive amounts of dust.
• The area disturbed by cleaning, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations will be minimized so
as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
These control techniques will be indicated in Project specifications . Compliance with this measure will be
subject to periodic site inspections by the City.
PDF AQ-2: Emissions from construction equipment vehicles shall be controlled by maintaining equipment
engines in good operating condition and in proper tune per manufactu rer's specifications, and to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Compliance with this measure may be subject to periodic inspections of
construction equipment vehicles by the City.
1 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.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 20 of 94
~} ~ <:
>--.,_
0 =="' -'=~c:ro ~<:
:lllrl-t-rJ~o -rl-ro c. ~ ~ al <;::: ro ~ <;::: u .§ 1/1 ·-Ol VJ ·-C'O o.~~ (/) c: ·-0 VJ§,c. Q) C):!:::' (.) Cl> ·-E 0
C,(/)_ ..J 'iii:::!:..!: ..J(/)_ 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 0 IZI 0 0
regulations , or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) or the U.S . Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, 0 IZI 0 0 policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife 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 0 IZI 0 0 limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal ,
filling , hydrological interruption , or other means?
d . Interfere substantially w ith the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or 0 IZI 0 0 migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological 0 D 0 IZI resources, such as tree preservation policy/ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, D IZI 0 0
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Natural vegetation within the Riding Park is limited to a large area in the southern portion of the site, a long
narrow segment along the site 's eastern boundary , and a strip of riparian vegetation associated with a small,
isolated drainage that is tributary to San Juan Creek , all of which are designated as a Sensitive Resource Area
in the Rancho Mission Viejo Habitat Conservation Plan. The Sensitive Resource Area and its relationship to
the Riding Park boundaries are shown on Exhibits 3 and 4 . Also shown on Exhibit 4 are locations of proposed
facilities.
Areas of potential disturbance associated with the pipelines and facilities are almost entirely within previously
disturbed developed areas within the Riding Park (with the exception of the Alternative Alignment B for the
proposed recycled water pipeline, discussed below). Most of the Riding Park has been previously graded and
now includes roads, stables, parking lots, exotic landscaping , and similar uses . The exotic landscape plants
within and near the proposed alignments and facilities include Peruvian Pepper ( Schinus mol/e), London Plane
Tree (Platanus X acerifo/ia), Washington Fan Palm (Washingtonia robusta), and English Ivy (Hedera helix).
Three plant communities occur in the vicinity:
• Riparian woodland, dominated by native Arroyo Willow (Salix /asiolepis), Black Willow ( S. gooddingil),
Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifo/ia), Blue Elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp . caerulea), Mulefat
(Baccharis salicifo/ia), and Poison Oak (Toxicodendron diversi/obum). Some non-native plants also
occur in these areas, including Giant Reed (Arundo donax) and Blue Gum (Eucalyptus g/obulus).
• Coastal sage scrub, dominated by native Coast Goldenbush (lsocoma menziesii), California
Sagebrush (Artemisia californica), and Mulefat.
• Ruderal habitat dominated by non-native weeds and grasses , including Russian Thistle (Sa/sola
tragus), Black Mustard (Brassica nigra), Australian Saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata), Crystalline
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 21 of 94
lceplant (Mesembryanthemum crystallinum}, Italian Thistle (Carduus pycnocepha/us), Ripgut Brome
(Bromus diandrus), and Slender Wild Oats (Avena barbata). Some ruderal habitat has widely
scattered elements of coastal sage scrub, including California Sagebrush , White Sage (Salvia
apiana), Coyote Brush (Baccharis pilularis), and Lemonade Berry (Rhus integrifolia).
Wildlife habitat value associated with potential areas of disturbance (with the exception of Alignment B for the
Recycled Water Line , discussed further below) is limited to bare ground that could be used by terrestrial
species in transit or possibly as sunning areas by reptiles. During the field visits in April2013 and September
2016, the in vestigating field biologist detected a total of 34 wildlife species: two reptiles, 31 birds , and one
mammal. A complete list of detected species is provided in Appendix B to this Initial Study.
Review of a report obtained from the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) for occurrences of
special-status species within the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5' topographic quadrangle for San Juan Capistrano
and the curren t list of Special Vascular Plants , Bryophytes , and Lichens yields the following list of special-
status plant species known to occur in the general vicinity of the project site:
• Atriplex coulteri (Coulter's Saltbush)
• Brodiaea filifolia (Thread-leaved Brodiaea)
• Ca/ochortus weedii var. intermedius (Intermediate Mariposa Lily)
• Chaenactis glabriuscula var. orcuttiana (Orcutt's Pincushion)
• Comarostaphylis diversifolia ssp. diversifolia (Summer Holly)
• Dud/eya multicau/is (Many-stemmed Dudleya)
• Dudleya stolonifera (Laguna Beach Dudleya)
• Euphorbia misera (Cliff Spurge)
• No/ina cismontane (Chaparral Nolina)
• Pentachaeta aurea ssp. al/enii (Allen's Pentachaeta)
• Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum (White Rabbit-Tobacco)
• Quercus dumosa (Nuttall's Scrub Oak)
• Verbesina dissita (Big-leaved Crownbeard)
Review of the CNDDB report and the current list of Special Animals yields the following list of special-status
wildlife species known to occur in the general vicinity of the site:
• Accipiter cooperii (Cooper's Hawk)
• Aimophila ruficeps canescens (Southern California Rufous-crowned Sparrow)
• Ammodramus savannarum (Grasshopper Sparrow)
• Anaxyrus californicus (Arroyo Toad)2
• Aspidoscelis hyperythra (Orange-throated Whiptail)
• Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri (Coastal Whiptail)
• Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis (San Diego Cactus Wren)'
• Danaus plexippus (Monarch Butterfly
• Elanus /eucurus (White-tailed Kite)
• Emys marmorata (Western Pond Turtle)
• Eucyclogobius newberryi (Tidewater Goby)
• Eumops perotis californicus (Western Mastiff Bat)
• Gila orcutti (Arroyo Chub)
• lcteria virens (Yellow-breasted Chat)2
• Myotis yumanensis (Yuma Myotis)
• Phrynosoma blainvillei (Coast Horned Lizard)
• Polioptila californica californica (California Gnatcatcher)
• Setophaga petechia (Yellow Warbler)2
2 Species not included on the CNDDB report, but known to occur in San Juan Creek in the general vicinity
of the Riding Park.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 22 of 94
• Spea hammondii (Western Spadefoot)
• Thamnophis hammondii (Two-striped Garter Snake)
• Vireo be/Iii pusillus (Least Bell 's Vireo)
As described previously, an isolated seasonal streambed in the central western portion ofthe Riding Park site
drains to San Juan Creek via a subterranean drain. The streambed supports jurisdictional wetlands and native
southern willow riparian scrub/southern willow riparian forest communities . Wetlands and associated plant
communities are sensitive resources protected under state and federal regulations.
Potential Adverse Effects
The proposed water and sewer pipeline alignments and the locations of all other components of the project
occur almost exclusively within disturbed and/or developed areas , nearly all of which are essentially bare
ground. No special-status species were detected anywhere in the project vicinity during the site visits . The
nearby remnants of native communities generally do not appear to be extensive enough to support listed
wildlife species, such as the Arroyo Toad or California Gnatcatcher (although, see discussion of Alternative B
for the Recycled Water Line).
Activities associated with construction of proposed facilities may have the potential to have adverse effects on
resources within the Sensitive Resource Area , unless properly managed . Potential impacts could result from
removal or trimming of vegetation or inadvertent disturbance due to operation or staging of construction
equipment and vehicles. The greatest potential for impacts is from Alternative B of the Recycled Water Line
alignment (See Exhibit 4), which includes an 8-inch water line that would extend between two small areas of
willow-riparian vegetation . One or both of these areas of riparian vegetation could be used as nesting and/or
foraging habitat by such special-status bird species as the Least Bell's Vireo (listed as endangered by state
and federal agencies) or the Yellow Warbler (California Species of Concern). The northern terminus of
Alternative B is within a stand of riparian vegetation associated with the streambed that is tributary to San Juan
Creek. Th is habitat may be considered to be under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife . If this alternative were selected , and if any riparian vegetation near the northern terminus were to be
removed or trimmed for construction, these actions would represent a potentially significant impact that could
require negotiation of a Streambed Alteration Agreement in compliance with section 1600 of the State Fish
and Game Code.
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit the
knowing disruption of an active nest of virtually any bird species. Project implementation could result in the
disruption of one or more active nests of regulated bird species. This could occur through direct removal of
the eggs of a ground-nesting species such as the Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) or through disturbance of
birds attempting to nest in vegetation close to the construction area . Such a disturbance would be a
potentially significant effect.
Potential indirect impacts to biological resources can be mitigated to a level below significant through
implementation of the measures presented below . (Potential indirect impacts to biological resources that
might result from water quality and drainage effects are discussed in section 16.9, Hydrology and Water
Quality).
Mitigation Measure BR-1: To ensure avoidance of impacts to sensitive resources and potential jurisdictional
habitat associated with the tributary drainage area onsite , Alternative Alignment B for the Recycled Water Line
shall be eliminated from the final project design . The Recycled Water Line shall be constructed using either
Alternative Alignment A or C .
Mitigation Measure BR-2: Prior to any construction work, including staging of equipment or materials, the
boundaries of the Sensitive Resource Areas shall be clearly marked to ensure that no direct impacts occur to
the native habitat or to jurisdictional resources .
Mitigation Measure BR-3: If construction activities are scheduled to occur during the nesting season for
birds (February 1 through September 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting survey no more than
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 23 of 94
three days prior to the start of construction. If the biologist finds any nesting birds within 300 feet of the limits
of construction (or within 500 feet for raptors), the biologist shall clearly mark the location of the nest (with
staking and flags) and, if warranted, identify feasible measures to avoid any potential adverse effects on
nesting birds. Appropriate measures may include attenuating construction noise (through sound-dampening
boards or other equipment) to a level of 60 dBA (as measured in the vicinity of the nest) or otherwise limiting
disturbances within a certain distance of the nest until nesting is complete. If the level of 60 dBA cannot be
achieved, or if the biological monitor otherwise considers it necessary to avoid potential impacts, the biological
monitor shall be present during construction activities to ensure that nesting birds are not disturbed. The
biological monitor shall have authority to halt any construction activity determined to be potentially disturbing
the nesting of any bird. Construction may continue when the monitor determines the activity can be carried
out without disruption of nesting, or when the nest is determined to have fledged or failed.
Mitigation Measure BR-4: Prior to approval of final plans and specifications for the proposed facilities, the
City shall submit and will have secured U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approval of a Biological Resources
Construction Plan that ensures that construction activities for the proposed facilities are consistent with the
goals and objectives of the Rancho Mission Viejo Habitat Conservation Plan.
Responses to the following questions 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 modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the CDFW or the USFWS? Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The nearby
remnants of native communities do not appear to be extensive enough to support listed wildlife species,
such as the Arroyo Toad or California Gnatcatcher, and, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-1
eliminating Alternative Alignment B from further consideration, no special-status plant or wildlife species
are expected to occur within the proposed limits of disturbance. No such species were detected
anywhere along the proposed alignments during the site visit in September 2016. Therefore, no potentially
significant impacts to listed or otherwise sensitive species are identified (Hamilton Biological, 2016).
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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than significant with mitigation. Riparian
habitat in the Sensitive Resource Area is subject to provisions of a subregional Habitat Conservation Plan.
Construction of proposed pipelines and facilities will not directly impact riparian habitat (or any other
sensitive habitats) because the pipeline alignments and staging areas are located outside habitat areas
(see Mitigation Measure BR-1, above). Construction activities may have the potential to indirectly affect
sensitive habitats through noise or other kinds of disturbance, if nesting birds happen to be present in
nearby habitat areas. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-3 (identified above) will effectively avoid
significant indirect effects on breeding birds.
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? Less than significant with mitigation.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-1, potential impacts to federally protected wetlands would
be avoided. The project would therefore 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 avifauna can be mitigated to a level below significant through
implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-2.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 24 of 94
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree
preservation policy/ordinance? No impact. Construction of the proposed facilities will not result in the
removal of trees , or otherwise conflict w ith any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
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 . The Riding Park site is subject to a Habitat Conservation
Plan (HCP). Conflicts with provisions of the HCP will be effectively avoided through implementation of
Mitigation Measure BR-4, id entified above.
With implementation of mitigation measures, potential impacts to biological resources would be reduced to a
level below significance .
c-"0 c
>--Cll 3 Q) ro_ 0 =c ..C"E:c '§ ..c c
-~ lS -t-lS,go -lS-Cll c. ~~ ~ .,!E ~g 1;:: u ~ Ul ·-Cll
0 .Ql ~ en c ·-o U>§,c. Q) en=::: o Gl ·-E 0
O..Ul -....J "iii::i!:.E ....JU)_ z
16.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical 0 0 0 [gJ resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of CEQA?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 0 D 0 [gJ archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of CEQA?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site 0 0 0 [gJ or unique geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal 0 0 0 [gJ cemeteries?
In 2013, In association with the environmental impact assessment for the Recycled Water Pipeline (City of
San Juan Capistrano , 2013}, a Cultural Resources Assessment (ARMC, 2013) was prepared to address the
potential for construction of the recycled water main to impact significant archaeological or historical
resources , using criteria established by the California Environmental Qu al ity Act (CEQA) Section 15064.5
and/or under City of San Juan Capistrano standards as defined by City Council Policy 601. The assessment
included a walk-over survey, 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, and consultation with Native American representatives.
The entire project site, with the exception of a few small area s, has been di sturbed by ranching activities,
mass grading, construction of the Chiquita Outfall Pipeline, construction of La Pata Drive, and more recently
by activities associated with horse shows and stabling of horses and by park maintenance (e.g ., equipment,
sandbag, and nursery plant storage). Consequently, the presence of prehistoric or historic resources on the
surface or in the subsurface of the site is extremely unlikely.
Results of the a rchival and field studies indicated no significant cultural resources to be present within a "'fi-
mile radius of the Riding Park. Although there are recorded prehistoric archaeological sites within a Y.-mile
radius of the project boundaries , none is a qualified historic resource , using criteria established by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15064.5 and City of San Juan Capistrano standards as
defined by City Council Policy 601 . An historic home and associated shed are recorde d within a "'fi-mile
radius , but they would not be impacted by construction or operation of any elements of the proposed project.
Due to the overall disturbed nature of the site, the findings of the 2013 study are applicable to the assessment
of impacts for this project. The potential to impact significant cultural resources is considered to be so low as
to be negligible and no mitigation measures are necessary (San Juan Capistrano, 2013).
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 25 of 94
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5 of CEQA? No impact. The cultural resources assessment found that there are no
significant historical resources in the area of potential disturbance associated with the project. The project
does not have the potential to cause an adverse change in the significance of an historical resource .
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5 of CEQA? No impact. The cultural resources assessment found that there are no
significant archaeological resources in the area of potential disturbance of the project. The project does
not have the potential to cause an adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource.
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site 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
(Lawson & Associates, 2009). Trenching to install pipelines will be limited to relatively shallow depths in
previously disturbed alluvium and will not disturb bedrock or fossil bearing soils . The quantity of material
to be disturbed, and the extremely low probability of encountering fossils within the shallow layers of
alluvium are not large enough to be considered a potentially significant impact.
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside offormal cemeteries? No impact.
Disturbance is limited to pipeline alignments located entirely in areas of previous disturbance. There is no
potential to encounter human remains .
The proposed pipelines will not adversely affect cultural resources.
~~ al c:
:.--"'-u -c: t:ca~ .r:.c:
]l.gu -rl-"' rl:;::; 0 c.
~ ·c: ro """'~ <;:: (j ~ en ·-C> cn ·-ro
0 .!2' ~ ~ §,:e 8 8l .§> ~ 0
Q.(/)_ ...J "(ij ::2: .5 ...J(/)_ 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 (i) rupture of a
known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist, or 0 0 0 t8J
based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Refer to DM&G
Pub. 42)?; or, (ii) strong seismic ground shaking?; or, (iii) seismic-
related ground failure , including liquefaction?; or, (iv) landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 0 0 t8J
c . Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the proj ect, and potentially result in on-0 0 0 I8J 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 0 0 0 t8J 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 0 0 0 t8J
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 (Lawson , 2009).
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 26 of 94
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of foss, 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 (Lawson & Associates , 2009). The site is not within 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? No Impact. Southern California is a seismically active region
likely to experience, on average , one earthquake of Magnitude 7.0, and ten (1 0) 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 Sierra
Madre-Santa Susana-Cucamonga faults . Conformance with standard engineering practices and
design criteria would reduce the effects of seismic ground shaking to less than significant levels.
3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No 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 (Lawson & Associates , 2009). Impacts related to
liquefaction and lateral spreading can be readily avoided through conformance w i th standard
engineering practices and design criteria for the pipeline trenching throughout the proposed
alignments.
4) Landslides? No impact. The site is flat (except for an engineered slope within the right-of-way of La
Pata Avenue). Installation of the pipelines will not introduce the risk of landslide at the site or on
neighboring properties.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the Joss of topsoil? No Impact. Minor amounts of soil
disturbance are anticipated as a result of trenching for the proposed pipelines . There will be no large
scale grading, site preparation or excavation during the construction phase that would displace substantial
amounts of soil and temporarily increase the potential for soils to be subject to water erosion. All
construction activities will be required to comply with standard engineeri ng practices for erosion control
(see more detailed discussion in the following section , 16.9, Hydrology and Water Quality; see also
discussion of SCAQMD requirements in the Air Quality section 16.2, above). Any minor potential for 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? No Impact. Potential impacts related to liquefaction , subsidence and lateral
spreading are readily mitigated 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 or property? No Impact. Expansive soils are known to exist in the
general vicinity of the site . Compliance with California Building Code 2007 specifications to treat medium
expansive soils such as those found onsite w ill 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.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 27 of 94
The project does not have the potential to result in significant impacts related to geology and soils .
l ..,
,..~ ccc! ~ 1j -c c c ~~ ~~~0 .... ..
~~ i ="-c. .,!E~I!-:a !E ~ .5 = &:e 8 6,c. ~~~ ~ iiLE 0 ...10~.5 z
16.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a . Generate greenhouse gas emissions , either directly or indirectly, that 0 0 0 181 may have a significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan , policy or regulation adopted for the 0 0 0 181 purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Global Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are measured in million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
("MMT C02EO") 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 (C02) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas,
and coal), agricu lture, irrigation, and deforestation, as well as the manufa cturing of cement.
• 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 (N 20) 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 fo r agriculture.
• Fluorinated Gases are emitted primarily from industrial sources. which often include
hydrofluorocarbons (HRC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SFa). Though they
are often released in smaller quantities, they are referred to as High Global Warming Potential
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 , one pound of methane has 21 times more heat capturing potential than one pound of
carbon dioxide. When dealing with an array of emissions, the gases are converted to carbon dioxide
equivalents (C0£0) for comparison purposes. The analysis for this Initial Study uses the screening threshold
recommended by the SCAQMD working group of 3,000 MTC02e/yr (Million Tons of C02EO per year).
The greatest source of GHG emissions associated with development projects in California, by far, is vehicular
emissions. The second greatest source is emissions from energy consumption (both natural gas and
electrical). As discussed elsewhere (see Transportation/Traffic, Section 16.6), the project will not generate
new vehicular trips (except for temporary construction-related vehicles) and the project will result in a very
minor net decrease in long-term operational emissions associated with energy consumption . When the
project's construction emissions are amortized (per AQMD Guidelines) they yield the projected emissions
presented in Table 2 (on the following page). As indicated in the table , the project's C02EO emissions will be
well below the screening threshold of 3,000 million tons per year.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 28 of 94
TABLE2
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (metric tons per year)
Construction Emissions
Total Emissions
Screening Threshold:
Exceeds Threshold?
Source: Cadence Environmental Consultants, 2016
1.67
1.67
3,000
No
Note: Construction emissions are amortized over 30 years in accordance with SCAQMD guidance (50 .11
MTC02e/30). See Technical Report, Cadence Environmental Consulting in Appendix A.
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment? Less Than Significant Impact. The project's total greenhouse gas emissions will be well
below the applicable screening threshold of 3,000 MTC02e.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases? No Impact. The project does not propose any new uses or facilities that would
generate an increase in operational GHG emissions . In this respect, it is consistent with state, regional
and local strategies to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
16.8 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?
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
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?
~3 $ c::
>--"'-tl =c:: .c:: c c:: e! .c:: c::
~~0 f-l3:l5o -l3-til
0.
~ ·c m ~rog I;:: 0 .E ~·c.-~ 0 VJ ·-co
0 -~~ Q) C):': u ~ _§, E' 0
Q..U)_ ....J 'iii :::E .5 ....JU)_ z
0 0 ~ 0
0 ~ 0 0
0 ~ 0 0
0 0 D ~
0 0 0 ~
0 0 D ~
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 29 of 94
;~ $ c:
>--"'-t> -C: .cc~m .J:: c:
~~-~--~2o -~-t1l
Q. ~~ ~ (/)~ ~e 0::: () .§
0 .Q> ~ ~ §,;e 8 ~ '§, ~ 0 Q) ·-E Q.(/)_ ...J 'iii ::i: .E ...J(/)_ z
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted 0 0 0 [8] 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 0 0 0 [8]
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
The Riding Park site was the subject of a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (EEl, 2009) prepared for
the City of San Juan Capistrano. The purpose of the Phase 1 ESA was to assess the presence or li kely
presence of an existing historical, or threatened release of any hazardous substances , or petroleum products
into structures, soil, and/or groundwater beneath the site. The assessment found no evidence of
contamination, distressed vegetation, petroleum-hydrocarbo n staining , waste drums, illegal dumping or
improper waste storage/handling at the site.
An active 16-inch pipeline conveying refined petroleum products (operated by Kinder Morgan Energy Partners)
traverses the western portion of the site, within the SCE power line eas ement. (An inactive 1 0-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. The proposed improvements and
associated activities do not involve the routine use of hazardous materia ls . There is a minor 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 on site. Neither construction nor operation of the proposed pipelines
involves the use of hazardous materials. The presence of an existing active pipeline onsite poses a
potential hazard, particularly during constructi on activities. To avoid a substantial risk of upset or accident
associated with the 16" pipeline that might release hazardous materials, the following measure is
provided:
Mitigation Measure HM-1: Prior to any trenching or excavation, the City shall establish and mark the
location of the Kinder Morgan pipeline in the vicinity of the proposed project. The use of mechanical
construction excavation equipment shall not be permitted within two feet of the alignments of the two
Kinder Morgan pipelines that traverse the site (as identified in Kinder Morgan i 2012). Any activities
that disturb the ground surface within 10 feet of the alignments shall be monitored by a qualified
representative, as determined by Kinder Morgan, of the owner or operator of the pipelines (Kinder
Morgan).
• 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 implementation of Mitigation Measure HM-1 presented above . See responses to (a) and (b) above.
• 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
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 30 of 94
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 sign ificant hazard to the public or to 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 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 aviat ion).
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 or working in the project
area.
g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? No impact. Construction and operation of the proposed pipelines have
no potential to affect 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 16.16). Nor will it result in physical obstruction of any street or highway
that is critical to evacuation in the event of an emergency.
h) 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? No impact. Construction and operation of the pipelines and related facilities will not
result in exposure of people or structures to risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires , because
the project has no effect on the location of persons and does not propose new structures . The pipelines
and proposed facilities are not sources of significant risk of loss, injury or death. The project will have a
beneficial effect in providing reliable water service for fire protection purposes.
With implementation of the mitigation measure identified above, the proposed pipeline will not result in
potential impacts related to hazards and/or hazardous materials .
16.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 0
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 ., O
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 O
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-
site?
D
0
0
<:: "'-.s::. <::
-cu o-~;=o
1/) ·-cu wS,c. w ·-E _J(/)_
D
D
t5
~
.§
0 z
0
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 31 of 94
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 storm water drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f . Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g. Place housin g within a 1 00-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 1 00-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?
k. Result in an increase i n pollutant discharges to receivin g 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)?
I. Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or
following construction?
m . Could the proposed project result in increased erosion downstream?
n. Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased
runoff?
0. Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage
patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes?
p. Tributary to an already i mpaired 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?
~} ~ c
:..-"'-0 = c .C'Ec ~ .cc
.!!! rl -t--rl,g o -rl-"' c. 'E~o Ill!€ ~g Ill !€ ~ .§ ~ §, ~ ~ ~:e 8 <n§,c. 0 o ·-E w ·-E O..Ul -....1 'iii ::2 .£ ....IUJ-z
D D D ~
0 D D ~
D D ~ D
D D D ~
D D D ~
D D D ~
D D D ~
D D ~ D
0 D ~ D
D 0 ~ D
D D D ~
D D D ~
0 D ~ D
D D ~ D
D D ~ D
D D D ~
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 32 of 94
;} ~ c:
>--.,_
0 = c: t=t:se J:: c:
:m.go -rl_ ro rl"" 0 c.
Cl) !E ~ ~ "" <J .s ~ ·c ro "'·-ro 0 .Ql ~ "' c: ·-0 CI)§,O.
Q) C):t:::' 0 cv ·-E 0
Q_CJ)_ ...J'iii~.f: ...JC/)_ z
t. Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or
groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of D D IZ1 D
beneficial uses?
u. Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? D D IZ1 D
v. Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction or post D D IZ1 D construction?
w. Result in a potential for discharge of storm water pollutants from areas
of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment
maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials 0 D D IZ1
handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor
work areas?
X. Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the D D IZ1 D beneficial uses of the receiving waters?
y. Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or D D 0 IZ1 volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm?
z. Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or 0 D 0 IZ1 surrounding areas?
The project site is within the watershed of San Juan Creek. The creek is immediately to the west of the Riding
Park. A portion of the Riding Park 's eastern boundary is the site of a well-developed but isolated seasonal
drainage channel, that was once a minor tributary to San Juan Creek (originatin g in the upper elevations of
terrain to the east) but which now drains to the creek by way of a subterranean drain. San Juan Creek is
within State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Region 9-San Diego . The creek is an impaired
(303{d) listed) water body due to excess levels of bacteria , DOE (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 is captured in a system of subsurface drains and swales
across the site and conveyed to detention bas ins, before discharging into San Juan Creek. The site consists
pre-dominantly of pervious surfaces --bare ground and groomed surfaces and turf in the equestrian arenas.
In the vicinity of Alternative Alignment B for the Recycled Water Line , the underground drainage system
conveys runoff to a desiltation basin from which runoff is then conveyed to a second basin, before discharging
into the drainage area on the Riding Park's eastern boundary. All the proposed pipeline alignments were
adjusted to avoid the equestrian arenas as well as the desiltation basins and the several mature Black Willows
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 33 of 94
within the Sensitive Resources Area that surround one of the basins. The current drainage pattern would
remain unchanged after construction of the pipeline along its proposed alignment. Placement of the
subterranean pipeline will not introduce impervious surfaces at the site. Pipeline construction will not result in
alteration in the direction, intensity or duration of runoff to or from the site.
Potential impacts associated with construction activities (trenching and placement of the pipeline) can be
effectively avoided through standard conditions of approval. The principal mechanism for ensuring that
construction activities do not adversely affect the local surface waters is implementation of erosion and
sedimentation control measures, a standard condition of approval for construction activities imposed by the
City.
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No Impact. As noted above,
the project will not affect discharge from the site. There is a minor potential for erosion and sedimentation
impacts during trenching for the pipelines. Potentially significant effects will be avoided through
implementation of standard erosion control measures adopted by the City, which are routinely enforced for
projects with grading and/or soil disturbance, including the following:
1. A standby crew for emergency work shall be available at all times during the rainy season. Necessary
materials shall be available on site and stockpiled at convenient locations to facilitate rapid installation
of temporary devices or to repair any damaged erosion control measures when rain is imminent.
2. All removable protective devices shown on project plans shall be in place at the end of each working
day when the five-day rain probability forecast exceeds 40 percent. Forecasts shall be received from
broadcasts provided by the United States Weather Service.
3. If deemed necessary by City Inspector, provide two row high gravel bags or straw bales on the slope
downside next to any proposed silt fences.
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)? No Impact.
The pipelines and their construction will have no adverse effect on groundwater supplies, groundwater
recharge or aquifers. The project has a minor beneficial effect on groundwater supply, but switching to
reclaimed water for irrigation purposes, thereby reducing the demand for local groundwater.
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 or siltation
on-or off-site? No impact. The proposed facilities will have no effect on the existing drainage pattern of
the site or of a stream or river.
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? No impact. Refer to Response (c), above.
• Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No
impact. See response to Response (a) above.
• Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact. See previous discussion and response to
(a) above.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 34 of 94
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-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
No impact. According to FEMA maps , the site is well outside all100-year flood hazard areas.
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 ofTrampas Canyon Dam , the only levee or dam of
concern in the city.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. There are no potential impacts to the
propo sed project from seiche , tsunami or mudflow, as no topographic al features or water bodies cap abl e
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 stormwater
pollutants (e.g. heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment,
nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, and trash)? No Impact. See response to (a) above .
/) Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? No
Impact. 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? No impact.
Construction of the proposed pipelines will not result in an increase in impervious surfaces. 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 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?
No Impact. The site is tributary to an impaired water body , San Juan Creek. However, with
implementation of standard erosion control measures cited above, the project will avoid significant
impacts to the Creek . See response to (a) above.
q) Tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? If so, can it exacerbate already existing
sensitive conditions? No Impact. 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? No Impact. See R1~sponse 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? No impact. See Responses to (a), {b), (c), {f)
and (p) above.
u) Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? No Impact. See Response to (a) above. See also
Response 16.4 (b) and (c) related to Biological Resources, above.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 35 of 94
v) Potentially impact storm water runoff from construction or post construction? Less than significant
impact. See Responses to (a), (c) and (I) above .
w) Result in a potential for discharge of storm water 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. Activities associated with construction and operation of the proposed facilities 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? Less than significant impact. See Response to (a) above.
y) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff to
cause environmental harm? No Impact. See Response to (a), (c) and (I) above.
z) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? No Impact. See
Responses to (a) and (I) above.
The project will have no significant adverse effects relative to hydrology and water quality.
lij~ c: ,_ "'-t) :::;:C: ..c:-c: ..c: c:
.!!! B-1-c:o -B-Cll B., Q. c~ ~ ""Cll (/) !t: ~ ..§ UJ·-C) 2 6, a. ~ §,E ~ .§> ~ 0 o ·-E ....J ·c;; ::2 z C..CI)_ ....JCI)_
16.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING . Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community? D D D ~
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 D ~ D D
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? D ~ D D
Land uses on and around the site are illustrated in Exhibit 3 and described in pages 3 -6. Existing uses and
proposed facilities are consistent with current zoning and General Plan designations for the site.
a) Physically divide an established community? No impact. The proposed pipelines and facilities, by
their nature and location, have no potential to 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?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Mitigation Measure BR-4 in the Biological
Resources discussion above ensures avoidance of potential conflicts with the HCP . See discussion
below.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan 7
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The Sensitive Resources Area within the Riding
Park is subject to an approved Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) established in conjunction with the
Ranch Plan Planned Community Zoning . Mitigation Measure BR-4 presented in the discussion of
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 36 of 94
Biological Resources, Section 16.4, will ensure that construction of the pipelines does not conflict with the
HCP.
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-3 presented earlier, the project will have no significant
impacts related to land use.
~~ "0 c:
>--()) ro _ u == c: .C 'E c:'§ .c c:
1l ~-~-~s o -~-ro a. ~ ~ ~ .;:ro g 1;:0 .§ UJ ·-C) lll '§, ~ 0 .Q> ~ ~ §,:e 8 Q) ·-E 0
Q..U)_ ...J 'ii) :::E ..= ...JU)_ z
16.11 MINERAL RESOURCES . Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that D D D [gl 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 D D D [gl
land use plan?
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would b e of value to the region
and the residents of the state? No Impact. There are no locall y-im p ort ant mineral resources
underlying the site . There are no mineral recove ry sites on or near th e site .
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-importan t mineral resource recovery site delineated on
a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Imp act. Refer to Response (a),
above.
The project will have no impact on mineral resources.
16.12 NOISE. Would the project:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of no ise levels in excess of
standards established i n the local general plan or no ise 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?
d. A substantial temporary or periodic i ncrease in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity a bove levels existing without the project?
e. For a proj ect 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 a rea to excessive noise levels?
f. 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?
ai~ ~ c:
>--ro_ u -c: .cc:c:r:? .cc:
~¥u ~-~so -~-ro a. $ ·c m .;:ro § !;: 0 .§ t/J ·-tn ~ '§, ~
0 .Q> ~ f/) §,E 8 0 ~ 'ii) :::E ..= Q) ·-E z O..U)_ ...JU)_
D D D [gl
D D D [gl
D D D [8)
D D [gl D
D D D [gl
D D D [gl
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 37 of 94
During operation, the proposed domestic water line , recycled water line and waste water line w ill not generate
noise. Noise generated during construction is not expected to be significant, largely because laying of the
pipelines and placement of the metering station does not require extensive grading , large numbers of
equipment, or especially noisy procedures (such as pile-driving and sandblasting). Trenching and pipeline
construction will be accomplished with the use of a backhoe and a loader, with occasional visits by trucks to
deliver materials. The noise generated by these pieces of equipment, will result in a temporary increase in
ambient noise levels. However, this increase will not be great enough to adversely affect residents or any
other noise-sensitive land uses offsite . The City's Noise Ord inance limits construction and demolition hours to
7 AM to 6 PM , Monday through Friday and 8:30AM 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. (See
additional discussion in Biological Resources , Section 16.4.)
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 .
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne 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. Placement of the pipelines and associated metering station do not require pile-
driving. Earthwork will be limited to trenching and backfilling of the trench. Construction activities will not
generate excessive vibration or groundborne noise .
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project? No impact. The proposed pipelines and associated metering station 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 construction are extremely unlikely to reach levels that are incompatible with neighboring
land uses. There are no noise-sensitive users in the project site . The southern terminus of the pipeline in the
San Juan Creek Road extension will be a distance of approximately 100 feet from the nearest residence in the
Paseo Ranchero and Via Limon neighborhoods in the City of San Juan Capistrano . Compliance with the
City's Noise Ordinance , which prohibits construction activities outside the hours of 7 AM through 6 PM Monday
through Friday and 8:30AM 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 .
f) 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.
Construction and use of the proposed facilities will not create significant noise impacts.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 38 of 94
;il ~ c:
>--ro_ 0 -C: -'='E:I::«< .s::. c: ~~-l-~,g5 -~-ro Q. ~~~ (/) !E ~ e 1;:::0 §
0 .2' ~ "' c: ·-0 ~ "§, ~ ~·~~~ Q) ·-E 0 C.. (f)_ ..J(/)_ z
16.13 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 D D D 181
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the D D D 181 construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers of people , necessitating the D D D 181 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 proposed pipelines will not induce growth. Domestic water and recycled
water conveyed by the pipelines (and related facilities) to the site will provide water service to already existing
uses.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? No impact. Construction of the proposed facilities will not displace any housing.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? No impact. Refer to Response 16.12(a) and 16.12(b), above.
The project will have no impacts on population and housing.
;i l ~ c:
>--ro_ 0 -c: .=c:s~ .s::. c:
~~0 -~-ro ~ :;:::> 0 Q.
"'!E ~ ~ <;::: 0 § ~ ·;:: ro gj '§, ~ 0 .2' ~ "' c: ·-0 Q,) 0) :t:: (.) Q) ·-E 0
C..Cil--' ·c;; ::2 E -'Cil-z
16.14 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? D D D 181
Police Protection? D D D 181
Schools? D D D 181
Parks? D D D 181
Other public facilities? D D D 181
1) Fire protection? No impact. The construction and use of the pipelines and related facilities will not
generate an increased demand for fire protection services over existing conditions. The project proposes
to provide a reliable source of water for fire suppression purposes at the site through construction of a
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 39 of 94
domestic water line . Potential physical impacts of constructing the domestic water line are addressed
throughout this Initial Study. (By providing a water source for fire suppression the project will have a
beneficial effect on fire protection services.) The project will not result in a change in land use or activities.
Nor will it induce growth or substantially increase , either directly or indirectly, the need for fire protection
services over existing conditions.
2) Police protection? No impact. There will be no significant impacts related to police protection or
service associated with construction or use of the water and sewer pipelines .
3) Schools? No impact. Construction and use of the proposed water and sewer pipelines will not result in
any increase in student population or otherwise affect school services.
4) Parks? No impact. Construction and use of the water and sewer pipelines will not result in any increase
in the demand or use of parks .
5) Other public facilities? No impact. Construction and use of the proposed pipelines 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.
The project will have no impact on public services.
~~ al c:
>--ro_ tl -c: .::c:a~ .J::. c:
:rg.gtl -rl-ro rl ~ 0 0.
c: ·-<o= ro ~ <;= 0 .§ ~ ae ~·r: g 8 en ·-m
o ·-E .3 -~~ .s ::l.§> ~ 0
0..(1)_ ....JC/)_ z
16.15 RECREATION. Would the project:
a. Would the project increase the use of ex isting neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial D D D ~
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 D D 0 ~
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 occur or be
accelerated? No Impact. The proposed pipelines will serve existing uses . Their operation will not
increase the use or activities at the Riding Park or of other recreational facilities . The project will have no
effect on demand or use of recreational facilities.
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 project provides public utilities and does not include recreational facilities, nor does it require
construction or expansion of recreational facilities .
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 40 of 94
c: :.--c: -0 c:"E u = c: cue::;::;
1l rl' ~ .CrJ<Il"O .S]u ro a. c:O:: ~~.g~ .§ Q) ·c: VJ ·-·-::I ~ -~~ -Cl (/)C:~-0 &ud. .3 ·~} E a> ·-E ...JC/)_ z
16.16 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 0 0 ~ 0 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 0 0 0 (gl
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 0 0 0 (gl
risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e .g., farm 0 0 0 ~
equipment)?
e . Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 D (gl
f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting 0 0 D (gl alternative transportation (e.g ., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
The number of vehicle trips generated from the Riding Park 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 Reata Park site. The cap of
203 trips is designed to ensure avoidance of significant impacts to local and regional roadways, including
levels of service of local intersections and on-and off-ramps of the 1-5 freeway at Ortega Highway (Source :
Rancho Mission Viejo (RMV) Riding Park, Purchase and Sale Agreement , Section 15.1 ). Compliance with the
203 PM peak limit effectively ensures that the two sites , In tandem and individually , do not exceed the
thresholds for significant impacts for roadways , intersections and on-and off-ramps.
Implementation of the proposed project will result in no increase in vehicle trips , except during the very short-
term construction phase . Because construction of the proposed utilities requires only two or three pieces of
equipment operating at any given time (loader, backhoe and occasional truck deliveries) and a similarly small
number of workers ( 4 to 6), the vehicular trips generated by the project's construction phase can be said to be
negligible in relation to the weekday PM peak cap of 203 trips imposed on the Riding Park site and its
neighbor, Reata Park. The mechanism for ensuring compliance with the PM peak cap is a monitoring and
management plan implemented by the City of San Juan Capistrano Recreation Department which monitors
scheduled events at both sites and ensures that the 203 PM peak limit is not exceeded 3 . Compliance with the
cap on vehicular trips through City implementation of the monitoring and management plan will ensure
avoidance of any significant impacts to roadway capacities from the Riding Park site , or from the two sites
combined ; or of a sl,lbstantial contribution to a cumulatively significant impact arising from the very small
number of construction-related worker trips associated with the project.
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)? Less than significant impact.
3 See Reata Park and Event Center Master Plan Initial Study/MND, October 2012, Mitigation Measure T-1.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 41 of 94
The project will not generate any new permanent vehicular trips. Construction-related trips will be less
than significant. See above discussion.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No impact. Refer to
Response (a), and discussion above.
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? No Impact. The proposed pipelines 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 project will have no
effect on the design of traffic-related infrastructure or on traffic patterns. The project does not introduce
any incompatible uses that might introduce a safety hazard to circulation .
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No impact. The proposed utilities will have no effect on
emergency access.
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)? No impact. Construction and operation of the proposed utilities will not
conflict with adopted policies, plans and programs supporting alternative transportation .
The project will have no adverse impacts on transportation and traffic.
16.17 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?
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?
;~ ~ c:
>--"'-0 ~@ .="E§~ .s;;;; c:
-rl-"' ~~u rl ;:> g 0.
ai ·;:: "' ~co co:: u E 0 -~~ ::~·c: -~ 0 ~ "§, ~
Q) C):!:: 0 a> ·-E 0
D..Ul-....J 'iii~ .f ....J(/)_ z
D D D [8]
D D D [8]
0 0 0 [g)
0 0 0 181
0 0 0 [8]
0 0 D 181
0 0 0 r81
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 42 of 94
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.
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?
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 pipelines will have no effect on site drainage and therefore will not require construction
or expansion of existing drainage facilities .
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No impact. The project will not result in an
increase in water demand or water use . The project's proposal to provide two sources of water to the site
(domestic and recycled) and the ability provided through the proposed metering station to alternate
between recycled and domestic water sources for irrigation (the largest source of water use on site) if
warranted by future water supply conditions, will effectively enhance the City's ability to ensure water to
serve the site. The provision of recycled water occurs through the implementation of agreements with the
Santa Margarita Water District to provide non-potable water to the City of San Juan Capistrano.
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 sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs? No impact. The project will not generate solid waste.
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 .
16 .18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project:
a. Doe s the project have the potential to deg rad e the quality of the
envi ronment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
sp ecies , cause a fish or wild life population to decrease below se lf-
su staini ng level s, threaten to elim inate 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 or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
~ ~ 11 c:
>.-ro_ 0 = c: ..c::r=c:e! ..c:: c:
jg.gt> r-rJ,go -rl-ro
Q. .s '2 "' <;:::CU~ 1;::: 0 .§ en ·-t» ~ '§, ~
0 .Ql ~ "' c: ·-0 0 Q) O):t: u Ql ·-E 0,_(/)_ --' 'iii :::2: £: --'Ul-z
0 rg) 0 0
0 0 0 rg)
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 43 of 94
c-"'0 c:
>--cv ;!: "' cv_ ti =c: .c~c(6 .S::c:
Jg.gti l-~gl5 -~-cv
Q.
~ '2 cv <;:::CV~ &;:::() £ (I) '2 Ol 8 ~ '§, ~ 0 .2l g (I) ·-0 ~·~~E "' ·-E Q.CI)_ _1(/)_ z
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
0 D 0 ~
past, present, and future effects of other projects)?
d . Does the project have environmental effects which will have
substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly? 0 [gJ 0 0
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 or prehistory? Less than significant with
mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-1 will ensure that the pipeline alignment avoids
direct i mpacts to significant biological resources , including habitats of fish and wildlife and fish and wildlife
populations . Construction activities have the potential to indirectly impact nesting birds (should they be
present during construction) through noise generated by equipment. Mitigation Measure BR-2 will ensure
that construction noise does not adversely affect wildlife . The project has no potential to eliminate
important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory.
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 proposal to provide recycled water service to the site
implements the City's 2006 Non Domestic/Recycled Water Master Plan and the provision of domestic
water is consistent with the long-term goals established by the City as reflected in the Water Master Plan.
The project 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 other projects)? No impact. The project would
not result in incremental effects of this type . Potential impacts are limited to those that are insignificant or
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 exists In the presence of an active 16" pipeline that traverses the southern portion of
the site. Potential hazards associated with the presence of this pipeline can be avoided through
implementation of Mitigation Measures HM-1.
17. PREPARATION. This initial study was prepared by the City of San Juan Capistrano with assistance by Ed
Almanza & Associates, an environmental consultant under contract to the City. Principal City staff
participants include Michael Marquis, Associate Civil Engineer, Eric Bauman, Utilities Engineer, Charles
View, Project Manager and Sergio Klotz, Assistant Development Services Director
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 44 of 94
APPENDIX A
AIR QUALITY &
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
TECHNICAL STUDY
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 45 of 94
E
8 > c:
Q)
Gl
CJ c
Gl
"CC
"' CJ
0 ..--
0
(V)
Q)
<(
()
0
·c
(I)
E
(I)
()
Q)
> ·c
0
0 .-t=
(I)
(/}
:J
(I)
(f)
<D ...--
00
E
0
(..)
> c
Q)
Q)
(..)
c
Q)
-o
(I)
(..)
@)
.2
.~
w
0
"<!'
N
"<!'
0
L{)
L{)
0
00
I-
I CADENCE
I LNVIJ<ON rv1 [N I IlL coNSUL rAN r s
December 6, 2016
Ed Almanza
Ed Almanza & Associates
P.O. Box 9396
Laguna Beach, CA 92652
Re: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis for the Rancho Mission Viejo Riding
Park Water and Sanitary Sewer Facilities Project
Dear Ed,
Cadence Environmental Consultants appreciates this opportunity to provide this air quality and
greenhouse gas (GHG) impact analysis for the proposed Rancho Mission Viejo Riding Park Water and
Sanitary Sewer Facilities project. This analysis is provided to support the Initial Study that is being
prepared for the project under contract to the City of San Juan Capistrano.
Project Understanding
Municipal water is provided to the vicinity of the Rancho Mission Viejo Riding Park by the City of
San Juan Capistrano, which is the local purveyor of domestic and recycled water. However, the
Riding Park does not currently have its own service connection to the City's domestic or recycled
water line. Instead, water is currently provided to the Riding Park through two sources: (1) domestic
water from a sub-metered connection sourced from the adjacent property, which has a metered
connection to the City's domestic water line); and (2} irrigation water comes from a privately owned
water well on the neighboring property to the south (Cotton property) conveyed to the Riding Park
through a privately owned pipe. The off-site well, which has provided water to the site for many
years since before the City's purchase of the park site in 2010, will no longer be an available source of
water after September 2017. The City of San Juan Capistrano is, therefore, undertaking a project to
provide municipal water connections (both domestic and recycled) to the Riding Park.
The proposed project consists of four components, each of which is further described as follows:
1 of 17
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 46 of 94
E
0
(.)
:> c:
Q)
Cll
(.) c:
Cll
"C cv
(.)
0 ,-
0
C')
m
<( u
0
·;::
ro
E ro u
Q)
> ·;::
0
. .g
cu
(/)
::J cu
(J)
c.o ..-co
E
0
(.)
> c:
Q)
Q)
(.) c:
QJ
u cu u
@)
,2 c
UJ
0
""'" ('\J
"<t
0
LC)
Lei
0 co
1-
CADENCE
lN V I RO NMl N l A L C ONS U L TANI S
1. Domestic Waterline -The city owns and operates an existing domestic waterline that terminates
near the end of the San Juan Creek Road extension southwest of the Riding Park property line. A
12-inch fire service connection will be extended from the end of the City's waterline into the
Riding Park, an approximate distance of 985 linear feet, to a new fire hydrant adjacent to the
Riding Park office building. The waterline extension will be placed in a trench that is six feet deep
and 24 to 30 inches wide.
2. Recycled Waterline -The City owns and operates an above grade recycled water pressure
reducing station (PRS) near the end of the San Juan Creek Road alignment, approximately 50 feet
southwest of the Riding Park property line. The City proposes to construct an 8-inch line from the
PRS, or from a new connection point along the existing 12-inch recycled water line on the site, to
connect to the existing irrigation system. The connection will follow one of the three alternative
alignments. Depending on which alignment is selected, the 8-inch line will be up to 360 feet in
length. The new recycled water line will be placed in a trench that is 6 feet deep and 24 to 30
inches wide. A 6-inch meter and pressure reduction valve, will connect the City's recycled pipeline
to the Riding Park's existing irrigation line.
3. Metering Stations -A 2-inch Service Meter will be installed to measure the flow of domestic water
provided to the site. A 6-inch meter and backflow device will be constructed where the Domestic
line crosses the irrigation line, for use as an emergency supply to the irrigation line if recycled
service is unavailable for an extended period of time. Lastly a 6-inch service meter will be
installed where the recycled line meets the Riding Park Irrigation service.
4. Sewer Pipelines -An 8-inch PVC sewer pipeline is proposed, extending from a point in the north
central portion of the site to an existing sewer connection just outside the Riding Park's southern
boundary in the San Juan Creek Road extension alignment. The sewer line will extend
approximately 2,120 linear feet with nine 4-foot diameter manholes along its length. The sewer
line will drain the office facility, and will collect runoff from the existing wash down racks located
within the paddock area west of the proposed line. Approximately five lateral sewer connections
are proposed to extend from the wash down areas to the sewer line. The sewer line will be placed
in a trench that ranges from 8 to 14 feet in depth and 24 to 32 inches in width. The lateral lines will
be placed at similar depths with a trench width of 12 to 18 inches.
The construction duration for the domestic water line is estimated at 3-4 weeks, followed by
construction of the sewer liner over 6-8 weeks, the sewer laterals and manholes at 2-3 weeks, and the
recycled water line at two weeks.
2 of 17
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 47 of 94
·.
E
8 ::> c:
Q)
Cl)
(.) c:
Cl)
"0 cu
(.)
0 ,.....
0
C') en
<(
0
0
·;::
(1)
E
(1)
0
Q)
> ·;::
0
,g
(1)
Cf)
::J
(1)
(/)
<D .,.....
00
E
0
(.)
::> c:
OJ
OJ
(.)
c:
OJ
"0 ro
(.)
@)
.2 c
UJ
0
"'1" ,.....
N
"'1"
0
LO
LO
0
00
I-
CADENCE
lNVI RONMLN !J\L C ONSUL 1/\N I S
Construction equipment that would be used to install each of the project components is given below.
Domestic Waterline: Caterpillar 416C combination backhoe/loader.
Sewer Line, laterals and manholes: Construction equipment will include an excavator, a loader, a
dump truck and two small pick-up trucks. Excavation of the lateral lines will use a smaller
combination excavator/ loader.
Recycled Water Line: Caterpillar 416C combination backhoe/loader.
Air Quality Impact Analysis
In accordance with Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines, a project could have a potentially significant
air quality impact if any of the following were to occur:
(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;
(b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially 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 an 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; or
(e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Explanation of Checklist Answers
The City of San Juan Capistrano is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which exceeds
national and State ambient air quality standards for several air pollutants. The SCAQMD is the
agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control within the Basin. To that end,
the SCAQMD, a regional agency, works directly with the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, and local governments and cooperates
actively with all State and federal government agencies. The SCAQMD develops rules and
regulations, establishes permitting requirements, inspects emissions sources, and enforces such
measures though educational programs or fines, when necessary.
Although the SCAQMD is responsible for regional air quality planning efforts, it does not have the
authority to directly regulate the air quality issues associated with plans and new development
3 of 17
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 48 of 94
E
0
()
::> c:
Q)
Cll u c
Q)
'g
CIS u
0
........
0
(")
0)
<(
0
0
·c: ro
E ro
0
Q)
> ·c
0
0 ~
ro
(fJ
::J ro
(/)
(0
........
ro
E
0
()
::> c:
Q)
Q)
0 c
Q)
u
(\]
0
@)
.2 c
w
0 ..q
,-
N
..q
0
L!)
L!)
0 ro
1-
CADENCE
l r'-IVII\ON rvl LN I A L C ONSUL l i\N I 5
projects within its jurisdiction. Instead, the SCAQMD has used its expertise and prepared the CEQA
Air Quality Handbook and newer thresholds of significance to indirectly address these issues in
accordance with the projections and programs of its Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs). The
purpose of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook and newer thresholds of significance is to assist lead
agencies, as well as consultants, project proponents, and other interested parties, in evaluating
potential air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed in the Basin. Specifically, the CEQA Air
Quality Handbook and newer thresholds of significance explain the procedures that the SCAQMD
recommends be followed during environmental review processes required by CEQ A. The CEQA Air
Quality Handbook and newer thresholds of significance provide direction on how to evaluate
potential air quality impacts, how to determine whether these impacts are significant, and how to
mitigate these impacts. The SCAQMD intends that by providing this guidance, the air quality
impacts of plans and development proposals will be analyzed accurately and consistently throughout
the region, and adverse impacts will be minimized.
In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA review process, the City of San Juan Capistrano assesses the
air quality impacts of new development projects, requires mitigation of potentially significant air
quality impacts by conditioning discretionary permits, and monitors and enforces implementation of
such mitigation. The City does not, however, have the expertise to develop plans, programs,
procedures, and methodologies to ensure that air quality within the county and region will meet
federal and state standards. Instead, the city relies upon the expertise of the SCAQMD and utilizes
the CEQA Air Quality Handbook and newer thresholds of significance as the guidance documents for
the environmental review of plans and development proposals within its jurisdiction.
(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
Less Than Significant Impact.
The SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile,
and indirect sources to meet federal and State ambient air quality standards. It has responded to this
requirement by preparing a series of AQMPs. The most recent of these was adopted by the Governing
Board of the SCAQMD on December 7, 2012 and supplemented in February 2015. This AQMP,
referred to as the 2012 AQMP, was prepared to comply with the federal and State Clean Air Acts and
amendments, to accommodate growth, to reduce the high levels of pollutants in the Basin, to meet
federal and State air quality standards, and to minimize the fiscal impact that pollution control
measures have on the local economy. The 2012 AQMP identifies the control measures that will be
implemented over a 20-year horizon to reduce major sources of pollutants. Implementation of control
measures established in the previous AQMPs has substantially decreased the population's exposure
4 of 17
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 49 of 94
E
0
(.)
:> c::
Q)
Q)
C.) c
Q)
'C ca
C.)
0
·;::
ro
E ro u
Q)
> ·;::
0
_.g
ro
(/)
::l ro
(f)
(0 ....... co
E
0
(.)
> c::
Q)
Q)
u c
Q)
"0 ro
(.)
@)
.Q
c::
w
0
""' .......
N
'<!'
0
l[)
l[)
0 co
t-
CADENCE
LNVIRONMLN I1\L CONS\JL 1;\N IS
to unhealthful levels of pollutants, even while substantial population growth has occurred within the
Basin.
The future air quality levels projected in the 2012 AQMP are based on several assumptions. For
example, the SCAQMD assumes that general new development within the Basin will occur in
accordance with population growth and transportation projections identified by the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) in the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy (RTP /SCS), which was adopted on April 4, 2012. The 2012 AQMP also
assumes that general development projects will include strategies (mitigation measures) to reduce
emissions generated during construction and operation in accordance with SCAQMD and local
jurisdiction regulations which are designed to address air quality impacts and pollution control
measures.
For general development projects, the SCAQMD recommends that consistency with the current
AQMP be determined by demonstrating consistency with adopted local land use plan designations
and I or population projections used in the development of the AQMP. Projects that are consistent
with adopted local land use plan designations and/ or applicable population projections would not
interfere with air quality attainment because the growth of the project is included in the projections
utilized in the formulation of the 2012 AQMP. As such, projects, uses, and activities that are consistent
with the applicable assumptions used in the development of the AQMP would not jeopardize
attainment of the air quality levels identified in the AQMP, even if they exceed the SCAQMD's
recommended daily emissions thresholds. However, changing a land use designation that would
result in more intensive growth and/ or exceeding the AQMP population projections could jeopardize
attainment of the air quality conditions projected in the AQMP and is considered to be a significant
impact.
The proposed water and sanitary facilities improvements do not require any changes to the existing
land use designation for the project site and do not foster any increase in growth. Therefore, the
proposed project would not exceed the growth projections of the AQMP, and, as such, would not
conflict with the 2012 AQMP or jeopardize attainment of state and national ambient air quality
standards in the area under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The impact of the project would be less
than significant.
5 of 17
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 50 of 94
E
0
(.)
:> c
Q)
Q)
(.) s::
Q)
"C ca
(.)
0 ..-
0
(")
m
<:(
(_)
0
-~
E
ru u
!D ~>
'l:-:
0
_g
(\)
(/)
::J
(\)
(/)
co
co
E
0
0 > c:
UJ
Q)
u c
(\)
TJ
[\) u
(8)
.8
c:
w
<
('-J
'<Of•
0
l.()
L\)
0 cc
1-
I CADENCE
l V I P )N M LN /\L 0 JSU 'A N I
(b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation.
Less Than Significant Impact.
A project may have a significant impact if project-related emissions would exceed federal, State, or
regional standards or thresholds, or if project-related emissions would substantially contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation. To address potential impacts from construction and
operational activities, the SCAQMD currently recommends that impacts from projects with mass
daily emissions that exceed any of the thresholds outlined in Table 1 be considered significant. The
City of San Juan Capistrano defers to these thresholds for the evaluation of construction-related and
operational air quality impacts.
TABLE 1 -SCAQMD THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
I Construction Thresholds ' Operational Thresholds Pollutant
(pounds/ day) (pounds per day)
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 75 55 -I--"·
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100 55 ---
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 150 150
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM 10) 150 150
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2 .s) 55 55
Source of table data: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Significance Thresholds, website: http: II
www.aqmd.gov I docs I d efault-source I ceq a I handbook I scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
Mass Daily Regional Construction-Related Emissions
The analysis of mass daily regional construction emissions has been prepared utilizing the California
Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod v. 2016 .3.1), as recommended by the SCAQMD. The mass
daily construction-related emissions are shown in Table 2. As shown, the mass daily regional
construction-related emissions generated during the project construction phase would not exceed the
thresholds of significance recommended by the SCAQMD. Therefore, this impact of the project would
be less than significant.
6 of 17
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 51 of 94
E
0
(.)
:> c
Q)
Q)
(.) c:
Q)
'C ca
(.)
0 ..---
0
(Y)
Ol
q
()
0
_ _g
m
[/)
:;
m
(/)
CD
co
L!J
'-:t c:;.
!0
LO
CJ
co
I
TABLE 2-ESTIMATED MASS DAILY REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
I Emissions in Pounds Per Day ---Year of Construction voc NOx CO SOx PM1o
2017 1.3 10.5 8 .4 <0.1 1.6 1.1
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 75.0 100 .0 550 .0 150.0 150.0 55.0
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
Construction emission calculations based on the construction phasing di scussed previously in this report.
The emissions shown in thi s table are the unmitigated overall construction emissions totals shown on page 4 of the
CalEEMod summer res ults sheets .
CalEEMod summer emissions results sheets are attached to this letter report.
I
Mass Daily Regional Operational Emissions
The proposed project does not include any new uses or facilities that would generate an increase in
air pollutant emissions. No impact would occur.
(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.
Becau se the South Coast Air Basin is currently in nonattainment for ozone, nitrogen dioxide (N02),
PMlO and PM2.5, related projects may likely exceed an air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality exceedance. With respect to determining the significance of the
proposed project contribution, the SCAQMD neither recommends quantified analyses of cons truction
and/ or operational emissions from multiple development projects nor provides methodologies or
thresholds of significance to be used to assess the cumulative emissions generated by multiple
cumulative projects. Ins tead, the SCAQMD recommends that a project's potential contribution to
cumulative impacts be assessed utilizing the same significance criteria as those for project specific
impacts. Furthermore, the SCAQMD states that if an individual development project generates less
than significant construction or operational emissions impacts, then the development project would
not contribute to a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the
Basin is in nonattainment.
7 of 17
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 52 of 94
E
0 u ::> c:
Q)
Q)
(,) c
Q)
"C
"' (,)
0
·c
co
E co u
Q)
> ·c
0
E
0 u
::> c
Q)
Q)
u c
Q)
-o co u
@)
0 c
UJ
0
-<:!" .,.-.
N
-<:!"
0
\.()
\.()
0 co
1-
CADENCE
Lf'-IVII<ON M LN f 1\L CO~JSUL 11\N IS
As discussed above, the mass daily regional emissions generated by project construction-related
activities would not exceed any of the thresholds of significance recommended by the SCAQMD and
no increase in operational emissions would occur. Also, as discussed below, daily localized emissions
generated by the project construction activities would not exceed the SCAQMD's Localized
Significance Thresholds (LSTs). Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute a cumulatively
considerable increase in emissions for the pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment. The
cumulative air quality impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.
(d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Less Than Significant Impact.
A significant impact may occur if a project were to generate pollutant concentrations to a degree that
would significantly affect sensitive receptors. Land uses that are considered more sensitive to changes
in air quality than others are referred to as sensitive receptors. Land uses such as primary and
secondary schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes are considered to be sensitive to poor air
quality because the very young, the old, and the infirm are more susceptible to respiratory infections
and other air quality-related health problems than the general public. Residential uses are considered
sensitive because people in residential areas are often at home for extended periods of time, so they
could be exposed to pollutants for extended periods. Recreational areas are considered moderately
sensitive to poor air quality because vigorous exercise associated with recreation places a high
demand on the human respiratory function.
The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed project site are the residential properties located to the
southeast of the riding park that are in close proximity to the proposed fire service line pipeline track.
The localized emissions of concern are NOx, CO, PMw, and PM2.s. The SCAQMD has developed
localized significance threshold (LST) look-up tables for project sites that are one, two, and five acres
in size to simplify the evaluation of localized emissions at small sites . LSTs are provided for each
Source Receptor Area (SRA) of the Basin and various distances from the source of emissions, and
these LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or
contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality
standards in the affected area . In the case of this analysis, the proposed project site is located within
SRA 21 (Capistrano Valley) and the nearest sensitive use is adjacent to the riding park site. Therefore,
the LSTs for a five-acre site and receptors located within 25 meters are used to address the potential
localized NOx, CO, PMw, and PM2.s impacts to the area surrounding the proposed project site.
8 of 17
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 53 of 94
E
0
(.J
::> c::
Q)
Q)
(.J c
Q)
"C
"' (.J
0
E
0 (.J
::> c
Ql
Ql u c:.
(\)
"(J
l\J u ce) . ~
w
CADENCE
'-~·.\'I E t:::~:r-.•l l.ii ,f-,L CUNS . .J: ,/\N I ~;
Localized Construction Emissions
Table 3 identifies the maximum daily emissions that are estimated to occur at the project site during
the construction phases of the proposed project. As shown, emissions during the construction phases
would not exceed the SCAQMD's LSTs for the specified pollutants. Therefore, impacts related to
localized pollutant concentrations during construction would be less than significant.
TABLE 3-ESTIMATED DAILY LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction Phase
Emissions in Pounds Per Day
NOx ~--CO I PMro PMu -~-------_______ ],, __ -------·--'------------~-------
Pipeline Trenchin g and Installation
On-site Emissions 10.5 7.9 1.5 1.1
SCAQMD Localized Thresholds 197.0 1,804.0 12.0 8.0
Significant Impact? No No No No
Localized threshold s for construction emissions for a fiv e-acre site at a receptor distance of 25 meters, as established by the
SCAQMD for sites in SRA 21.
The emissions shown in thi s table are the unmitigated con struction on-site emissions t ot als shown on page 7 of th e
CalEEMod summer res ults sheets.
CalEEMod summer emissions results sheets are attached to this letter repo~t .
Localized Operational Emissions
As discussed previously, the proposed project does not include any new uses or facilities that would
generate an increase in localized air pollutant emissions. No impact would occur.
(e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
No Impact .
Odors are typically associated with industrial projects involving the use of chemicals, solvents,
petroleum products, and other strong-smelling elements used in manufacturing processes, as well as
sewage treatment facilities and landfills. The proposed water system and wastewater collection pipes
would be self-contained and would not involve the use of any chemicals or processes that could
generate odors. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis
In accordance with Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines, a project could have a potentially significant
impact if any of the following were to occur:
9 of 17
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 54 of 94
E
0
(..)
:> c:
<ll
<ll
(.) c
<ll ,
ca
(.)
0 ,..
0
C0
0)
<( u
0
·;::
(1)
E
(1) u
Q)
> ·;::
·0
0
:'=
(1)
(/)
::J
(1)
(/)
lD ,..
00
E
0
(..)
> c
Q)
Q)
(..)
c
(!) -o
(1)
u
@)
0 '+-· c
UJ
0
-<:!' ,..
N
-<:t
0
l!)
l!)
0
00
I-
CADENCE
LNVII<ONM LN 11\L CON5U L iM•I IS
(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment; or
(b) Coilflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
GHG.
Background
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions refer to a group of emissions that are believed to affect global
climate conditions. These gases trap heat in the atmosphere and the major concern is that increases in
GHG emissions are causing global climate change. Global climate change is a change in the average
weather on earth that can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation and temperature.
Although there is disagreement as to the speed of global warming and the extent of the impacts
attributable to human activities, most agree that there is a direct link between increased emission of
GHGs and long-term global temperature. What GHGs haye in common is that they allow sunlight to
enter the atmosphere, but trap a portion of the outward-bound infrared radiation and warm up the
air. The process is similar to the effect a greenhouse has in raising the internal temperature, hence the
name greenhouse gases. Both natural processes and human activities emit GHGs. The accumulation
of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere regulates the earth's temperature; however, it is the scientific
consensus that emissions from human activities such as electricity generation and motor vehicle
operations have elevated the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere. This accumulation of GHGs
has contributed to an increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere and contributed to global
climate change.
The principal GHGs are carbon dioxide (COz), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and water vapor (HzO).
COz is the reference gas for climate change because it is the predominant greenhouse gas emitted. To
account for the varying warming potential of different GHGs, GHG emissions are often quantified
and reported as C02 equivalents (C02e).
According to the 2006 California Climate Action Team (CAT) Report, temperature increases arising
from increased GHG emissions potentially could result in a variety of impacts to the people,
economy, and environment of California associated with a projected increase in extreme conditions,
with the severity of the impacts depending upon actual future emissions of GHGs and associated
warming.
10 of 17
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 55 of 94
E
0
<.J ::> c
(l)
Cll
(,) c
Cll
~
IV
(,)
0 ..-
0
(")
0)
<(
0
.2
·c
ell
E ro u
Q)
> ·c:
0
,g
ell
tf)
:::l
ell
(f)
c.D ..-
00
E
0
ll ::> c
Q)
(])
ll c
(])
u ro
ll
@)
.2 c
w
CADENCE
lNVI"ONMLN I IlL CONSUL IAN IS
In 2005, in recognition of California's vulnerability to the effects of climate change, Governor
Schwarzenegger established Executive Order S-3-05, which sets forth a series of target dates by which
statewide emissions of GHG would be progressively reduced, as follows:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
In response to Executive Order S-3-05, the Secretary of Cal/EPA created the Climate Action Team
(CAT), which, in March 2006, published the Climate Action Team Report to Governor
Schwarzenegger and the Legislature (2006 CAT Report). The 2006 CAT Report identifies a
recommended list of strategies that the State could pursue to reduce climate change GHG emissions.
These are strategies that could be implemented by various State agencies to ensure that the
Governor's targets are met and can be met with existing authority of the State agencies.
In 2006, California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill No. 32;
California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq., or AB 32), which requires the
California Air Resources Board (ARB) to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and
other measures, such that feasible and cost-effective statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 1990
levels by 2020.
As a central requirement of AB 32, the ARB was assigned the task of developing a Scoping Plan that
outlines the State's strategy to achieve the 2020 GHG emissions limit. This Scoping Plan, which was
developed by the ARB in coordination with the CAT, was published in October 2008. The Scoping
Plan proposed a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in
California, improve the environment, reduce the State's dependence on oil, diversify the State's
energy sources, save energy; create new jobs, and enhance public health. An important component of
the plan is a cap-and-trade program covering 85 percent of the State's emissions. Additional key
recommendations of the Scoping Plan include strategies to enhance and expand proven cost-saving
energy efficiency programs; implementation of California's clean cars standards; increases in the
amount of clean and renewable energy used to power the State; and implementation of a low-carbon
fuel standard that will make the fuels used in the State cleaner. Furthermore, the Scoping Plan also
proposes full deployment of the California Solar Initiative, high-speed rail, water-related energy
efficiency measures, and a range of regulations to reduce emissions from trucks and from ships
docked in California ports. The Proposed Scoping Plan was approved by the ARB on December 11,
2008.
llo£17
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 56 of 94
E
8 :> c
Q)
Q) u c
Q)
'C
ftl u
0 ..--
0
C"')
(J)
<(
()
0
·;::
ro
E ro
()
Q)
> ·;::
0
g
ro
(f)
:J ro
U)
<D ..--
00
E
0
(.)
:> c
(\)
(\)
(.) c
(\)
<:! ro
(.)
@)
.2
.S
w
0
""' "! v
0
l!)
L!)
0 co
f--
CADENCE
LNVII<ONMLN I Ill CONSUL 1.1\N I 5
Because climate change is already affecting California and current emissions will continue to drive
climate change in the coming decades, the necessity of adaptation to the impacts of climate change is
recognized by the State of California. The 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy Discussion
Draft (the Strategy) begins what will be an ongoing process of adaptation, as directed by Governor
Schwarzenegger's Executive Order S-13-08 . The goals of the strategy are to analyze risks and
vulnerabilities and identify strategies to reduce the risks. Once the strategies are identified and
prioritized, government resources will be identified. Finally, the strategy includes identifying research
needs and educating the public.
Climate change risks are evaluated using two distinct approaches: (1) projecting the amount of
climate change that may occur using computer-based global climate models and (2) assessing the
natural or human system's ability to cope with and adapt to change by examining past experience
with climate variability and extrapolating this to understand how the systems may respond to the
additional impact of climate change. The major anticipated climate changes expected in the State of
California include increases in temperature, decreases in precipitation, particularly as snowfall, and
increases in sea level, as discussed above. These gradual changes will also lead to an increasing
number of extreme events, such as heat waves, wildfires, droughts, and floods. This would impact
public health, ocean and coast resources, water supply, agriculture, biodiversity, and the
transportation and energy infrastructures.
Key preliminary adaptation recommendations included in the Strategy are as follows:
• Appointment of a Climate Adaptation Advisory Panel;
• Improved water management in anticipation of reduced water supplies, including a 20 percent
reduction in per capita water use by 2020;
• Consideration of project alternatives that avoid significant new development in areas that cannot be
adequately protected from flooding due to climate change;
• Preparation of agency-specific adaptation plans, guidance or criteria by September 2010;
• Consideration of climate change impacts for all significant State projects;
• Assessment of climate change impacts on emergency preparedness;
• Identification of key habitats and development of plans to minimize adverse effects from climate
change;
12 of 17
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 57 of 94
E
0 (J
::> c
Q)
(I)
(J
c
(I)
"C
IV
(J
0 ...--
0
(")
0)
<{
0
_Q
·c: co
E co
0
Q)
> ·c:
0
0
~
co
If)
::l co
(/)
(.0 ..-co
E
0
(J
::> c
Q)
Q)
u c
Q) -o
(\)
(J
@)
0 ,_
c
UJ
0
"'<t ......
N
v
0
l{)
1.()
0 co
1-
CADENCE
L NV I !< 0 N 1\11 L N ! 1\ L C 0 N S U L I .1\ 1\J I S
• Development of guidance by the California Department of Public Health by September 2010 for use
by local health departments to assess adaptation strategies;
• Amendment of Plans to assess climate change impacts and develop local risk reduction strategies
by communities with General Plans and Local Coastal Plans; and
• Inclusion of climate change impact information into fire program planning by State fire fighting
agencies.
In August 2007, the Legislature adopted Senate Bill 97 (SB 97}, which required the Governor's Office
of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare and transmit new CEQA guidelines for the mitigation of
GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions to the Natural Resources Agency by July 1, 2009. On
April 13, 2009, OPR submitted to the Secretary for Natural Resources its proposed amendments to the
state CEQA Guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions, as required by Senate Bill 97. These proposed
CEQA Guideline amendments provided guidance to public agencies regarding the analysis and
mitigation of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions in draft CEQA documents. On December 31,
2009, the Natural Resources Agency transmitted the Adopted Amendments and the entire rule-
making file to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). On February 16, 2010, OAL approved the
Adopted Amendments and filed them with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the California Code
of Regulations. The Adopted Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010.
In the CEQA Guideline Amendments, a threshold of significance for greenhouse gas emissions was
not specified, nor does it prescribe assessment methodologies or specific mitigation measures.
Instead, the amendments encourage lead agencies to consider many factors in performing a CEQA
analysis and rely on the lead agencies to make their own significance threshold determinations based
upon substantial evidence. The CEQA Amendments also encourage public agencies to make use of
programmatic mitigation plans and programs from which to tier when they perform individual
project analyses.
Explanation of Checklist Answers
(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment.
Less Than Significant Impact.
There are several unique challenges to analyzing greenhouse gas emissions and climate change under
CEQA, largely because of climate change's "global" nature. Typical CEQA analyses address local
actions that have local -or, at most, regional -impacts, whereas climate change presents the
13 of 17
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 58 of 94
E
0 u > c
Q)
Cll
(,) c:
Cll
"C
"' (,)
0
·c
(\)
E
(\)
l)
Q)
> ·c
0
0 .-t=
E
0 u
::> c
Q)
Q)
u c
Q)
-o
(iJ
u
@)
0 c
UJ
0 ..q ..-
N
..q
0
1.{)
1.[)
0 co
I-
CADENCE
LN'IIRONMLN l/\L CONSUL 1.1\N IS
considerable challenge of analyzing the relationship between local activities and the resulting
potentiat if any, for global environmental impacts. Most environmental analyses examine the
"project-specific" impacts that a particular project is likely to generate. With regard to global
warming, however, it is generally accepted that while the magnitude of global warming effects may
be substantial, the GHG emissions from a single general development project would have no
noticeable effect on global climate.
For greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, there is not, at this time, one established,
universally agreed-upon "threshold of significance" by which to measure an impact. While the ARB
published some draft thresholds several years ago, they were never adopted and the ARB
recommended that local air districts and lead agencies adopt their own thresholds for GHG impacts.
As discussed in the Air Quality analysis above, the City of San Juan Capistrano relies upon the expert
guidance of the SCAQMD regarding the methodology and thresholds of significance for the
evaluation of air quality impacts within the South Coast Air Basin. GHG emissions are air pollutants
that are subject to local control by the SCAQMD. As such, the city looks to the SCAQMD for guidance
in the evaluation of GHG impacts.
The SCAQMD has been evaluating GHG significance thresholds since April 2008. In December 2008,
the SCAQMD adopted an interim 10,000 metric tons of C02e (MTC02e) per year screening level
threshold for stationary source I industrial projects for which the SCAQMD is the lead agency. The
SCAQMD has continued to consider adoption of significance thresholds for residential and general
development projects. The most recent proposal issued in September 2010 uses the following tiered
approach to evaluate potential GHG impacts from various uses:
Tier 1 Determine if CEQA categorical exemptions are applicable. If not, move to Tier 2.
Tier 2 Consider whether or not the proposed project is consistent with a locally adopted GHG
reduction plan that has gone through public hearings and CEQA review, that has an
approved inventory, includes monitoring, etc. If not, move to Tier 3 .
Tier 3 Consider whether the project generates GHG emissions in excess of screening thresholds for
individual land uses. The 10,000 MTC02elyear threshold for industrial uses would be
recommended for use by all lead agencies. Under option 1, separate screening thresholds are
proposed for residential projects (3,500 MTC02elyear}, commercial projects (1,400 MTC02el
year}, and mixed-use projects (3,000 MTC02elyear). Under option 2 a single numerical
screening threshold of 3,000 MTC02e I year would be used for all non-industrial projects. If
14 of 17
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 59 of 94
E
8 :> c:
(I) c»
(J
c: c»
~
ftl
(J
0 .,---
0
M
0)
4: u
g
·c m
E m u
(!)
> ·c
0
,g
cu
(f)
::J m
(/)
c.o .,---
00
E
0 u
:> c
(!)
(I) u c
Q) -o m u
@)
.2 c
L.U
0
"'<t
C'J
"'<t
0
Lf)
l!)
0
00
1-
!CADENCE
I tr--1\/IRONMLN i/ILCONSU L l AN Is
the project generates emissions in excess of the applicable screening threshold, move to Tier
4.
Tier 4 Consider whether the project generates GHG emissions in excess of applicable performance
standards for the project service population (population plus employment). The efficiency
targets were established based on the goal of AB 32 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to
1990 levels by 2020. The 2020 efficiency targets are 4.8 MTC02e per service population for
project level analyses and 6.6 MTC02e per service population for plan level analyses. If the
project generates emissions in excess of the applicable efficiency targets, move to Tier 5.
Tier 5 Consider the implementation of CEQA mitigation (including the purchase of GHG offsets) to
reduce the project efficiency target to Tier 4 levels.
The thresholds identified above have not been adopted by the SCAQMD or distributed for
widespread public review and comment, and the working group tasked with developing the
thresholds has not met since September 2010. The future schedule and likelihood of threshold
adoption is uncertain.
However, for the purpose of evaluating the GHG impacts associated with the proposed project, this
analysis utilizes the SCAQMD's draft tiered thresholds. These thresholds have also been used to
evaluate the impacts for other projects in San Juan Capistrano .
Tierl
The proposed project is subject to CEQA, but no categorical exemptions are applicable to the project.
Therefore, the analysis moves to Tier 2.
Tier 2
City of San Juan Capistrano has adopted a sustainability charter, which focuses on preservation of the
city's environment through innovative waste reduction and pollution prevention programs. This "Go
Green" program includes a voluntary Green Building Program, a Solar Energy Incentive Program,
and waste reduction and pollution prevention efforts. However, neither the SCAQMD nor the city
have adopted a GHG reduction plan that has gone through public hearings and CEQA review, that
has an approved inventory, includes monitoring, etc. Therefore, the analysis moves to Tier 3.
Tier3
The estimated annual operational GHG emissions associated with the proposed project have been
calculated utilizing CalEEMod v. 2016 .3.1 as recommended by the SCAQMD. These emissions are
15 of 17
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 60 of 94
E
0 u > r::
(l)
(l) u c:
(l)
'C cu u
0 ..-
0
(<)
0)
<.(
0
E
0 u
> c:
(l)
Q) u c
Q)
u ro
(.)
@)
.2 c
w
C'!
'1"
0
tD
LD
0 co
f-
CADENCE
i.:N\'II<ONMLN l\L CO~·JSL!L !1\N IS
shown in Table 4 . As shown, the annual emissions would not exceed the draft 3,000 MTC02e
threshold for non-industrial projects. Therefore, the City of San Juan Capistrano, as lead agency, may
conclude that the GHG emissions generated in association with the proposed project would not have
a significant impact on the environment.
I
TABLE 4 -ESTIMATED ANNUAL GHG EMISSIONS
Emissions Source C02e Emissions in Metric Tons per Year
Construction 1.67
Operation (Area Sources) 0.00
Total Emissions 1.67
SCAQMD Draft Tier Threshold 3,000.00
Exceeds Threshold? No
Construction emissions are amortized over 30 years in accordance with SCAQMD guidance (50 .11 MTC02e/JO
years).
The emissions shown in this table are the unmitigated overall construction emissions totals shown on page 4 of
the CalEEMod annual results sheets.
CalEEMod annual emissions results sheets are attached to this letter report.
J
(b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of GHG.
Less Than Significant Impact.
As discussed previously, the 2006 CAT Report and the ARB's Scoping Plan were developed to direct
the state to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels. The strategies from the 2006 CAT Report and
measures from the ARB's Scoping Plan are applicable to state, regional, and local agencies in the
development of plans to reduce GHG emissions, but are not applicable to each and every new
general development project.
The proposed project does not include any new uses or facilities that would generate an increase in
operational GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable
plan, policy or regulation for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. No impact would
occur.
16 of 17
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 61 of 94
·,
E
8 > c
Q)
B c
Q)
"0
CIS u
E
0
CJ > c
Q)
Q)
CJ c
Q) -c ro
CJ
@
~
.!:
w
0
""'" .,....
<'!
""'" 0
~
L!)
0
00
1-
CADENCE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Cadence appreciates the opportunity to be of assistance to you with this project. Please feel free to
contact me if you any questions regarding this analysis.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Brown
President
17 of 17
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 62 of94
APPENDIX B
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 63 of 94
HAMILTON BIOLOGICAL
December 22,2016
Edward P. Almanza
Ed Almanza & Associates
P.O. Box 9396
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
SUBJECT: BIOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT
RW /OW AND SEWER LINE UTILITY PROJECT
CITY OF SAN jUAN CAPISTRANO, ORANGE COUNTY, CA
Dear Ed,
At your request, Hamilton Biological has completed a biological survey along the pro-
posed alignments of pipelines for recycled water (RW) and domestic water (DW), and a
sewer line, at the Rancho Mission Viejo Riding Park, located along the southeastern
bank of San Juan Creek in the Oty of San Juan Capistrano (Figures 1, 2). The purpose of
my survey was (1) to evaluate the biological resources in areas that may be impacted by
project implementation, (2) to determine whether project implementation might entail
any potentia11y significant impacts to biological resources, and (3) to identify mitigation
measures for any potentially significant impacts identified. This letter report describes
the methods and provides the results of the survey and impact analysis.
Figure 1. Project Location
Scale 1" == 1.75 miles
Figure 1. The project is lo-
cated in the eastern part of
San juan Capistrano, south
of Ladera Ranch and San
juan Creek. Ortega Highway
is to the north, La Pata Ave-
nue is to the south and east,
and San juan Creek is to the
west.
Aerial source: Google Earth
Pro.
316 Monrovia Avenue...__...--Long Beach, CA 90803 ...__...--562-477-2181 ...__...--robb®hamiltonbiological.com
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 64 of 94
Biological Survey Report, San Juan Creek RW/DW Utility Project
December 22 , 2016
0 z < a:
t-Vl
0:: < u
z < ~
z < Vl
u.
0
1;
u
"' w
i= ::::;
~
a: w
3: w
11'1
>-a:
~ z < "' o1J
a: w ~
3:
~ a:
!
1!1 z
iS a:
0 .... w s;
z
0
iii
11'1 ~
0 :z: u z < a:
~~
Hamilton Biological, Inc.
~ ~
~ .,
d"
~
~ • ~
8'
~ • Jl
'Otlll
:S-! :c= )(·-wU
.f
"C cv
"' 0 c.. e
Q.
Page 2 of 10
Figure 2. Exhibit 4 from the City's Initial Study shows the project site and identifies the proposed facilitie s;
this exhibit also shows designated Sensitiv e Resource Areas. The propose d pipeline alignments, and the pro-
po sed s wer line and lateral s, including various alternative alignments, pass mainly through disturbed and
deve loped area s within the Rancho Mission Viejo Riding Park , avoiding the Sensitive Resource Areas .
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 65 of 94
Biological Survey Report, San juan Creek RW/DW Utility Project
December 22, 2016
Hamilton Biological, Inc.
Page 3 of 10
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project includes three potential 8-inch alternative alignments for RW
mains; one DW fire service line; and a sewer line with five lateral lines (see Figure 2, on
the previous page). The proposed/potential impact areas are located within the Ranch
Mission Viejo Riding Park, and also extend a short distance off-site to existing connec-
tion points to the southwest. The proposed DW and RW alignments connect to existing
water mains, and the sewer line connects to the existing sewer system.
METHODS
Biologist Robert Hamilton conducted a reconnaissance survey covering the proposed
alignments on September 29, 2016. The survey lasted from 10:30 to 11:30 a.m. Tempera-
ture was 75° F, skies were m stly clear, and wind was 2-4 mph. The biologist carefully
checked the proposed alignments and adjacent areas, focusing especially on patches of
native vegetation in the vicinity of the proposed alignment. All vertebrate wildlife spe-
cies detected during the survey were recorded. The species list for this report includes
these species, and also those recorded in the same general project area during a previ-
ous survey that Mr. Hamilton conducted on April29, 2013, for an earlier recycled water
main project at the Riding Park.
RESULTS
Plant Communities
In order to minimize potential impacts to biological resources to the extent feasible, the
proposed alignments avoid all native plant communities. The alignments proposed to
be trenched for installation of the pipelines and sewer line/laterals, and the sites pro-
posed for staging of construction equipment, soils, etc., consist of developed open areas
associated with the Riding Park. These areas include roads, stables, parking lots, exotic
landscaping, and other similar areas. The exotic landscape plants within and near the
alignment include Peruvian Pepper (Schinus molle), London Plane Tree (Platanus x aceri-
folia), and Washington Fan Palm (Washingtonia robusta).
The following plant communities occur in the vicinity of the pipeline alignment, but
outside of the proposed limits of disturbance:
•
•
Riparian woodland, dominated by native Arroyo Willow (Salix lasiolepis), Red
Willow (5. laevigata), Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Blue Elderberry (Sambu-
cus nigra ssp. caerulea), and Mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia). Some non-native plants
also occur in these areas, including Washington Fan Palm and Blue Gum (Euca-
lyptus globulus).
Plantings of native California Sycamore (Platanus racemosa) occur along the mar-
gins of some riding areas.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 66 of 94
Biological Survey Report, San juan Creek RW/DW Utility Project
December 22, 2016
Hamilton Biological, Inc.
Page 4 of 10
• Ruderal habitat dominated by non-native weeds and grasses, including Russian
Thistle (Sa/sola tragus), Black Mustard (Brassicn nigra), Australian Saltbush (Atri -
plex sem.ibaccata), Crystalline Iceplant (Mesernbryanthemum crysta llinum), Italian
Thistle (Carduu s pycnocephalus), Ripgut Brome (Bromu s diandrus), and Slender
Wild Oats (Avena barbata).
Wildlife
Wildlife habitat value associated with the pipeline aligmnent is limited to bare ground
that could be used by terrestrial species in transit or possibly sunning areas for reptiles.
During the field visits in April 2013 and September 2016, the biologist detected a total of
31 wildlife species: two reptiles, 31 birds, and two mammals; please see the attached
species list.
SPECIAL-STATUS RESOURCES
Species of special interest, or "special status" species, are plants and animals occurring
or potentially occurring on the project site that are endangered or rare, as those terms
are used in CEQA and Hs Guidelines, m· that are otherwise of concern in the local area
or wider region. Legal protection for special status species varies widely, from the rela-
tively comprehensive protection extended to listed threatened/ endangered species to
no legal status at present. The California Department of Fish & Wildlife's Natural Di-
versity Data Base (CNDDB) periodically publishes its lists of "Special Vascular Plants,
Bryophytes, and Lichens" (the current list is dated April 2013) and "Special Animals"
(the current list is dated January 2011). The Special Plants list incorporates continually
updated information from the Califonua Native Plant Society (CNPS), an independent
organization that maintains an online inventory of taxa that its botanists regard as rare,
declining, or insufficiently known.
On October 4, 2016, Mr. Hamilton reviewed the California Natural Diversity Data Base
(CNDDB) for a list of specia l-status species recorded witlun the U.S. Geological_ Survey
7.5' topographic quadrangle for San Juan Capish·ano. Review of tlus source and the cur-
rent list of Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens yields the following list of
special-status plant species known to occur in the general vicinity of the project site:
• Atriplex co ulteri (Coulter's Saltbush)
• Bmdiaea filifolia (Thread-leaved Brodiaea)
• Calochortus weedii var. intermedius (Intermediate Mariposa Lily)
• Chaenactis glabriuscula var. orcuttiana (Orcutt's Pincushion)
• Comarostaphylis diversifolia ssp. diversifolia (Summer Holly)
• Dudleya multicaulis (Many-stemmed Dudleya)
• Dudleya stolonifera (Laguna Beach Dudleya)
• Euphorbia misera (Cliff Spurge)
• Nolina ci smon tane (Chaparral Nolina)
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 67 of 94
Biological Survey Report, San juan Creek RW/DW Utility Project
December 22, 2016
Hamilton Biological, Inc.
PageS of 10
•
•
•
•
Pentachaeta au rea ssp. allenii (Allen's Pentachaeta)
Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum (White Rabbit-Tobacco)
Quercus dumosa (Nuttall's Scrub Oak)
Verbesina dissita (Big-leaved Crownbeard)
Review of the CNDDB report and the current list of Special Animals yields the follow-
ing list of special-status wildlife species known to occur in the general vicinity of the
project site:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Accipiter cooperii (Cooper's Hawk)
Aimophila ruficeps canescens (Southern California Rufous-crowned Sparrow)
Ammodramus savannarum (Grasshopper Sparrow)
Anaxyrus californicus (Arroyo Toad)1
Aspidoscelis hyperythra (Orange-throated Whiptail)
Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri (Coastal Whiptail)
Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis (San Diego Cactus Wren)'
Danaus plexippus (Monarch Butterfly
Elanus leucurus (White-tailed Kite)
Emys marmorata (Western Pond Turtle)
Eucyclogobius newberryi (Tidewater Goby)
Eumops perotis californicus (Western Mastiff Bat)
Gila orcutti (Arroyo Chub)
Icteria virens (Yellow-breasted Chat)I
Myotis yumanensis (Yuma Myotis)
Phrynosoma blainvillei (Coast Horned Lizard)
Polioptila californica californica (California Gnatcatcatcher)
Setophaga petechia (Yellow Warbler)1
Spea hammondii (Western Spadefoot)
Thamnophis hammondii (Two-striped Garter Snake)
Vireo bellii pusillus (Least Bell's Vireo)
1 Species not included on the CNDDB report, but known to occur in San Juan Creek in
the general vicinity of the project site.
The project site is close to an isolated seasonal streambed that drains to San Juan Creek
via a subterranean drain. The streambed supports jurisdictional wetlands and native
southern willow riparian scrub/southern willow riparian forest communities. Wetlands
and associated plant communities are sensitive resources protected under state and fed-
eral regulations.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 68 of 94
Biological Survey Report, San Juan Creek RW/DW Utility Project
December 22, 2016
Hamilton Biological, Inc.
Page 6 of 10
The proposed alternative alignments, the sewer line and laterals, as well as proposed
staging ru·eas, occur almost exclusively within disturbed/ developed areas, nearly all of
it essentially bare grourtd. No special-status sped s were detected anywhere in the pro-
ject vicinity during the site visits on April 29, 2013, or September 29, 2016. The nearby
remnants of native communities generally do not appear to be extensive enough to
support listed wildlife species, such as the Arroyo Toad or California Gnatcatcher (alt-
hough see discussion of Alternative Design B, on the following page).
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/ or Section 3503 of the California Fish and
Game Code prohibit the knowing disruption of an active nest of virtually any bird spe-
cies. Project implementation could result in the disruption of one or more active nests of
regulated bird species. This could occur through direct removal of the eggs of a ground-
nesting species such as the Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) or through disturbance of
birds attempting to nest in vegetation close to the construction area. This is a potentially
significant effect.
Natural vegetation within Rancho Mission Viejo Riding Park is limited to a large area in
the southern portion of the site and a long narrow segment along the site's eastern
boundary, all of which is designated as a Sensitive Resource Area in the Rru1ch Mis-
sion Viejo Habitat Conservation Plan. The Sensitive Resource Area and its relationship
to Rancho Mission Viejo Riding Park boundaries are shown on Figure 2, on Page 2 of
this report. There is potential for removal, trimming, or incidental impacts to native ri-
parian vegetation. The greatest potential for impacts is from Proposed Recycled Water
Line, Alternative Design B; this is one of three alternatives for the proposed RW main.
This alternative involves constructing an 8-inch main that runs between two small areas
of willow-riparian vegetation (see Figure 3, on the next page). One or both of these areas
of riparian vegetation could be used as nesting and/ or foraging habitat by such special-
status bird species as the Least Bell's Vireo (listed as endangered by state and federal
governments) or the Yellow Warbler (California Species of Special Concern). The north-
ern terminus of Alternative Design B is within a stand of riparian vegetation associated
with a streambed that is tributary to San Juan Creek, meaning that the habitat may be
considered to be under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Wild-
life (CDFW). Thus, if this Alternative is selected, and if any riparian vegetation neaT the
northern terminus would be trimmed or removed for consb·uction, this would repre-
sent a potentially significant impact that could require negotiation of a Streambed Al-
teration Agreement in compliance with Section 1600 of the State Fish and Game Code.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 69 of 94
Biological Survey Report, San juan Creek RW/DW Utility Project
December 22, 2016
Scale 1" = 50'
Hamilton Biological -......,...-
Hamilton Biological, Inc.
Page 7 of 10
Figure 3. Alternative Design B would construct a RW main between an isolated stand of native Red Willow
in the southeast and a stand of willow-riparian in the northwest. The vegeta ti on at the northwest terminus is
associated with a drainage course that feeds into San juan Creek, and th ere fore appears to fall under CD FW
jurisdiction . Aerial source: Coogle Earth Pro.
RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure 1: Avoidance of Impacts to Native Vegetation
Prior to any construction work, including staging of equipment or materials, the
boundaries of the Sensitive Resource Area, and the riparian vegetation adjacent to Al-
ternative Design B (if selected) shall be clearly marked to ensure that no direct impacts
occur to the native habitat or to jurisdictional resources.
Every effort should be made to avoid impacts to riparian vegetation that provide poten-
tially suitable nesting and/ or foraging habitat by listed and/ or otherwise sensitive bird
species. If any trimming or removal of riparian vegetation is required for project im-
plementation, the applicant should consult with the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW) to determine whether a Streambed Alteration Agreement is required.
Any native riparian trees or shrubs remo ved should be replaced with the same species,
on-site, at a minimum 2:1 ratio. If no vegetation is removed, and the CDFW determines
that any trimming involved is too minor to warrant a Streambed Alteration Agreement,
then the avoidance of vegetation removal would be adequate to mitigate any potentially
significant impacts to biological resources.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 70 of 94
Biological Survey Report, San juan Creek RW/DW Utility Project
December 22, 2016
Hamilton Biological, Inc.
Page 8 of 10
Mitigation Measure 2: Avoidance of Impacts to Nesting Birds
If construction activities are scheduled to occur during the nesting season for birds
(February 1 through September 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting survey
no more than three days prior to the start of construction. If the biologist finds any nest-
ing birds within 300 feet of the limits of consh·uction (or within 500 feet for raptors), the
biologist shall clearly mark the location of the nest (with staking and flags) and, if war-
ranted, identify feasible measures to avoid any potential adverse effects on nesting
birds. Appropriate measures may include attenuating construction noise (through
sound-dampening boards or other equipment) to a level of 60 dBA (as measured in the
vicinity of the nest) or otherwise limiting disturbances within a certain distance of the
nest until nesting is complete. If the level of 60 dBA cannot be achieved, or if the biolog-
ical monitor otherwise considers it necessary to avoid potential impacts, the biological
monitor shall be present during construction activities to ensure that nesting birds are
not disturbed. The biological monitor shall have authority to halt any construction ac-
tivity determined to be potentially disturbing the nesting of any bird. Construction may
continue when the monitor determines the activity can be carried out without disrup-
tion of nesting, or when the nest is determined to have fledged or failed.
Mitigation Measure 3: Biological Resources Conservation Plan
Prior to approval of final plans and specifications for the proposed actions, the City
shall submit and have approved by USFWS a Biological Resources Conservation Plan
that ensures that proposed actions are consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Rancho Mission Viejo Habitat Conservation Plan.
CONCLUSION
With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, it is determined that
the proposed project would not result in any potentially significant impacts to biologi-
cal resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services. If you have questions, please
call me at (562) 477-2181 or send e-mail to robb@hamiltonbiological.com.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Hamilton
President, Hamilton Biological, Inc.
http: //hamiltonbiological.com
Attachment: List of Vertebrate Species Detected
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 71 of 94
Biological Survey Report, San juan Creek RW/DW Utility Project
December 22, 2016
LIST OF VERTEBRATE SPECIES DETECTED
Hamilton Biological, Inc.
Page 9 of 10
Robert Hamilton detected the following vertebrate species in the project vicinity during
surveys conducted on April29, 2013, and September 29, 2016. Presence may be noted if
a species is seen or heard, or identified by the presence of tracks, scat or other signs.
Reptiles
Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis)
Side-blotched Lizard (Uta stansburiana)
Birds
Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus)
Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)
Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura)
Anna's Hummingbird (Calypte anna)
Allen's Hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin)
Black-chinned Hummingbird (Archilochus alexandri)
Nuttall's Woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii)
Warbling Vireo (Vireo gilvus)
Black Phoebe (Sayornis nigricans)
Say's Phoebe (Sayornis saya)
Cassin's Kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans)
Northern Rough-winged Swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis)
Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota)
American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos)
Common Raven (Corvus corax)
Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus)
House Wren (Troglodytes aedon)
Wrentit (Chamaea fasciata)
Western Bluebird (Sialia mexicana)
California Thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum)
Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas)
Orange-crowned Warbler (Oreothlypis celata)
Yellow-rumped Warbler (Setophaga coronata)
Spotted Towhee (Pipilo maculatus)
California Towhee (Melozone crissalis)
Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia)
Blue Grosbeak (Passerina caerulea)
Lazuli Bunting (Passerina amoena)
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 72 of 94
Biological Survey Report, San juan Creek RW/DW Utility Project
December 22, 2016
Hooded Oriole (Icterus cucullatus)
Bullock's Oriole (Icterus bullockii)
House Finch (Haemorhous mexicanus)
Lesser Goldfinch (Spinus psaltria)
Mammals
Audubon Cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii)
California Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi)
Hamilton Biological, Inc.
Page 10 of 10
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 73 of 94
APPENDIX C
MINOR PROJECT CHANGES
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 74 of 94
MINOR PROJECT CHANGES
In the weeks following preparation ofthe draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and its circulation
for public review, the City of San Juan Capistrano Utilities Department performed further
engineering analysis of the project and developed refinements to the layout of proposed
facilities. Although the refinements consist of only very minor changes to the preliminary design,
they enhance the efficiency of the proposed water delivery system and are therefore considered
to be beneficial improvements. The changes are illustrated in the attached exhibit and consist of
{1) relocation of proposed recycled water line 'Alternative A', (2) relocation of the metered
connection for the domestic water line, and (3) a minor shift in the proposed alignment for the
waste water line to avoid an equestrian arena.
The shift in the 'Alternative A' Recycled Water line alignment is ~soo feet to the east. like the
'Alternative A' alignment shown in Exhibit 4 (Proposed Facilities) of the draft MND, the modified
alignment is entirely within the unpaved parking area onsite. The proposed length of the
modified alignment is nearly identical to the previous alignment. Its construction will not
generate air emissions or noise substantially greater than the previously proposed alignment.
Nor does this alignment introduce increased risk of encountering cultural resources, hazardous
materials, or significant mineral or agricultural resources. As is the case with the previous
alignment (and the project as a whole) the new alignment will have no adverse effect on
aesthetics, public services, utilities and service systems, hydrology, water quality, recreation,
geology & soils, land use and planning, population and housing or transportation and traffic.
There are no sensitive resources or environmental constraints in this area, and the potential for
adverse environmental effects is no greater than for the original alignment.
The relocation of the metered connection on the proposed Domestic Water line is also minor. It
would move the connection from one area of bare ground to another, a small distance of ~so
feet from its previously proposed location. This new location, like the previously proposed
location, is sufficiently set back from the Sensitive Resource Area to avoid any direct or indirect
impacts to sensitive habitat or wildlife species. There is no increased potential of encountering
hazards our hazardous materials at this new location, nor is there an increased risk of
encountering cultural resources or significant mineral or agricultural resources. The proposed
metered connection will not have an adverse effect on aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas
emissions, public services, utilities and service systems, hydrology, water quality, recreation,
geology & soils, land use and planning, population and housing or transportation and traffic.
The minor shift in the waste water pipeline alignment in the southwest portion of the Riding Park
relocates a segment of the alignment to the south outside an equestrian arena. The area of the
new proposed alignment is non-vegetated bare ground that is used by the Riding Park
management as a temporary holding area for potted landscaping plant material, a use that can
be resumed after pipeline installation. A stand of ornamental pepper trees planted just outside
the arena will not be impacted by trenching for the pipeline. As with the other two minor
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 75 of 94
changes, this alignment shift will not introduce any risk of potential impacts that were not already
considered in the draft MND. The change in alignment will not increase the potential of
encountering hazards our hazardous materials at this new location, nor is there an increased risk
of encountering cultural resources or significant mineral or agricultural resources. The modified
alignment will not have an adverse effect on aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions,
public services, utilities and service systems, hydrology, water quality, recreation, geology & soils,
land use and planning, population and housing or transportation and traffic.
The proposed changes were reviewed by the biological resources consultant who prepared the
biological resources assessment for the MND and were judged not to introduce any new impacts
or alter the findings of the original assessment. In general, these three refinements to the project
design will not result in any additional impacts that were not considered and evaluated in the
draft MND circulated for public review. Their inclusion in the project description does not
introduce the need for any additional mitigation measures nor does it modify the MND's findings.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 76 of 94
"'U m co
('I)
-.....!
-.....!
0 -<.0
RANCHO MISSION VIEJO RIDING PARK WATER & SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES I CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
\ ~--· !.
I
'
Original L~cation
J Metered Potable .....,
;J # ....... --: .. Proposed Relocation a
;~of Recycled
; Water Line -Alt. A:
~ ~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
Source: City of Sanjuan Capistrano Proposed Project Modifications
APPENDIX D
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON
PUBLIC DRAFT INITIAL STUDY /MND
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 78 of 94
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
RANCHO MISSION VIEJO RIDING PARK
WATER & SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
February 16, 2017
The City of San Juan Capistrano issued a Notice of Completion and a Notice of
Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration in fulfillment of its requirements as Lead
Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to address
potential environmental effects of the Rancho Mission Viejo Riding Park Water &
Sanitary Sewer Facilities Project. The review and comment period for the Public
Review Draft Initial Study (SCH# 2017011025) closed on February 15, 2017.
Written comments were received from two sources:
• State of California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans ), District 12
• State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife
The following responses to written comments are provided to supplement
information in the public record as the basis of analysis of impacts and findings of
the Initial Study. The full correspondence that is the source of each comment is
reproduced in the appendix to this Response to Comments.
• State of California Department of Transportation
Correspondence of February 3, 2017 from Maureen El Harake,
Branch Chief, Regionai-IGR-Transit Planner
The correspondence from Caltrans, District 12 identifies restrictions and
requirements related to activities that affect Caltrans drainage facilities and
activities that encroach into Caltrans Right-of-Way. See excerpts below and the
full correspondence in the appendix.
Comment:
For Caltrans drainage facilities:
1. Discharging groundwater to storm drains is not allowed.
2. Existing flow pattern shall be maintained.
3. All State drainage facilities should be protected during construction .
Response:
The improvements proposed as part of this project will not alter the existing
drainage pattern or discharge to the Caltrans storm drain system or direct runoff
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 79 of 94
toward Caltrans Right-of-Way (Ortega Highway). The same is true of
construction activities.
Comment:
Any work performed within Caltrans Right-of-Way (RIW) will require discretionary
review and approval by Caltrans and an encroachment permit will be required for
any work within the Caltrans RIW prior to construction. The city of San Juan
Capistrano must obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to commencement of work
within the State R/W for installation of Domestic Waterline , Recycled Waterline,
Meter Statins and Sewer Pipelines. City's contractor will also have to apply for
the Double Permit Application, with a $3,289 deposit needed. Allow 2 to 4 weeks
for a complete submittal to be reviewed and for a permit to be issued.
Response:
As noted above, none of the work associated with this project will occur within
Caltrans Right-of-Way. Therefore discretionary review by Caltrans and an
encroachment permit are not required. All pipelines and related improvements
are located within the Riding Park site and adjacent City Right-of-Way.
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Correspondence of February 7, 2017 (by email) from Jennifer Turner,
Environmental Scientist.
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife, in its correspondence, identifies
itself as "a Trustee Agency with jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the
project and a Responsible Agency over those aspects of the proposed project
that come under the purview of the California Endangered Species Act." The
Department also administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning
(NCCP) program.
Comment:
The Department requests access to any Biological Resources Conservation Plan
that the US Fish and Wildlife Service approves for the project area.
Response:
Mitigation Measure BR-4 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project
requires the City to submit and secure U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approval of
a Biological Resources Construction Plan that ensures that construction activities
for the proposed facilities are consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Rancho Mission Viejo Habitat Conservation Plan, prior to approval of final plans
and specifications for the proposed facilities. The City has prepared a draft
Biological Resources Construction Plan and shared the draft with U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service staff. Upon completion of the CEQA process, the City will submit
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 80 of 94
·.
a final draft of the Biological Resources Construction Plan to U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service for their review and approval. The City will send the approved Biological
Resources Construction Plan to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife,
as requested in the comment letter.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 81 of 94
STAIB OF CAL!fORNIA-CAI.IFORNIA STADl 'fRANSP ORTADON AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICf 12
1750 EAST FOUR'TII STREET, SUITE 100
SANTA ANA, CA 92705
PHONE (657) 328-6267
FAX (657) 328-6510
ITY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
February 3, 2017
Mr. Sergio Klotz
City of San Juan Capistrano
Planning Department
32400 Paseo Adelanto
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Dear Mr. Klotz:
BOMIIND 0 BROWN Jr. Goyp[!!I)I
Serious drought.
Help save water!
File: IGR!CEQA
SCH#: 2017011025
12-0RA-2017 -00407
SR-74 PM 2.591
The California Department of Transportation (Cal trans) appreciates the opportunity to review
and comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Ranch Mission Viejo Riding
Park, Water & Sanitary Sewer Facilities Project (SCH #2017011025). The mission of Caltrans is
to provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance
California's economy and livability. The purpose of this project is to construct water and sanitary
sewer pipelines to provide long-term water and other services to the city. This project is located
in proximity to State Route 74 (SR-74) Ortega Highway. Caltrans is a responsible agency on
this project, and has the following comments at this time:
Hydraulics:
For Caltrans drainage facilities: .
1. Discharging groundwater to stonn drains is not allowed
2. Existing flow pattern shall be maintained.
3. All State drainage facilities should be protected during construction
Encroachment Permits/Hydraulics/NPDES:
4. Any work performed within Caltrans Right-of-Way (RIW) will require discretionary review
and approval by Cal trans and an encroachment permit will be required for any work within
the Cal trans RJW prior to construction. The City of San Juan Capistrano must obtain an
Encroachment Permit prior to commencement of work within the State R!W for installation
of Domestic Waterline, Recycled Waterline, Meter Stations and Sewer Pipelines. City's
contractor will also have to apply for the Double Permit Application, with a $3,280 deposit
needed. Allow 2 to 4 weeks for a complete submitta l to be reviewed and for a permit to be
issued.
"Provide a safe , sus /a/nabla. integrated and efficient transportation system
lo en/lance Cal(fomla 's economy and livability" ATTACHMENT 2
Page 82 of 94
Mr. Klotz, City of San Juan Capistrano
January 31, 2017
Page2
5. When applying for the Encroachment Pennit, please incorporate EnvironmentaJ
Documentation, Stormwater Pollution Preventtion Plan (SWPPP}/Water Pollution Control
Program (WPCP), Hydraulic, Calculations, Traffic Control Plans, Geotechnical Analysis,
Materials Specifications, and all relevant design details including design exception approvals.
Maintenance Agreement may be required between State and City. For specific details on
Caltrans Encroachment Permits procedure, please refer to Caltrans Encroachment Permits
Manual. Chapter 600 for Utility Permits. The latest edition of the Manual is available on the
web site: http://www .dot.ca.gov /hq/traffops/developservlpermits/
6. Final construction plans need to be reviewed and approved by Hydraulics Branch during the
Encroachment Process. For questions prior to permit submittal pertaining to Hydraulics,
please contact Ahmad Khosravi at (657) 328-6178.
7. Shoring Plans for excavation 5 feet and deeper within Cal trans R/W shall be submitted by the
pennittee/contractor for review and approval before work commences.
8. Exhibits 3 and 4 of the MND identifies the project boundaries near Cal trans R/W. Once an
encroachment permit is received, Caltrans NPDES unit will review the permit to determine if
the proposed work will impact water quality treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs)
installed on Ortega Highway and/or slopes adjacent to the project.
9. Additional information regarding encroachment permits may be obtained by contacting the
Caltrans Permits Office at (657) 328-6553. Early coordination with Caltrans is strongly
advised for all encroachment permits. If you have any question please feel free to contact us.
Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments that could
potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us,
please do not hesitate to call Jude Miranda at (657) 328-6229.
Sincerely,
MAUREEN EL HARAKE
Branch Chief, Regional-lOR-Transit Planning
District 12
c: OPR State Clearinghouse
"Provide a safe, susto/ooble, Integrated and efficienr transportation system
to enhaJtce California 's economy and lh!ability" ATTACHMENT 2
Page 83 of 94
From: Turner, Jennifer@Wildlife [mailto :Jennlfer.Tumer@wildlife.ca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 4:37 PM
To: Sergio Klotz
Cc: william b mi ll er@fws.gov
Subject: Comments on the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Rancho
Mission Viejo Riding Park, Water & Sanitary Sewer Facilities Project (SCH# 2017011025)
Dear Mr. Klotz,
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) has reviewed the above-
referenced Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Rancho
Mission Viejo Riding Park, Water & Sanitary Sewer Facilities Project, dated January 2017. The
following statements and comments have been prepared pursuant to the Department's authority
as Trustee Agency with jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project (California
Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines § 15386) and pursuant to our authority as a
Responsible Agency under CEQA Guidelines section 15381 over those aspects of the proposed
project that come under the purview of the California E ndangered Species Act (CESA; Fish and
Game Cod e § 2050 et seq.) and Fish and Game Cod e section 1600 et seq . The Department
also administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program.
The Department requests access to any Biological Resources Conservation Plan that the US
Fish and Wildlife Service approves for the project area.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft MND for this project and to assist the
City of San Juan Capistrano in further minimizing and mitigating project impacts to biological
resources. The Department requests an opportunity to review and comment on any response
that the City has to our comments and to receive notification of the forthcoming hearing date for
the project (CEQA Guidelines; §15073(e)). If you have any questions or comments regarding
this email, please use the contact information provided below.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Turner
Environmental Scientist
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
3883 Ruffin Road
San Diego, CA 92123
(858)467-2717
Jennifer.Turner@wildlife.ca.gov
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 84 of 94
APPENDIX E
COMPLIANCE WITH ASSEMBL V BILL No. 52
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 85 of 94
COMPLIANCE WITH ASSEMBLY BILL No. 52
Assembly Bill No. 52 (AB 52), adopted by the California State Legislature in September 2014,
identifies procedures for the evaluation of environmental impacts to tribal cultural resources
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). AB 52 requires lead agencies to consult
with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the
geographic area of a proposed project, if the tribe requested, in writing, to be informed by the
lead agency of proposed project in that geographic area and the tribe requests consultation.
In compliance with Assembly Bill 52, the City sent letters to the designated representatives of the
two tribes who requested notification of proposed projects in the city, the Soboba Band of
Luiseno Indians and the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation, inviting them to
consult with the City on this project. The City did not receive a response from either tribe
regarding consultation on the Riding Park project.
In evaluating the potential for the project to impact tribal resources, the City (with the technical
assistance of a professional cultural resources consultant with extensive expertise in the cultural
resources in the vicinity of the Riding Park) has evaluated information from multiple sources,
including a Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for the Riding Park site in 2013 and
referenced in the Initial Study for this project. Correspondence from several tribal
representatives received in 2013 was also considered in the evaluation. No Sacred Lands have
been recorded for the site with the Sacred Lands Inventory. There are no recorded archaeological
sites within the Rancho Mission Viejo Riding Park. The areas of potential disturbance have been
previously disturbed by grading activities and are limited to the relatively small linear swaths of
the proposed pipeline alignments and ancillary minor facilities onsite. The City has weighed all
available evidence in the record and determined that the potential risk for destroying or
damaging any cultural or tribal resources is extremely low, and therefore the project will not
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource defined in
Public Resource Code 21074.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 86 of 94
32400 PASEO ADELANTO
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675
(949) 493-1171
(949) 493-1053 FAX
lt 'WW.sanjuancupistrano.o!g
January 17, 2017
Joseph Ontiveros
Cultural Resources Director
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA 92581
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SERGIO FARIAS
KERRY K . FERGUSON
BRIAN L. MARYOTI
PAM PATIERSON , ESQ .
DEREK REEVE
Subject: Invitation to Consult Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 on the Rancho
Mission Viejo Riding Park at San Juan Capistrano Water & Sanitary Sewer
Facilities Project
Dear Mr. Ontiveros:
This letter formally invites you to request consultation with the City pursuant to
Assembly Bill 52 ("AB 52"; Public Resource Code 21073,21074,21080.3.1, 21080.3.2,
21082.3,21083.09, 21084.2, and 5097.94) regarding the proposed project. As you may
know, AB 52 became effective on July 1, 2015, and where a tribe requests, in writing,
that an agency inform it of proposed projects, the agency must notify the tribe within 14
days of determining that a project application is complete or deciding to undertake a
project. If the tribe responds within 30 days and requests consultation, the lead agency
must begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving the request. The
purpose of consultation is to assist with identifying and preserving or mitigating project
impacts to cultural resources.
The City of San Juan Capistrano received your letter requesting formal notification of
proposed projects on June 29, 2015. The proposed project described below has
recently entered the City's review process, an initial study is being prepared, and the
City's Environmental Administrator anticipates that the project will require the
preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and, therefore, is subject to the
requirements of AB 52.
The City of San Juan Capistrano is proposing to construct the Rancho Mission Viejo
Riding Park at San Juan Capistrano Water & Sanitary Sewer Facilities Project, which is
comprised of the following elements:
• A 12 inch (approximately 985 lineal feet) diameter potable waterline and related
appurtenances for fire service and domestic p'urposes, extending from the end of
the San Juan Creek road extension to the front of the Park office builqing;
San Juan Capistrano : Preserving the Past to Enhance the Futu re ...,.
f.J Pnnlo d o n 100%re cyclod pape r ATTACHMENT 2
Page 87 of 94
AB 52 Consultation Invitation 2 January 17, 2017
• An 8 inch (approximately 200 to 350 lineal feet) diameter recycled waterline and
related appurtenances for irrigation purposes, extending from the City's recycled
line to the park irrigation system;
• An 8 inch (approximately 2,100 lineal feet) diameter sanitary sewer pipeline and
associated appurtenances, including access manholes and sewer laterals to
serve the office building and other facilities, will extend from the end of San Juan
creek road extension northeast to its terminus.
The intent of consultation is to provide an opportunity for local governments and
interested tribes to work together early in the project planning process toward the
protection of "tribal cultural resources". A Request for Consultation for this project must
be made in writing within thirty (30) days of the date of this notice . Please direct your
correspondence to Mike Marquis, at the address listed in the letterhead, by fax at 949-
493-3955 or by e-mail at mmarquis@sanjuancapistrano.org. Should your tribe prefer
not to consult on the proposed project, please inform the City in writing.
Should your tribe request to participate in the consultation process, please keep in mind
that any sensitive information regarding cultural resources that would be shared with the
City would be kept strictly confidential.
~I~Tmitte~
Michael Marq~{A~
Associate Civi:i~~rl:.er
City of San Juan Capistrano
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 88 of 94
32400 PASEO ADELANTO
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675
(949) 493-1171
(949) 493-1053 FAX
WW11 :sanjuancapistra11o .org
January 17, 2017
Joyce Stanfield Perry
Tribal Manager
4955 Paseo Segovia,
Irvine, CA 92603
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SERGIO FARIAS
KERRY K . FERGUSON
BRIAN L. MARYOTT
PAM PATTERSON, ESQ .
DEREK REEVE
Subject: Invitation to Consult Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 on the Rancho
Mission Viejo Riding Park at San Juan Capistrano Water & Sanitary Sewer
Facilities Project
Dear Ms. Perry:
This letter formally invites you to request consultation with the City pursuant to
Assembly Bill 52 ("AB 52"; Public Resource Code 21073,21074, 21080 .3.1, 21080.3 .2,
21082.3,21083.09, 21084 .2, and 5097 .94) regarding the proposed project. As you may
know, AB 52 became effective on July 1, 2015, and where a tribe requests , in writing,
that an agency inform it of proposed projects, the agency must notify the tribe within 14
days of determin ing that a project application is complete or deciding to undertake a
project. If the tribe responds within 30 days and requests consultation, the lead agency
must begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving the request. The
purpose of consultation is to assist with identifying and preserving or mitigating project
impacts to cultural resources.
The City of San Juan Capistrano received your letter requesting formal notification of
proposed projects on August 15, 2015. The proposed project described below has
recently entered the City's review process, an initial study has been prepared, and the
City's Environmental Administrator anticipates that the project will require the
preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and, therefore, is subject to the
requirements of AB 52.
The City of San Juan Capistrano is proposing to construct the Rancho Mission Viejo
Riding Park at San Juan Capistrano Water & Sewer Facilities Project, which is
comprised of the following elements:
• A 12 inch (approximately 985 lineal feet) diameter potable waterline and related
appurtenances for fire service and domestic purposes, extending from the end of
the San Juan Creek road extension to the front of the Park office building;
San Juan Capistrano: Preserving the Past to Enhance the Future
"' t,., Pnntcn on 100~, recycled papc1 ATTACHMENT 2
Page 89 of 94
AB 52 Consultation Invitation 2 January 17. 2017
• An 8 inch (approximately 200 to 350 lineal feet) diameter recycled waterline and
related appurtenances for irrigation purposes, extending from the City's recycled
line to the park irrigation system;
• An 8 inch (approximately 2,100 lineal feet) diameter sanitary sewer pipeline and
associated appurtenances, including access manholes and sewer laterals to
serve the office building and other facilities, will extend from the end of San Juan
creek road extension northeast to its terminus.
The intent of consultation is to provide an opportunity for local governments and
interested tribes to work together early in the project planning process toward the
protection of "tribal cultural resources". A Request for Consultation for this project must
be made in writing within thirty (30) days of the date of this notice. Please direct your
correspondence to Mike Marquis, at the address listed in the letterhead, by fax at 949-
493-3955 or by e-mail at mmarquis@sanjuancapistrano.org. Should your tribe prefer
not to consult on the proposed project, please inform the City in writing.
Should your tribe request to participate in the consultation process, please keep in mind
that any sensitive information regarding cultural resources that would be shared with the
City would be kept strictly confidential.
ltt~:1~~ s%A:d , .
Michael Marquis, l.Eo
Associate Civil Engineer
City of San Juan Capistrano
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 90 of 94
APPENDIX F
MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 91 of 94
MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
Rancho Mission Viejo Riding Park at San Juan Capistrano
Water & Sanitary Sewer Facilities Project
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, Hazards & Hazardous Materials). 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 21 081.6 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.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 92 of 94
)>
-I ~~ ceo
CD I
NO. MJTI GAn ON MEASURE
Biolo~ ical Resources
To ensure avoidance of impacts to sensitive resources and potential
jurisdictional habitat associated with the tributary drainage area onsite,
Alternative Alignment B for the Recycled Water Line shall be eliminated from
BR-1 the final project design . The Recycled Water Line shall be constructed using
either Alternative Alignment A or C.
Prior to any construction work, including staging of equipment or materials ,
the boundaries of the "Sensitive Resource Area " shall be clearly marked to
ensure that no direct impacts occur to the native habitat or to jurisdictional
BR-2 resources .
BR-3
If construction activities are scheduled to occur during the bird nesting
season (February 1 through September 15), a qualified field biologist shall
conduct a nesting survey no more than three days prior to the start of
construction to determine presence. If the biologist ·finds any nesting birds
within 300 feet of the limits of construction (or nesting raptors within 500 feet),
the biologist shall clearly mark the location of the nest (with staking and flags)
and , if warranted, identify feasible measures to avoid any potential adverse
effects on nesting birds . Appropriate measures may include attenuating
construction noise (through sound-dampening boards or other equipment) to
a level of 60 dBA (as measured in the vicinity of the nest) or otherwise limiting
disturbances within a certain distance of the nest until nesting is complete. If
the level of 60 dBA cannot be achieved , or if the biological monitor otherwise
considers it necessary to avoid potential impacts, the biological monitor shall
be present during construction activities to ensure that nesting birds are not
disturbed . The biological monitor shall have authority to halt any construction
activity determined to be potentially disturbing the nesting of any bird .
Construction may continue when the monitor determines the activity can be
carried out without disruption of nesting , or when the nest is determined to
have fledged or failed .
METHOD OF VERI ACAnON
Plan Check &
Construction
Monitoring
Plan Check &
Construction
Monitoring
Plan Check &
Construction
Monitoring
I TIMING OF
VERlFICAnON
Prior to the start of
construction
Prior to the start of
construction .
Prior to the start of
construction
RESPONSIBLE
STA F F
Development
Services
Department-
Planning
Division &
Public Works
De partm ent
Development
Services
Department-
Planning
Division &
Public Works
De partment
Development
Services
Department-
Planning
Division &
Building
Division
DATE
COMPLETED
& INITIALS
<0$: v.>m
0 z ---~ ~ rv~--~------------------------------------------------_. ______________ ._ ______________ ~ ________ _. ____ ~
)>
-I
-u--1
w)>
CO()
CD I cos: ~m
z
-I
NO. MITIGATION MEASURE
Prior to approval of final construction plans and specifications for the
proposed pipeline, the City shall submit and will have secured U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service approval of a Biological Resources Construction Plan
BR-4 (BRCP) that ensures that construction activities for the proposed pipeline
(and associated meter station and pressure reducing valve) are consistent
with the goals and objectives of the Rancho Mission Viejo Habitat
Conservation Plan .
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Prior to any trenching or excavation, the City shall establish and mark the
location of the Kinder Morgan pipeline in the vicinity of the proposed project.
The use of mechanical construction excavation equipment shall not be
HM-permitted within two feet of the alignments of the two Kinder Morgan pipelines
1 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 qualified representative, as determined by Kinder Morgan, of
the owner or operator of the pipelines (Kinder Morgan).
DATE
TIMING OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLETED
METHOD OF VERIFICATION VERIFICATION STAFF & INITIALS
Development
USFWS Approval of Services
Biological Prior to the start of Department-
Resources construction. Building
Construction Plan Division &
(BRCP) Planning
Division
Development
Services
Department-
Plan Check-Permit Prior to start of Environmental
Review & Field construction. Administrator
Monitoring and
Construction
Inspector
Pro¡ect Memorandum
To:
Re:
From
Date:
Re:
File: Rancho Mission Viejo Riding Park Water System Project
Assembly Bill 52 Consultation
Michael Marquis, P.E., Associate Civil Engineer
21 17 12017 and 212312017
Phone Consultation
Assembly B¡ll 52 Gonsultation with Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen
Nation
I sent a letter to Joyce Stanfield Perry of the Juaneno Band of Mission lndians,
Acjachemen Nation on Monday January 23,2017. By February 17,2017, I had not
received any response, so as a courtesy I called Ms. Perry and spoke with her on
the phone. I described the project location and nature of the work, water and sewer
facilities at the Riding Park located at the South west corner of La Pata and Ortega
Highway. She found the notification letter that I had sent her previously, and
referenced it during our phone consultation. I indicated that a Cultural Resource
Assessment had been prepared for a project on the same site back in 2013, and
that this report was referenced in the current lnitial Study document, with a finding
of No Significant lmpact. She mentioned that on the City's Reata Park project,
which is now completed, a Native American Monitor was present during excavation
activities, and although no resources were found, she would like to have a Native
American Monitor on site for this project as well.
After the phone call, around 2 PM in the afternoon, I sent her a PDF file copy of the
Cultural Resource Report done back in 2013, along with the current lnitial Study for
the Water and Sanitary Sewer Facilities project at the Riding Park. On Thursday
February 23,2017 I contacted Joyce by phone to follow up on our previous
consultation. I indicated that although no significant cultural resources had been
identified and a finding of No Significant lmpact had been made for the Project, the
City would provide a Native American Monitor during excavation activities,
consistent with her recommendation on the previous phone call. She indicated that
this was acceptable. The phone consultation concluded at around 10:15 AM on
Thursday February 23, 2017 .
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 1 of 1
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
2015 RECYCLED WATER CONVERSION PROJECT
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
between the CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO ("City") and Dudek, ("Consultant") is made
and entered into, to be effective the day of , 2017, as follows :
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City and Consultant have entered into that Professional Services
Agreement dated November 3, 2015 for Engineering and Design Services for the 2015
Recycled Water Conversion Project (the "Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the City and Consultant desire to amend the terms of the Agreement as
provided hereunder.
AMENDMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration ofthe promises and mutual covenants contained
therein, City and Consultant agree to the amend Sections 1, 2 and 3.1 of the Agreement as
follows:
Section 1, Scope is amended to include the Design work related to recycled water conversion
at the Rancho Mission Viejo Riding Park per the Scope of Services detailed in Exhibit 1
attached hereto.
Section 2, Term is amended to add 1 year, for a total2 year term commencing on the effective
date of November 3, 2015 and expiring on November 3, 2017.
Section 3.1, Compensation Amount, is amended to add $10,000 to the Compensation Amount
for a total Compensation Amount of $116,020.
540028.1
61147.02100\10229925 .1
-1-
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 1 of 8
SIGNATURE PAGE
FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
2015 RECYCLED WATER CONVERSION PROJECT
All other provisions of the Agreement not amended hereunder shall remain in full force and
effect.
ATIEST:
By: ____ ~----~~~------
Maria Morris, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM ~
s Q~3~ ie atlinger, Cit}IAttOffley
S400l&.l
61147 .02100110229925.1
-2-
CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
By: ______________________ _
Benjamin Siegel, City Manager
:~DEK £~~-
D. Michael Metts, PE-Assistant Secretary
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 2 of 8
2 Scope of Services: Riding Park Conversion
A detailed Scope of Services assures the City that its project is completed successfully, and
achieves the expected goals and objectives, while maintaining project control, assuring quality,
and facilitating the proposed budget and schedule.
Task 1 General Administration, Meetings and ~resentations
The key to success of every project is proactive project management and effective
communication. Proactive project management involves balancing key project elements, while
communicating project progress to the client and each project team member. Core members of
our Project Team are experienced project managers in their own right, and use the following
tools to deliver projects successfully. The use of these tools to track project milestones allows
project changes to be anticipated and managed, keeping the project objectives in focus.
Task 1.1 Coordination
Our project management tools begin with our
Project Management Plan (PMP). Each project
receives a customized plan to meet project goals and
objectives. Michael Metts, PE, will serve as the main
point of contact between Dudek and the City. Mr.
Metts will make sure assigned team members are
aware of the project goals and objectives, and
together with City staff, will determine the project
critical success factors.
Our PMP requires input for Critical Success Factors,
document distribution, file structures, schedule,
budget tracking, deliverables, QA/QC procedures,
DUDEK
MONTHlY PftOOREaS REPORT
J,.h,"m""
l"f ... n,I'IO-1\;oiLI \1•~-tl'loRIII:(hof-d!loll•nlr o ~'''<"flln;"n••H•
r ......... """...... ~J :\lol1,k,<·~.
~,1JI'1II''lJI.Uii()\,'~,.._j.,.I,,:11J
It" ''1'''., ,., •loo-l' ~~-1 "I ................. ..-,!' :•1111 \-.. ••.-1•1 ~· 1_, :'I :"I 'I 1,_,. ~ II·-~• ~ ~, ~ ... I" ,,~!, >
,, __ ,, •••. r• ..... ,, •• , • .,.~,k,""'"''"''\''"_, .. ~-~ ,•····••·~ .. ~-1 ....... l 1 ,,~-•
,,.,,._ ,,,,...,,..L(,,,., .... ,Ir ~"'' "'' l.-1 or•~l"' 1..-,._lo~•·•~Lr~t..-'~"",..•r ... l•c.-'
r• I ·~..... .. ... .._-·•.. •
!f!IBA'Cil!lfll R
~ t i ... H o.ro.1-ulo,-ronl·~'"''~~• .,.,.,,u:.II>..Lih olto'f'.J.'''"o'''...,ll''"f'"-1<'·>1>1
~ li~IINin\i111"n••l '-ih'1ll•"',..,thofW!ul ~o>IUI~W~<II~ul..bllhl
1 r ..... ou • ..JI U \ •••II ",•.'• "" ,-r.l n •••'-• 1'~ I• r 11 ,._h r·l ••:~ rr•r•~•rrucul• :,1 "''i I"('
J.l1,·,1 .. ..., w-lrq-l ... ,, ... m"~'"'
J lo! C\ 1~ tnl [1\111 n 1 I "'~ , '" ,-, o!lt 1 11 ,, , • "1'11 I 1'1 \ <I or! h!ullllf',~ I \I o~l ,,,,, •. I
I \~1 "'I' "''" ~~~ l1 rf.. ,;.: • tll\ o<J mo:,·lm~· ·'' '1,~ 'f"41 II<' I• I r"''IHI •I ""'
N !\\Cft !!lll lt(I'"'\JIW\111
I l1n•l11t' .. ,.,... "' llr~ I-''>''' I 'I''""""' ~ 1<o~lm·.11
~ ~::·. ~~··~ ~~ ~( ··:-: ~.·.~7,::·~" ~~~~:·~~:.:~.-· ~ ~;f ,, --~ .. II' ,,,. ·i
I '"'"'~IL••I""'""" t•·•l•lii• •· •• .... • ·-.-'"
' t '•1'11•,,.,. "' 1"'"'' "'''~'"""~~,..;,I \1 \ .. or! I"-1'""'1' "' .. ""'"l"'•"""''h 1 ~'"1'"'
.l,.h" "'' Ul•' 1'""·1 t.o•' ~I
"'""'"'~~ ,,,.,,., .. ,t," "''"~ ',., h "'"'' '
I I ,. ~ ,11'1,; II( I \>II 1•1 'Ill" '<I \' ~~~ I • I<"' 1~" Ill'< 'i<"l •I Ill•
• ll~>•lon"'-"''hl••lln<"l-'lllJ.•,In
and communication. Monthly progress reports, such as the one shown here, are developed to
meet City standards and sent from Dudek to the City project manager each month, providing
project updates about work completed during the past month, anticipated work for the next
month, requested client actions, planned deliverables and scope and budget discussion items.
We understand the importance of staying on or ahead of the project schedule. Upon receiving
your notice to proceed, Mr. Metts will enter project information into the Dudek online tracking
system. Dudek uses a deliverable calendar to help visualize how we track each project
deliverable. Entering each project deliverable allows us to prepare ahead of time for project
overlaps and foresee our entire team's project workload, resulting in more effective and efficient
project management.
DUDEK
ATTACHMENT 4 Exhibit 1 Page 3 of 8
SIM IL AR PRO JEC T EXPERIEN CE
Each project task is tracked by use of an action-decision log. This log identifies clear actions
needed to meet project milestones, and who is responsible for each item . Dudek project
managers are responsible for entering and maintaining log information, and for notifying project
J6S,1U ProJMIIIudgOI & Beh<dule StaiUI
,....,.
11'J.~
IU,W!
team members of their responsibilities.
In addition to online project tracking, the PMP
.,., includes worksheets for schedule tracking and
.... tracking project progress in relation to the project
.... budget (see example of earned-value tracking to ,..,
.... left). Included within the schedule will be Dudek
"'' and client coordination events : progress meeting
,., dates, submittal dates, stakeholder meetings, ...
•. customer meetings, and the production of
i J f J ! J Ill ! J J J i f ! ! } f deliverables throughout the project.
Cost maintenance is a key project factor for each client. We are committed to adhering to our
proposed scope and fee for a given task and notifying the client immediately if changes are
required. Dudek uses earned-value tracking, a method that shows a cost-to-schedule
comparison so we are constantly and visually reminded where our project costs are in relation to
the project schedule. Proactively managing the project schedule and budget from the onset of
the project provides the project manager with the early warning indicators necessary to manage
the work effort and protect the project budget.
Task 1.2 Project Goals and Strategy
Critical to a successful project is clarity and alignment on the project goals and strategy. At the
beginning of the project, Dudek will hold a project kickoff meeting to discuss the scope and
parameters of the project. At this meeting, our team members identify the specific goals for
accomplishment during the project and develop the most effective strategy to accomplish those
goals. Subsequent to the kickoff meeting, Dudek submits to the City a memorandum
documenting the project goals, execution strategy and any deviations from the contract.
Task 1.3 Project Schedule
At the beginn ing of each design phase (preliminary and final) of the project, Dudek prepares a
work plan to set forth the significant milestones and deliverables to ensure compliance with the
project goals and execution strategy. Dudek presents a written list of information required and
the dates needed by to maintain the project schedule. Dudek meets with the City for
presentation and review of the work plan. The detailed project schedule for each phase is in
addition to an overall project schedule and is deliverable at project commencement. The City has
provided a project schedule, which we have reviewed . Slight modificat ions are inev itable in a
conversion project, as the project must adapt to regulatory requirements, inspection availability,
DUDEK
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 4 of 8
SI~~IU\R PROJECT EXPERIENCE
and customer concerns. However, we believe that the conversions project can be accomplished
within the available timeframe.
Task 1.4 Design Progress Meetings
Progress meetings are an essential part of our communication strategy for successful project
management. Our project manager coordinates and leads project-related progress meetings,
both with the City and internally. Requested meeting participants are notified in advance, receive
an agenda at least one week in advance, and receive meeting minutes within three days of the
meeting date. Meetings for this project will include the project kick-off meeting and monthly
progress meetings. A total of three progress meetings are included in this proposal. It is
anticipated that at one of the first meetings, the Dudek team will attend a City design review
meeting to meet with the staff, present the DOW recycled water conversion plans and receive
critical City feedback.
Task 1.5 Project Components
The typical City project components are listed below. These designations are used by Dudek for
identification and cost assignment. Modification or addition to these components may be
necessary to effectively track the specific components of this project.
• General Administration, Meetings, and Presentations
• Site Investigation and Report
• Environmental Tasks (N/A)
• Final Design and Construction Documents
• Construction Bidding Through Contract Award
• Construction Engineering Support
Task 2
Task 2.1
Site Investigation and Report
Data Collection
Data collection is a critical component of the success of the City's
Recycled Water Conversion Program. In conjunction with Task 2.2,
Dudek will review available plans,
specifications, reports and operating
data for the irrigation systems for each
proposed conversion site (in addition to
the review already conducted on the
information previously provided by the
City), and evaluate each for conversion
to recycled water. Our team will meet
with the City and property owners for
additional information necessary for the conversion process.
DUDEK
colledion and an on-site
investigation for all sites .
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 5 of 8
SIMILAR PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Task 2.2 Site Investigation
Dudek will review available as-built irrigation drawings and perform site visits to evaluate the
irrigation system of each landscaped area identified for conversions. These on-site evaluations
include:
• Mapping of the area to be converted to recycled water, including any facilities to
remain on potable water,
• Identification of new lateral and meter construction, as well as on-site conversion
construction needs,
• Preliminary cross connection test of the site to locate any actual or potential cross
connections with other systems,
• Identification of key facilities needed to complete the conversion, and
• Quantity estimate of the equipment and facilities required for the conversion (e.g .
sprinkler heads, signs, etc.).
A supplemental engineering report will be completed for each site and submitted to the City for
review.
Task 2.3 Preliminary Report and Plans
Once site investigations are complete, the Dudek team will develop a draft supplemental
engineering report and conversion plans and submit this to the City for review and comment.
The Dudek team will meet with City staff to review comments on the report and conversion
plans, then revise the report as necessary and submit two hard copies and an electronic copy of
the final preliminary design report to the City.
Task 2.4 Present Preliminary Findings
Dudek will meet with City staff to review comments on the draft supplemental engineering report
and conversion plans. Subsequently, Dudek will respond to comments, revise the draft as
necessary and submit two hard copies and one electronic copy of the final supplemental
engineering report and conversion plans to the City. The fi~al supplemental engineering report
will be used as the basis for the final design of the project.
Task 3 Regulatory Tasks
The success of this project relies on the seamless process for each site, including the customer,
City, DDW, and OCHCA approvals. Each of these agencies will be provide access to the
proposed document-sharing website, thereby facilitating their individual review efforts. Each
agency will receive the amended Master Engineering Report, as well as site specific supplemental
engineering reports and conceptual conversion drawings.
DUDEK
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 6 of 8
SII\~IL/\1~ rli~OJEC I LXf 1 [J~I~NC E
Task 3.1 California Division of Drinking Water (DWW) Approval
Conceptual conversion drawings and supplemental engineering reports will be prepared, and
submitted to DDW for review and approval. Comments will be incorporated to facilitate final
approval.
Task 3.2 County Healthcare Cross Connection
Dudek will prepare and submit cross-connection documentation to the Orange County
Healthcare Agency. Cross connection evaluations will be prepared by the same team members
conducting site assessments to minimize coordination and completion schedules.
Task 3.3 Amend Master Engineering Report
Dudek will prepare and submit required plans and documents to amend the City's Master
Engineering Report (MER). The MER will be expanded, as required, to includes sites in this project
that have not been previously addressed (e.g. synthetic turf sites, equestrian) and alternatives to
abandonment of existing potable water service connections (e.g. installing blow-offs or water
sampling stations).
Task 3.4 Administer Onsite Supervisor Consent Form
For each site, Dudek will identify the onsite supervisor, send an electronic copy of the Recycled
Water Urban Irrigation Users' Manual published by the Los Angeles Chapter of the California
section of the Water Reuse Association, and obtain from each a signed form to document
his/her receipt and understanding of the document. The City will provide the Users' Manual and
on-site supervisor consent form to Dudek for our use.
Task 4
Task 4.1
Final Design and Construction Documents
Final Plans
Dudek will prepare a conversion plan for each site based on the
site investigation. The plans will show number of control valves,
irrigation controllers, replacement or installation of flow meters,
removal of backflow device, if necessary, address removal of cross
connections, specify relevant irrigation system components (pipe,
valves, etc.) for replacement or conversion and placement of
recycled water signage and other materials as required to satisfy
regulatory requirements for conversion conversions.
In the event that purpose built site drawings are not available, site
drawings can be tracings of high-resolution aerials with the
irrigation system located by zones of coverage. It is not the intent to map out the irrigation
system if existing plans cannot be used. Drawings will be prepared in 1" = 20' scale and will
DUDEK
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 7 of 8
SIMILAR PROJECT EXPERIENCE
include construction drawings and details for the proposed construction work. Drawings will at a
minimum include title sheet, location map, vicinity map, signature blocks applicable to the project
and irrigation conversion plans. Two sets of the final plans shall be submitted to the City upon
completion.
Task 4.2 Technical Specifications
Dudek will prepare technical specifications for the construction projects, and provide
specifications where needed . Front-end documents to be provided by the City. In generaL City
standard details will be used where appropriate. Dudek will fill in the bid schedule and include a
measurement and payment specification section with items that correspond to the bid schedule.
Standardized equipment selections will also be used to minimize site-to-site conversion
differences. To the greatest extent possible, construction specifications will be included on the
construction drawings, thereby maximizing construction completion and minimizing Contractor
review duration .
Task 4.3 Bid Documents
Dudek will develop necessary bid documents using the City's standard contracting documents. If
necessary, Dudek will work with City staff to incorporate necessary construction incentives to
assure maximum construction completion within funding schedules. Additionally, project bid
documents will incorporate clear direction to potential bidders related to project scheduling,
handling of weather and holiday delays, and other critical project considerations that might
otherwise delay construction completion . It will be necessary to clarify handling of potential delay
situations prior to bidding to avoid construction claims .
DUDEK
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 8 of 8
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made, entered into, and shall become effective tnis/ daV
oÀklü, 2015,by and between the City of San Juan Capistrano (hereinafter referöd to as
the "City") and Dudek (hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant").
RECITALS:
WHERËAS, City desires to retain the services of Consultant regarding Design of
the 2015 Recycled Water Conversions Project and;
WHEREAS, Consultant ís qualified by virtue of experience, training, education and
expertise to accomplish such services.
NOW, THEREFORE, City and Consultant mutually agree as follows;
Section l. Scope of Work.
The scope of work to be performed by the Consultant shall consist of those tasks as
set forth in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated herein by reference. To the extent that
there are any conflicts between the provisions described in Exhibit "A" and those provisions
contained within this Agreement, the provisions in this Agreement shall control.
9ection 3, Term.
This Agreement shall commence on the effective date and shallterminate, and all
services required hereunder shall be completed, no later than one (1i year after the
effective date.
Sectlon 3.
3.1
Compensation.
Amount,
Total compensation for the services hereunder shall not exceed $106,020.00
as set forth in Ëxhibit B, attached and incorporated herein by reference.
3.2 Method of Payment.
Subject to Section 3.1, Consultant shall submit monthly invoices based on
total services which have been satisfactorily completed for such monthly period. The City
will pay monthly progress payments based on approved invoices in accordance with this
Section.
ATTACHMENT 5
Page 1 of 15
1
3.3 Records of Expenses.
Consultant shall keep complete and accurate records of all costs and
expenses incidental to servíces covered by this Agreement. These records will be made
available at reasonable times to the City. lnvoices shall be addressed as provided for in
Section 16 below.
Sectlon 4. lndependent9ontractor.
It is agreed that Consultant shall act and be an independent contractor and not an
agent or employee of the City, and shall obtain no rights to any þenefits which accrue to
Agency's employees.
Section 5. Limitations Upon Subcontracting and Assiqnment.
The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Consultant, its principals
and employees were a substantial inducement for the City to enter into this Agreement.
Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform the services required without
written approval of the City. This Agreement may not be assigned, voluntarily or by
operation of law, without the prior written approval of the City. lf Consultant is permitted to
subcontract any part of this Agreemeni by City, Consultant shall be responsible to the City
for the acts and omissíons of Íts subcontractor as Ít is for persons directly employed.
Nothing contained in thís Agreement shall create any contractual relationships between
any subcontractor and City. All persons engaged in the work will be considered employees
of Consultant. City will deal directly with and will make all payments to Consultant.
Section 6. Chanqes to Scope of Work.
For extra work not part of this Agreement, a written authorization from City is
required prior to Consultant undertaking any extra work. ln the event of a change in the
Scope of Work provided for in the contract documents as requested by the City, the Parties
hereto shall execute an addendum to this Agreement setting forth with particularity all
terms of the new agreement, including but not limited to any additional Consultant's fees.
Section 7.Familiaritv with Work and/gr Construction Site.
By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants that: (1) ít has investigated the
work to be performed; (2) if applicable, it has investigated the work site(s), and is aware of
all conditions there; and (3) it understands the facilities, difficultíes and restrictions of the
work to be performed under this Agreement, Should Consultant discover any latent or
unknown conditions materially differing from those inherent in the work or as represented
by City, it shall immediately inform the City of this and shall not proceed with further work
under this Agreernent until written instructions are received from the City.
StAndard of..Çare. Consultant's services will be performed in accordance with
generally accepted professional practices and principles and in a manner consistent with
the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently
2
ATTACHMENT 5
Page 2 of 15
practicing under similar conditions
Section 8. Time of Essence.
Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.
Section 9. 9o!0pliance with_Law.
Consultant shall complywith all applicable laws, ordinances, codes and regulations
of federal, state and local government.
Section 10. *C_onflicts of lntergst.
Consultant covenants that ít presently has no interest and shall not acquire any
ínterest, dírect or índirect, whích would conflict ín any manner or degree with the
performance of the services contemplated by this Agreement. No person havíng sueh
interest shall be employed by or associated with Consultant.
Section 11. Copies of Work Product.
At the completion of the work, Consultant shall have delivered to City at least one
('1) copy of any final reports and/or notes or drawíngs containíng Consultant's findings,
conclusions, and recommendations with any supporting documentation. All reports
submitted to the City shall be in reproducible format, or in the format otherwise approved
by the City in writing.
Sg-cjion 13, Own-erghip oJ Ðocumen-ts
All reports, informatíon, data and exhÍbiis prepared or assembled by Consultant in
connection with the performance of its services pursuantto this Agreement are confidential
to the extent permitted by law, and Consultant agrees that they shall not be made available
to any individual or organization without prior written consent of the City. All such reports,
information, data, and exhibits shall be the property of the City and shall be delivered to the
City upon demand without additional costs or expense to the City. The City acknowledges
such documents are instruments of Consultant's professional services.
Section 13. lndemnitv.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to protect, and hold
harmless the City and its elective and appointive boards, officers, agents, and employees
from any and all claims, liabilities, expenses, or damages of any nature, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, for injury or death of any person, or damages of any nature,
includíng interference wíth use of property, arÍsing out of, pertaín to or relate to the
negligence, recklessness and/or intentional wrongful conduct of Consultant, Consultant's
agents, officers, employees, subcontractors, or independent contractors hired by
Consultant in the performance of the Agreement. The only exception to Consultant's
3
ATTACHMENT 5
Page 3 of 15
responsibility to protect, defend, and hold harmless the Cíty, is due to the neglígence,
recklessness and/or wrongful conduct of the City, or any of its elective or appointive
boards, officers, agents, or employees.
This hold harmless agreement shall apply to all liability regardless of whether any
insurance policies are applicable, The policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the
amount of indemnification to be provided by Consultant.
Sectign 14,,fFsurance.
On or before beginning any of the services or work called for by any term of this
Agreement, Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall carry, maintain forthe duration
of the agreement, and provide proof thereof that is acceptable to the City, the insurance
specified below with insurers and under forms of insurance satisfactory in all respects to
the City. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any
suþcontract until all ínsurance required of the Consultant has also been obtained for the
subcontractor. lnsurance required herein shall þe provided by lnsurers in good standing
with the State of California and having a minimum Best's Guide Rating of A- Class Vll or
better.
14.1 Comprehensive General Liability.
Throughout the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall maintain in full force
and effect Comprehensive General Liability coverage in an amount not less than one
million dollars per occurrence ($1,000,000.00), combined single limit coverage for risks
associated with the work contemplated by this agreement. lf a Commercial General
Liability lnsurance form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the
general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this
agreement or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence
limit.
14.2 Comprehensive Automobile Liability.
Throughout the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall maintain in full force
and effect Comprehensive Automobile Liabilig coverage, including owned, hired and non-
owned vehicles in an amount not less than one million dollars per occurrence
($1 ,ooo,ooo.00).
14.3 Workers' Compensation.
lf Consultant intends to employ employees to perform services under this
Agreement, Consultant shall obtain and maintain, during the term of this Agreement,
Workers'Compensation Employer's Liability lnsurance in the statutory amount as required
by state law.
14.4 Proof of lnsurance Requirements/Endorsement.
Prior to beginning any work under thís Agreement, Consultant shall submit
the insurance certificates, including the deductible or self-retention amount, and an
additional insured endorsement naming City, its officers, employees, agents, and
volunteers as additional insured as respects each of the following: Liability arising out of
4
ATTACHMENT 5
Page 4 of 15
activítíes performed by or on behalf of Consultant, lncludÍng the insured's general
supervision of Consultant; products and completed operations of Consultant; premises
owned, occupied or used by Consultanti or automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed
by Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection
afforded Cíty, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers.
't4.5 Errors and Omiseions Coverage
Throughout the term of thís agreement, Consultant shall maintain Ërrors and
Omissions coverage (professional liability coverage) in an amount of not less than One
Million Dollars ($1 ,000,000), Prior to beginning any work under this agreement, Consultant
shall submit an insurance certificate to the City's General Counsel for certification that the
insurance requirements of this agreement have been satisfied.
14"6 Notice of Cancellation/Termination of lnsurance.
The above policy/policies shallnotterminate, norshallthey be cancelled, nor
the coverages reduced, until after thirty (30) days'written notice is given to City, except that
ten (10) days'notice shall be given if there is a cancellation due to failure to pay a
premium,
14.7 Terms of Compensation.
Consultant shall not receive any compensation until all insurance provisions
have been satisfied.
14.8 Notice to Proceed.
Consultant shall not proceed with any work under this Agreement until the
City has issued a written "Notice to Proceed" verifuing that Consultant has complied with all
insurance requirements of this Agreement.
$ection l$. Termination.
City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without cause by giving thirty
(30) days' advance written notice of termination to Consultant.
ln addition, this Agreement may be terminated by any party for cause by providing
ten (10) days' notice to the other party of a material breach of contract. lf the other party
does not cure the breach of çontract, then the agreement may be terminated subsequent
to the ten (10) day cure period.
Section 16. Notice.
All notices shall be personally delivered or mailed to the below listed addresses, or
to such other addresses as may be designated by written notice. These addresses shall
be used for delivery of service of process:
To City; City of San Juan Capistrano
324AA Paseo Adelanto
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Attn: Thom Coughran, P.E.
lnterim Public Works & Utilities Director
5
ATTACHMENT 5
Page 5 of 15
To Consultant:Dudek
750 Second Street
Encinitas, eA92024
Attn: D. Michael Metts, P.Ë.
Sectiofi 1?, Pfevailinq Waqes.
EffectiveMarch 1,2015,if theservícesarebeingperformedaspartof anapplicable
'publicworks" or"maintenance" project, in addition to the foregoing, then pursuantto Labor
Code sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Consultant and all subconsultants must be
registered with the Department of lndustrial Relations ("DlR"). Consultant shall maintain
registraiion for the duration of the project and require the same of any subconsultants.
This project may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DlR, lt
shall be Consultant's sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor
complÍance requirements, including the submission of payroll records directly to the DlR.
SpÞtion 18. Di$,pyte Resolutign,
ln the event of a dispute arising between the parties regarding performance or
interpretation of thísAgreement, the dispute shallbe resolved by bínding arbitration under
the auspices of the Judicial Arbítratíon and Medíation Service ("JAMS").
Section 19. Ëntire Aqreement.
This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the
parties and supersedes all previous negotiations between them pertaining to the subject
matter thereof.
Section 20. Counterparts.
This agreement may be executed by the Parties in counterparts, which counterparts
shall be construed together and have lhe same effectas if all the Parties had executed the
same instrument. Counterpart signatures may be transmitted byfacsimile, email, or other
electronic means and has the same force and effect as if they were original signatures.
ISTGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWSI
6
ATTACHMENT 5
Page 6 of 15
iN WITNËS$ WIIERÐOF, theparties hereto trave executod lhis Agreernenl:
CITY JUAN
8y:
Þerek Reev6, Mqyor
DUDHK
By:
ð*lkc Mstt$
Aô$l$knt seerotarpATT
Maria tferk
AFPROVEÐ AS TO FORM:
Attorney
ATTACHMENT 5
Page 7 of 15
2 Scope of Services
A detaìled Scr:pe of Services assures the City that its project is completed successfully, and
achìeves tlre expected goals and ob.lectives, while maintaining project coni:-ol, assuring qualìfy,
and facìlil.ating the proposed budget and schedule.
Task 1 General Administration, Meetings and Presentations
The key to success of every prgect is proactive project managepient and effective
communication. Proactive project management ìnvolves balancing key project elements, while
communicating pro;ect progress to the client ancj each project team member. Core members of
our Project Team are experÌenced prolect managers in their own righf and use tlre following
tools to deliver projects successfully. The use of these tools to track project milesiones allows
project changes to be antìcipated and managed, keeping the pr"oject objectives in focus.
Task 1.1 Coordination
Our project management tools begin with our
Prolect Management Plan (PMP). Each project
recelves a customized plan to rneet project goals and
objectives. Michael Metts, PE, will serve as the main
point of coniact between Dudek and the City. Mr.
Metts will make sure assigned team members are
aware of the projeci goals and objectives, and
together with City staff, will determine the project
critical success factors.
Our PMP requìres input for Critical Success Factors,
document distributíon, file structures, schedule,
budget tracking, deliverables, QA/QC procedures,
and communication, Monthly progress reports, such as the one slrown here, âre developed to
meet City standards and sent from Dudek to the City project manager each month, providìng
project updates about work completed during the past month, anticipaTed work for the next
month, r'equested client actions, planned deliverables and scope and budget díscussion ítems,
We understand the importance of staying on or ahead of the project schedule. Upon receiving
your notice to proceed, Mr. Metts will enter project Ìnformation into the Dudek oniine tracking
system. Dudek uses a deliverable calendar to help visualize how we track each pro.¡ect
deliverable. Enterìng each project deliverable allows us to prepare ahead of time fcr project
overlaps and foresee our entire team's project workload, resulting ìn rnore effective and efficierrt
prolect management.
6
Exhibit A
ATTACHMENT 5
Page 8 of 15
üÕ{nlY?dffiffihiÐtr!
Íñt: gìã¿kr¡i!{ü
Jlôtrdf f:ìr¡..Fd.:lDñ rrìtii )t¡j+ fr4 Èi;sdMdÍ þ(irni :r,r\hhl(!\ldÈÈ{È lii}E"ó},r
iDLt È¿ rÛ:: 4sì[i#¡j jti,?¡¡LH
$ÅdliÁe:güJl,l- : :+i-:.j1 t! r¡rio,aaì*(r,ßãù¡.d-sr¡¡ú/ñ$.jþf ii*nrf rdnu, :a¡citlI ¡ nL,n'¡v.trx\írÉFrf,¡4(ß4djÞ¡ç5El!6¡Qr'l¡ ¡rr.,.ri:i(Ái¡üt*.4**;;+j rsè'.1it.Èri.:4.¿,:^.¡<,&,.rd!n ó¿ o{m;¡...a ú¿ÂPsdd.6Ê;¡d¡n !.rd i¡ ty.rnx¡ !f* r.rd Éßùs enh 5ql i.Ja. tri..ir; ¡lì rr q"Vis'1 Sra.r¡r{iriF ¡qq.¡f / 4¡ ¿iLlrs ¿4_4rç,va i.: Þri* ;!a:.
:a...r.,. 1¡: :.1.s1¡l!ril
DUDEK 2015 Recycled Water Conversions Project
SIMILAR PROJËCT EXPERIENCE
Ëach project task is tracked by use of an action-decision log. This log identifies clear actions
needed to meet project milestones, and who is responsible for each item. Dudek pro;ect
managers are respcnsible for entering and maintainìng log information, and for notifying project
tearn members of their responsibìlíties.
r¡aôlÈfr tsld?{i ¿ òr}èdq¡4 ô¿ûrd$'l:" ln addition to online pr-oject tracking, the PMP
:. lncludes worksheets for scheC,"rle tracking ands tracking project progress in relation to the project
: budget (see example of earned-value tracking to
ùs left). lncluded within the schedule will be Dudek
r*. and client coordination events: progress meeting
:' dates, submittal dates, stakeholder meetings,
* customer meetings, and the production of
3 d"liu.rubles throughout the proJect.
Cost maintenance is a key project factor for each clìent. We are committed to adhering io our
proposed scope and fee for a given task and notiñ7ing the client immediately if changes are
required, Dudek uses earned-value tracking, a method that shows a cost-to-schedule
comparison so we are constantly and visually reminded where our project costs are in relation to
the pro.lect schedule. Proactívely managing the project schedule and budget i'or¡ the onset of
the project provides the project manager with the early warning indrcators necessary to manage
the work effort and protect the pro.lect budget.
Task 1.2 Project Goals and Strategy
Critical'to a successful project is clarity and alignment on the pro"lect goals and strategy. At the
beginning of the project, Dudek will hold a project kíckoff meeting to discuss the scope and
parameters of the projeci. At this meeting, our team members identi$r the specific goals for
accomplishment during the project and develop the most effective strategy to accomplish those
goals. Subsequent to the kickoff meeting, Dudek submits to the City a memorandum
documenting the pro-¡ect goals, execution strategy and any deviations from the contract.
Task 1.3 Project Schedule
At the beginning of each design phase (preliminary and final) of the projecf Dudek prepares a
work plan to set forth the significant milestones and deliverables to ensure compliance with the
project goals and execution strategy. Dudek presents a written list of information required and
the dates neeCed by to maintain the project schedule. DucJek meets with the City for
presentation and review of the work plan. The detailed pro;ect schedule 'fcr each phase is in
addition to an overall pro1ect schedule and is deliverable at project comrnencement. The City has
provided a project schedule, which we have reviewecj, Slight modifications are inevitable in a
conversion project, as the project must adapi to regulatory requírements, inspection availability,
+hr,R4t@t.¡
..:
bÈs6
.tl3rrg-¡
b$q
i:. ¡. {
qi{Éqs8e¡tÍåÉ¡iå!åi f.t
7
ATTACHMENT 5
Page 9 of 15
DUÞËK 2015 Recycled W¿ter Conversions Project
SIMILAR PRO.JECT EXPERIFNCE
and customer concerns. HoweveL we believe that the conversions project can be accomplished
within the available timeframe.
Task 1.4 Design Progress Meetings
Progress meetings are an essential part of our comrnunication strategy for successful pro.¡ect
management. Our proJect manager coordinates and leads project-related progress meetings,
both wilh the City and intemally. Requested meeting pa.{icipants are notifìeci in advance, receive
an agencia at least one week in advance, and receive meeting minutes within three days of the
meeting date. Meetings for this project will include the project kick-off meeting and monthly
progress meetings. A total of ihree progress meetings are included in this proposal- lt is
anticipated that at one of the first meetings, the Dudek team wìll attend a City design review
meeting to meet with the staff, present the DDW rerycled water conversícn plans and receive
critical City feedback.
Task 1.5 Project Components
The typicaì City project components are listed below. These designations are used by Dudek for
identìfication and cost assignment. Modification or adcjition to these components may be
necessary to effectively track the specific components cf this project.
. General Administration, Meetings, anci Presentations
r Site lnvestigaticn and Report
. Ënvironmental Tasks (N/A)
. Final Design and Construction Documents
¡ Construction Bidding Through Contract Award
. ConstructionEngineeringSupport
Task 2 Site lnvestigation and Report
Task 2.1 Data Collection
Data collection is a critical component of the success of the City's
Recycled Water Conversion Program. ln coryunction with Task2.2,
Dudek will review available plans,
specificatíons, reporLs and operating
data for the irrigation systems for each
proposed conversìon site (in addition to
the review already conducted on the
infcrmation previously provided by the
CiÇ), and evaluata each for conversion
to recycled water. Our team will meet
with the City and property owners for
additional informatìon necessäry for the conversion process.
Our team wiil conduddata
collection ond an on- site
investigotion for oll sites.
DUDEK 20'15 Recycled Water Conversions Project I
ATTACHMENT 5
Page 10 of 15
SIMILAR PROJECT ËXPËRIENCË
Task 2,2 Site lnvestigation
Dudek will review available as-built irrigaticn drawings and perform site visits to evaluate the
ìrrigation system of each landscaped area ideniifieci fcr conversions. These on-site evaluations
include:
. Mapping of the area to be converted to recycled water, including any facilities to
remain on potable water,
. ldentifícatÌon cf new lateral and meter construction, as well as on-site conversion
construction needs,
. Preliminary cross connection test of the site to locate any actual or potential cross
connections with other systems,
. ldentÌfication of key facilities needed to complete the conversion, and
. Quantity estimate of the equipment and facilities required for the conversion (e.g
sprinkler heads, signs, etc.).
A supplemental engÌneering report will be completed for each site and submitted to the City for
review.
Task 2.3 Preliminary Report and Plans
Once site investìgations âre complete, the Dudek team will develop a draft supplemental
engineering report and conversion plans and submit this to the City for review and comment.
The Dudek team will meet with Ciry staff to review comments on the report and conversion
plans, then revise the reporl as necessary and submit two hard copies and an electronic copy of
the final prelimínary design reporl to the City.
Task 2.4 Present Preliminary Findings
Dudek will meet with City staff to review comments on the draft supplemental engineering report
and conversion plans. Subsequenily, Dudek wiil respono to comments, revise the draft as
necessary and submit two hard copíes and one electronic copy of the final supplemental
engineering report anC conversion plans to the City. The final suoplemental engineering repori
will be used as the basis for the final design of the project.
Task 3 Regulatory Tasks
The success of thís project relies on the seamless process for each site, including the customer,
C¡V DDW, and OCHCA approvals. Each of these agencies will be provlde access to the
proposed document-sharing website, thereby facilitating iheir individual review efforts. Each
agency will receive the amended Master Fngineering Repoft, as well as sile specific supplemental
engineering repoits and conceptual conversion drawings.
I
ATTACHMENT 5
Page 11 of 15
DUDEK 2015 Rerycled Water Conversions Project
SIMILAR PROJÊCT EXPERIENCE
Task 3.1 California Division of Drinking Water (DWW) Approval
Conceptual conversion drawings and supplemental engineeríng reports will be prepared, and
submitted to DDW for review and approval, Comments will be incorpcrated tc facilitate final
appr-oval.
Task 3.2 County Healthcare Cross Connection
Dudek will prepare and submiT cross-connection dccumentation to the Orange County
Healthcare Agency, Cross connection evalualions will be prepared by the same team members
conduding site assessments to minimize cocrdination and completion scheduies.
Task 3.3 Amend Master Ëngineering Report
Dudek will prepare and submit requirecl plans and documents to amend the City's Master
Engineering Report (MËR). The MER wíll be expanded, as required, to includes sítes in this project
that have not been previously addressed (e.9. synthetic turf sites, equestrian) and alternatives to
abandonment of existing potable water service connections (e.9. installing blow-offs cr water
sampling stations).
Task 3.4 Administer Onsite Supervisor Consent Form
For each site, Dudek will identify the onsite supervísor, send an electronic copy of the Rerycled
Water Urban lrrigation Users' Manual publìshed by the Los Angeles Chapter of the California
seclion of the Water Reuse Association, and obtain from each a signed form to ciocument
his/her receipt and uncierstanding of the document. The City will provide the Users' Manuai and
on-site superuisor consent form to Dudek for our use.
Task 4 Final Design and Construction Documents
Task 4.1 Final Plans
Dudek will prepare a conversion plan for each site based on the
site irrvestigation. Ihe plans will show number of control valves,
irrigation controllers, replacement or installation of flow meters,
removal of backflow device, if necessary, address removal of cross
connections, specify relevant irrigation sysiem components (pipe,
valves, etc.) for replacement or conversion and placement of
rerycled water signage and other materials as required to satisly
reg ulato ry req u ire ments fo r conve rsio n conversions.
ln the event that purpose built siie drawings are not available, site
drawings can be tracÍngs of high-r"esolution aerials with the
irrigation system iocated by zones of coverage. lt ís not the intent to map out the írrigalion
system if existing pians cannot be used. Drawings will be prepared in ''1" = 20' scale and will
IU
ATTACHMENT 5
Page 12of 15
DUDEK 2015 Recycled Water Conversions Project
SIMILAR PROJËC-T EXPÊRIËNCE
include construciion drawings and details for the proposed construction work Drawings will at a
minimum include title sheet, location map, vicinity map, signature blocks applicable to the project
and irrigation conversion plans. Two sets of the final plans shall be submitted to the City upon
completion.
Task 4.2 Technical Specifications
Dudek will prepare technical specìfications for the construction projecl and provide
specifications where needed. Front-end documents io be provided by the City. ln general, City
standard details will be used where appropriate. Dudek will fili in the bid schedule and inciude a
measurement and payment specification section with items that correspond to the bid schedule.
Standardized equipment selectíons will aiso be used to minimize site-tc-site conversion
differences. To the greatest extent possible, construction specifications will be included on the
construction drawings, thereby nraximizing construction completion and minimizing Contractor
review duration.
Task 4.3 Bid Documents
Dudek will develop necessary bid documents using the City's standard contracting documents. lf
necessary, Dudek will work with City staff to incorporate necessary construCion incentives to
assure maximum construction completion within funding schedules. ACditionally, pro.¡ect bid
documents will incorporate clear direction to potential bidders related to project scheciuling,
handling of weather and holiday delays, and other critical proJect considerations that míght
othenvise delay constructÌon completion. lt will be necess¿ry to clarify handling of potential clelay
situations prior to bidding to avoid construction claims.
Task 4.4 General Delivery
Using the developed document sharing website, Cily staff will have unlimited access to project
documents as they are developed. The following documents will be preparecÌ for delivery, as well
as any other documents needed fcr pro.¡ect completíon:
. Four sets of 50 percent design drawings to City for review. Four sets of 90 percent design
drawings to CÍty for review. Comments from each design subminai will be documented
ìn meeting minutes for distribution.
. Original hard ccpy set of final contract documents (including bid documents, drawings,
technical specifications, and cost estimates). Final project drawings will be signed and
sealed by the Project Manager, who is a California registered professional civil engineer.
. Electronic copies of documents, including Crawings in AutoCAD 2C10 or 2014 formal.
. Final design and analysis materials, prepared and submitted in accordance with the City's
Digital Submíssìon Standards
11
ATTACHMENT 5
Page 13 of 15
DUDEK 2015 Recycled Water Conversions Project
SIMILAR PROJËCT EXPERI[NCE
Task 4.5 Schedule & Cost Estímates
Dudek will develop final construclion cost estimate and schedule for the proposed work based
up on the final plans and specifícations. Dudek will also prepare a project schedule thät will
include, at a minimum, bidding, award construction and project close-out.
12
ATTACHMENT 5
Page 14 of 15
DUDEK 2015 Rerycled Water Conversions Pro.¡ect
Ou
d
e
k
Fæ
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
Ju
a
n
Ca
f
i
s
t
r
a
n
o
20
1
5
RW
Co
n
v
ê
E
i
o
r
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
l
-{
F;
(o
C
)
o-dñ
Oz
-.
i
(J
|
(¡
20
1
5
RE
C
Y
C
L
E
D
WÂ
T
E
R
CO
I
{
V
E
R
S
I
O
N
S
PR
O
J
Ë
C
I
Tota, Cost 2.47 s 2.150 1.840..$..4,690 $ 1r;350 -q___.-___q_.l1q $14,100 17,O2A $6,880 ¡46,44q $6,400 7,600 $5,¡140 $7,520 ¡ 2c,98tt.$6,060 $3,820 s ı,660 $1.140 $4.590 $21,270 ú luo,ozuExÞens5{ì 5f)i. 150 t25 s_,-,__,100 $ 300 10 $s0 s5()5 ¡Þ öuo
Su
b
@
n
t
r
a
c
l
Co
s
l
s
$¡$¡ú
fo
t
a
l
La
b
o
r
S
Co
s
t
l
s
2.
8
2
i
$
2,
1
0
0
s
l
-6
4
0
I
4,
5
t
0
$
l,
l
,
l
o
0
-1
,
.
'
-
8,
3
-
0
,
$
13
,
8
0
0
s
16
,
9
2
0
$
6,
æ
0
5
¿0
,
4
9
0
$
6,
4
0
0
7.
6
0
0
$
5.
4
4
0
$
7.
5
2
0
3
28
,
9
6
0
$
6,
0
6
0
s
3,
8
2
0
s
5,
6
6
0
$
1,
1
4
0
$
4,
5
9
0
J
21
.
,
7
0
s
10
5
,
2
2
0
H@
ß
12 12 2e 5€52
12
Í
.4l
50 42
17
(
.4t 36 I 3(
t3
s
Mñ
t
a
,l
:
:
.
80
$
16
0
I
rô
0
$_
_
_
_
_
.
,
-
,
$$
32
0
$
16
0
5
44
0
$
16
0
$
16
0
$
32
0
$$
6¡
1
0
$*
-
$$¡5
'r
,
2
8
0
Hr 2 7 4 2 6
2 4
a 0
CA
D
C.
Do
È
¡
n
I $
._
,
4,
6
0
0
6,
9
0
0
$
1.
8
4
0
13
,
3
¡
¡
0
$$$$$
3.
6
8
0
$5
1.
8
4
0
46
0
$
5,
9
E
1
)
5
19
,
3
2
0
Hß 0 40 60
1f
6 ô
_r
6
4 52
Êr
u
i
n
€
e
r
S
Dl
â
7
s
14
0
i ¡.9
"
*
-
3
,
2
4
0
s
2,
8
0
0
$
1,
1
2
0
¡
6,
1
6
0
$
1,
1
2
0
$
1,
1
2
0
$s
2.
2
4
0
$
4,
¿
1
8
0
$$$5
3.
3
6
0
¡
3,
3
6
0
t
f4
,
0
0
0
Hß 0 16 8 41
I I 16
24 21
s
17
0
$
68
0
$
64
0
s
L0
2
0
¡
2,
3
8
0
5.
_
_
4
,
0
8
0
s
3.
¿
0
0
$
4,
0
8
0
3
2
72
t
$
14
2
8
0
$
2.
?
2
0
s
2,
7
2
0
2.
7
2
0
$
4,
0
8
0
s
12
2
4
0
$
68
0
s
2,
7
2
0
$
2,
7
2
0
$
68
0
ô8
0
$
7,
4
E
0
5
36
.
3
8
0
Hß 4 6 a4 24 20 24 E4
16 16 16 24
4 l6 16 4 4 11
Cñ
s
s
c
ô
d
d
.1
.
Rô
h
i
n
$
n
$
15
0
6ô
O
s
1,
5
0
0
-9
_
.
.
-
_
1
,
3
9
9
_
s
?,
0
0
0
4-
5
{
l
s
1,
2
0
0
I
9,
0
0
0
s
2,
4
!
$
s,
6
0
(
I
2,
4
0
0
$
1,
2
0
0
5
9,
6
0
0
$
1,
2
0
0
$
60
0
$
60
0
$$3
(
¡
2,
7
0
0
¡
23
,
7
0
0
HG 4 6 t0 I 2A I 66
24 1t I
64 I 4 4 ta
s
20
5
s
1.
6
4
0
a2
a
't
-6
4
0
--
-
2.
4
6
0
a
8,
5
6
0
g_
_
_
_
e
g
s
41
0
;
1,
2
3
0
s $$I s 5 $
-*
¡5
7,
7
9
0
HÉ I 4 8 32 4 2 6 o
PI
C
A
ÔA
/
'
J
C
B
Õh
l
u
d
s
25
0
s0
0
t
50
0
-s
_
_
_
,
-
.
$
50
0
S
5o
o
$$$$5 $
50
0
s
50
0
s
50
0
I
2s
o
$
1,
7
5
0
5
2,
7
5
0
Hr
e z 2 2 0 2 7
T'
l
t
f
e
Nâ
m
e
Sl
H
r
HF
HK
c6
t
HF
cæ
t
HÉ
Cd
s
{
H€¡HE
Co
6
t
HG
Cæ
t
HE
Co
s
l
HG Hß $H6
C6
t
HÉ Cc
t
HE
CG
t
HG
Cæ
t
üå
-
$Hß
C¡
r
t
HG
Cô
s
t
H6
Cß
t
H6
hs
f
H6
C6
t
HF $
TA
S
K
IT
E
M
l.
Ga
r
e
t
a
l
^d
m
¡
n
l
r
t
r
â
d
o
n
,
Mæ
t
¡
n
0
3
,
an
d
PE
æ
ñ
t
å
t
¡
g
r
!
1.
1
ç@
d
r
n
a
t
¡
o
n
í
j
oe
ã
i
é
ä
F
o
g
r
e
è
l
-
r
ä
ä
ä
¡
n
ì
l
i5
-
r
o
t
a
'
)
*
Sa
b
i
o
t
a
l
Ta
s
k
I
Su
b
l
o
t
a
l
T€
a
k
I
2.
S¡
t
ô
lñ
v
ê
3
d
g
r
t
l
o
ñ
an
d
Rê
p
o
r
t
¿.
1
Da
h
Øi
l
€
c
t
¡
o
n
2.
3
PÞ
l
l
m
¡
ñ
a
r
y
Re
p
o
f
an
d
Pl
a
n
s
2.
4
Pc
s
e
ñ
t
PG
¡
¡
m
i
B
r
y
F¡
n
d
h
g
s
Su
b
t
o
t
r
l
Tæ
k
¡
Þu
D
t
@
t
ta
a
x
¡
3.
Re
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
Ta
s
k
.
1.
1
D'
u
s
¡
o
n
of
Dd
n
k
i
n
g
Wa
t
e
r
Ap
p
r
c
w
l
12
Co
u
r
t
y
Hg
a
l
t
h
6
€
CG
s
Co
n
n
e
c
l
Í
o
n
1.
3
Am
e
n
d
Sû
p
p
l
e
m
€
n
t
a
l
En
g
i
n
e
s
i
n
g
Re
p
o
r
t
J.
4
Ad
m
¡
¡
i
s
l
e
r
On
Sl
t
6
Su
p
e
r
b
r
Co
n
s
€
n
t
Fo
m
--
-
-
-s
¡
i
¡
t
o
t
a
¡
rä
ó
Ë
i
su
þ
t
æ
I
¡â
a
t
¡
4.
Fi
ô
a
l
Do
s
¡
g
n
an
d
Co
É
t
r
u
c
t
l
o
n
Dæ
m
.
n
t
3
1.
1
ts
t
m
t
PE
r
e
42
4.
3
B'
d
D@
m
e
n
t
s
4.
4
Ge
n
e
E
l
De
l
i
w
r
y
4.
5
Sc
h
€
d
u
l
g
ân
d
Co
s
t
Es
l
¡
m
â
t
e
su
b
t
o
t
a
l
T¡
c
k
4
SU
D
t
ñ
t
tå
s
{
Exhibit B