The URL can be used to link to this page

17-0418_DUDEK_Agenda Report_H5 4/18/2017 UAN H5 City of San Juan Capistrano Agenda Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Pam Patterson, City Council Member DATE: April 18, 2017 SUBJECT: Review and Discuss the Situation with the Recycled Water Pipeline and Sewer System Project (CIP 17201) at the Riding Park RECOMMENDATION: City Council to review and discuss the situation with the Recycled Water Pipeline and Sewer System Project (CIP 17201) at the Riding Park. SITUATION: I would like the City Council to review and discuss the situation with the Recycled Water Pipeline and Sewer System Project at the Riding Park. Attachment 1 —April 19, 2016, Agenda Report Attachment 2 — March 21, 2017, Agenda Report %L%AN,C 4/19/2016 f, .� E I a City of San Juan Capistrano Agenda Report TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM /1*'en Siegel, City Manager DATE April 19, 2016 SUBJECT: City Council — Executive Staff Workshop and Confirmation of 2016 City Council Priorities RECOMMENDATION: By motion; 1. Receive Summary Report from Management Partners; and, 2. Confirm City Council priorities as outlined in the attached report; and, 3. Direct the City Manager to allocate staff and financial resources toward the key priorities as affirmed by the City Council. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On April 4, 2016, the City Council held a public workshop at the San Juan Capistrano Community Center. The workshop was attended by the City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, executive management team and members of the public. Jan Perkins of Management Partners facilitated the workshop, which was designed primarily to: 1) Help the City Council understand budget and resource constraints; and, 2) Establish priorities for Council and staff focus during the coming year. The final report by Management Partners is attached. At the workshop, the facilitator and staff sought Council feedback and direction on key priorities for the organization. The key priorities represent the projects, programs and study efforts that will be the focus of the City's work plan for the coming year, and will be the primary recipient of limited staff and financial resources. The City Council was also asked to indicate whether any of the other efforts currently underway should be de- prioritized, or whether there are projects and/or programs not underway that should be incorporated into the current work plan. ATTACHMENT 1 City Council Agenda Report April 19, 2016 Page 2 of 2 After a robust discussion, there was City Council consensus to include the following as key priorities for the coming year: • Improve Street Maintenance and Rehab Program • Implement Water Reorganization • Process Hotel Projects (2) • Resolve Ghost Train Issue • Renegotiate Riding Park Lease/ Increased Public Access • Design and Construct Northwest Open Space Park • Resolve Water Lawsuits • Resolve Land Use Lawsuits • Transition to District Elections • Actively Oppose SDGE Substation Project • Encourage Quality Commercial Development Opportunities • Expand Recycled Water to Riding Park • Sell City-Owned Downtown Parcels & Lower Rosan Ranch • Negotiate Landfill Host City Cooperative Agreement • Process Pacifica San Juan Residential Development • Fill Key Vacancies & Improve Morale Staff is recommending that the City Council confirm these priorities, and direct the City Manager to develop the Fiscal Year 2016-17 and 2017-18 proposed budget with the goal of completing or making considerable progress on these items. As shown in the attached report, there are several other projects and programs also currently underway, along with day-to-day operations and services not detailed in the report. As discussed at the workshop, to optimize progress toward the key priorities, it is recommended that new project/program requests are maintained on a separate list for future consideration or budget cycle, and that any additions to the City's work plan over the next year are considered in the context of limited resources and impacts to existing priorities. ATTACHMENT(S): Attachment 1 — Management Partners Report, Dated April 2016 ��' � IA(pAPBAAiEB Nil a ES(AAIISN(p �9�� '7 76 O O City of San JuanCapistrano CouncilWorkshop Held April1 • April 2016 Management Partners ATTACHMENT 1 Held April 4,2016 Table of Contents Management Partners Table of Contents WorkshopReport......................................................................................................................................1 ExecutiveSummary.........................................................................................................................1 WorkshopObjectives and Agenda................................................................................................2 Participants........................................................................................................................................3 Acknowledging Accomplishments................................................................................................4 Discussion of Priorities..-..—................................................................... ...... ...........................5 Financialand Staff Capacity.......................................................................................................6 Priorities................. ......................................................................... .................,...........8 . Methods of Optimizing Progress.................................................................................:...............10 Establishing a Common Understanding...................................................................................10 Small Group Discussions.........................................................................................................12 WrapUp..........................................................................................................................................14 Closing Comments from Participants.......................................................................................14 Attachment A—Priority Tiers With Dot Voting...............................................................................15 Attachment B—Workshop PowerPoint Presentation......................................................................18 Attachment C—Photo of Poster with Dot Voting.............................................................................22 i Held April 4,2016 Workshop Report Management Partners Workshop • ' • • "Put First Things First." Stephen CoveV Executive Summary The City of San Juan Capistrano held a workshop on April 4, 2016 at the Community Center Community Hall(25925 Camino Del Avion).The retreat was an opportunity for the City Council to strengthen the Council/staff team and for the Council and executive staff to discuss priority goals for the year. Council agreed on the top priorities within the top two tiers as presented by staff.There are numerous projects within each of the top two tiers. All projects listed will move forward,with the items in Tier 1 receiving the most attention. In order to provide staff a sense of the highest priorities within these two tiers, dot voting was done by the Council. The top priorities that emerged in the top two tiers are as follows. (See Attachments A for a full list and Attachment C for a photo of the workshop poster with the dots.) • Tier 1:Key Priorities and Primary Resource Allocation o Improve street maintenance and rehab program o Implement water reorganization o Process hotel projects • Tier 2:Efforts Also Underway o Resolve "ghost train' issue o Implement records management program/PRA requests Jan Perkins, Senior Partner with Management Partners facilitated the workshop. 1 Held April 4,2016 Workshop Report Management Partners Workshop Objectives and Agenda Objectives • Understand budget and resource constraints. • Establish priorities for Council and staff focus during the coming year. Agenda • Welcome and Roll Call • Public comments • Review Today's Workshop Agenda • Acknowledging Accomplishments • Discussion of Priorities • Methods of Optimizing Progress • Wrap Up Workshop Ground Rules At the start of the workshop,the facilitator suggested several ground rules to help the group have a successful workshop and achieve the results they intended to achieve through their time together. • Listen respectfully • Seek consensus • Stay focused on the discussions at hand • Be present 2 Held April 4,2016 Workshop Report Management Partners Workshop Preparation To prepare for the retreat,facilitator Jan Perkins conducted individual interviews with each Councilmember.The purpose of these interviews was to obtain input that would help in creating an agenda for the workshop,hear Councilmember comments about accomplishments and priorities, and receive background information that will be helpful in designing the workshop. Staff prepared information on the items identified by Councilmembers as priorities as well as a number of other projects that had previously been identified. Participants • Pam Patterson,Mayor • Kerry Ferguson,Mayor Pro Tem • Sam Allevato,Councilmember • John Perry, Councilmember • Derek Reeve, Councilmember • Ben Siegel,City Manager • David Ott, Interim Assistant City Manager • Maria Morris, City Clerk • Ken Al-Imam, Interim CFO • Dori Budde, Community Services Director • Joel Rojas,Development Services Director • Steve May,Public Works and Utilities Director • Samuel Penrod, Human Resources Manager • Scott Spalding,Orange County Sheriff's Department • Jeff Ballinger, City Attorney 3 Held April 4,2016 Workshop Report Management Partners Acknowledging Accomplishments Jan Perkins reviewed a list of City accomplishments that had been identified in her interviews with Councilmembers.Then the Council and staff identified the key factors that contributed to the accomplishments. During discussions,additional accomplishments were highlighted.The following table contains a complete list of accomplishments noted by workshop participants. Accomplishments • New city manager and staff • Neighborhood quality of life • Resolved some lawsuits committee • Advancing Hotel Projects • Restoration of Egan House • Reinstituted Design Review • "F"rated streets moved to Board higher priority • Implemented procedural • Successfully handled rent changes(e.g.,consent calendar, control Rosenberg's Rules of Order, • Del Obispo left turns motion for reconsideration) • Completed utility reorganization • City Relay for Life Team study • Acquisition and preservation of • Exploring options to improve open space Council chambers security • Got through the Great Recession • Uber pilot program • Interchange on Ortega Highway • Identified Skatepark location • Denied Ortega Highway widening • Congregate living moratorium • Resolved issues regarding • Challenged SDGE project equestrian facilities and bicycle • Pacifica San Juan residential trails development and CFD • Trolley program restructuring • Northwest open space as cultural • Resolved water rate lawsuit and center refunded money • Guidelines for commercial a Water conservation program photographers on Los Rios Street • Downtown parking phase one • Prioritized equestrian safety • Discussed expanded uses of riding park The group also identified the key factors that contributed to the accomplishments,as follow: • Prioritized objectives and resources • Collaboration on Council • Collaboration between Council and staff • Collaboration with community • Collaboration with commissions 4 Held April 4,2016 Workshop Report Management Partners • Input from business community • Focus on getting the work done • Ability to act • Availability of resources • Three votes • Listened to the public • Listened to staff • Working as a team • Staff takes pride in their work and want to do a good job • Responding to resident needs • Well-organized neighborhoods • Common values—"culture' of city • Effective staff work • Collaboration with commissions Discussion of Priorities Prioritization is important because there is limited staff and financial capacity. Many of the projects identified as priorities require time from a small group of staff at the executive and managerial level. During this section of the workshop,the participants: • Confirmed top tier priorities • Confirmed second tier priorities • Determined whether resources are or can be made available to do everything on top two tiers • Determined Council consensus Effective Priority Setting • Establishes how limited resources will be allocated—money,staff time, Council time; • Allows for realistic assessment of what can be done,so that key items are accomplished; • Considers the on-going work of the organization;and • is a way for policy makers and staff to be on the same page with expectations 5 Held April 4,2016 Workshop Report Management Partners Financial and Staff Capacity City Manager reviewed the capacity of the City's resources to inform the priority setting discussion. Staff Capacity The City Manager highlighted the following factors that must be considered in understanding staff capacity. • The executive team is entirely new • Many key personnel have less than 1 year in organization • There have been recent retirements • There are over 15 active recruitments(approximately 20%of workforce) • The estimated allocation of hours for management staff,shown below. Estimated Allocation of Hours During a 40-hour work week Staff reports for Council meetings,10% • 70%on day-to-day management of the department(+/-28 __ - hours) Committees and task forces,30% ' • 10%on preparing staff reports for Council meetings(+/-4 hours) *` • 10%on committees ` and task forces(+/-4 hours) • 10%on special projects Additional 10+hours per week are spent on community events, Special projects,101Y. evening meetings,and communications Day-to-day Management,70% 6 Held April 4,2016 Workshop Report Management Partners Financial Capacity The City Manager presented the general fund revenue and expenditure outlook in FY 2016-17.The presentation of the outlook was followed by the general fund projection as shown below. Outlook . Revenues Expenditures(Key Cost Increases) • Strong property tax growth • 6%increase in Sheriffs contract • Declining sales tax in 2016-17 • Ongoing litigation ■ End of"triple flip" • 3%increase in City personnel costs • Lower gasoline prices • Overall very modest growth in 2016-17 • Maintain healthy reserves Balancing the Budget • No new positions,programs or services • No transfer to CIP Fund or reserves • Use gas tax for street maintenance instead of capital projects • One-time freeze in depreciation funding • Assumes no transfer from reserves • Assumes no new revenue sources • Fills all vacancies Figure 1. General Fund Forecast $31.0 -— $30.5 n - $30.0 $29.5 $29.0 — $28.5 o $28.0 — $27.5 $27.0 — $26.5 $26.0 $25.5 $25.0 — $24.5 lip General Fund Revenues— General Fund Expenditures As shown above, the general fund is projected to be at a deficit beginning in Fiscal Year 2018-19 based on projected expenditure increases and assuming no new revenue sources are identified. 7 Held April 4,2016 Workshop Report Management Partners The following options for revenue enhancement and expenditure control were presented as shown below. Options for Balancing the Budget in the Long-Run Revenue Enhancement Expenditure Control • OC waste agreement • Freeze vacant positions • Grant funding • Cut special events • Paid parking • Service reductions Priorities The Council and staff first reviewed the status of the items on the list of possible priorities shown in Attachment A. New items were added to the initial list. A photo of the poster showing the actual dots is provided in Attachment C. Top Tier: Key Priorities and Primary Resource Allocation These are the items that staff understands to be the Council's highest priorities.The question for the Council was whether anything listed in this top tier should be considered a lower tier. • The Council agreed that everything listed was appropriate for the top tier. • Each Coun.cilmember was given four red dots to be placed next to their highest priorities within this top tier.The items receiving three or more dots within this tier were: • Improve street maintenance and rehab program(5 dots) • Implement water reorganization(3 dots) • Process hotel projects(3 dots) Second Tier: Efforts Also Underway The items listed here are all being worked on by staff. However,if there is a need to decide whether to work on one of these or one on the top tier, the items in the top tier will take precedence for staff time. • The Council agreed that the list is appropriate. • Each Councilmember was given four yellow dots to be placed next to their highest priorities within this top tier.The items receiving three or more dots within this tier were: • Resolve"ghost train" issue(4 dots) • Implement records management program/PRA requests(3 dots) 8 Held April 4,2016 Workshop Report Management Partners • Each Councilmember was also given three orange dots to place on any items they thought could be prioritized lower. There were two items receiving three orange dots.Those will be discussed at a later point with the Council. They were: • Verdugo Street beautification(3 dots) • Del Obispo Street widening(3 dots) Third Tier: Non-Programmed This is a list of items for which resources are not currently available. Generally speaking, these items have been previously discussed by the Council,but there are insufficient financial or staff resources to move forward at this time. These items will not be the focus of the City's work plan over the next year. An additional item was added to this list,which was:News rack ordinance. • Each Councilmember was given two blue dots to be placed by items in either the third or fourth tiers that Councilmembers would like to see moved up to a higher tier. Some of these items were discussed but none received more than one dot, indicating they should not be added to the current work plan Fourth Tier: New Ideas and Emerging Issues This list contains several items that are relatively new, along with others that have been discussed by the Council at some point in time, or are anticipated to be raised in the coming year. An additional item was added to this fourth tier,which was temporary downtown parking (tennis courts). None of the items in this category received any dots, indicating there was not a desire to add them to the work plan. 9 Held April 4,2016 Workshop Report Management Partners Methods of Optimizing Progress The facilitator from Management Partners led a discussion on the importance of focus and discipline to stay the course on priorities. The purpose of the discussion was to communicate that Council and staff must work together to optimize the chances for success in making progress on priorities. This section of the workshop included: • Methods of Optimizing Progress • Roles and Norms of Council and Staff • Modeling Positive Civic Behavior • Small Group Discussion Establishing a Common Understanding Before discussion,Jan Perkins reviewed the methods of optimizing progress,roles and norms, and positive civic behavior. Examples of methods of optimizing progress reviewed with the participants are as follows: ods of Optimizing . 1. Stay focused on the agreed upon goals—don't add new things • Be mindful of staff capacity/time • Ensure that other work requests(e.g.,from board and commissions)do not inadvertently re-prioritize staff time away from Council priorities 2. Keep a list of possible new ideas for future consideration—but don't pursue them now • Review the list during budget process or on at a 6 month progress update ■ If the Council adds something,be purposeful in explaining that delays will occur 3. Staff and Council all work through the City Manager;staff direction is based on Council direction as a body 4. Effective teamwork between Council members and with staff 10 Held April 4,2016 Workshop Report Management Partners The roles and norms of council and staff reviewed with the participants are as follows: Roles Council Staff • Set policy direction • Implement the direction set by the • Operate as a body,with the majority Council as a body setting direction • Take day to day direction from the City • Be mindful of resource constraints Manager • Listen to the community,including • Stay current on professional practices people who speak up and those who and follow ethical principles(e.g., do not through League of California Cities • Respect the role of professional staff trainings) • Ask questions of staff through the City • Provide recommendations to the Manager Council based on professional • Treat everyone with respect expertise and objective analysis • Continually learn about municipal • Provide information to the Council, government(e.g.,League of California through the City Manager,to keep the Cities trainings) Council informed • Treat everyone with respect The modeling of positive civic behavior reviewed with the participants are as follows: Modeling Positive Civic Behavior respectfulBe e e Bee Be respectful in what youee e (] ED Q a 11 Held April 4,2016 Workshop Report Management Partners Small Group Discussions Working first in small groups and then discussing as a large group, the Council and executive team discussed three questions: • What could impede achieving the priorities? • How could Council deal with requests for new tasks? • Would an annual Commission work plan assist in prioritizing their work? f Ask OVW1 Summary of Discussion Potential impediments to progress: • Unforeseen emergencies or circumstances • Loss of staff • Being unclear about the objective or intended purpose of a priority • Lack of adequate staff time for analysis, preparing reports, providing sufficient information to Council • Inadequate timelines set to complete a project • Funding • Inadequate communications between Council and staff • Bringing politics to the dais • Preconceived notions of what the Council should do;special interests • Inadequate information by staff about potential consequences of actions • Council curfew of 9 pm • Competing priorities;changing priorities • Lengthy oral communications at the beginning of Council meetings • Lack of finishing agenda items at the Council meetings • Litigation • Unfunded mandates,state actions, outside government agencies 12 Held April 4,2016 Workshop Report Management Partners Options for dealing with new requests that arise: • Be realistic and manage expectations • Discussion of any new task could require a discussion of what could come off the list,or be deferred • Every agenda item could reference a priority number • Create a continuing list of new ideas,but don't act on them until an established point(e.g.,next strategic planning) • Have a clear understanding of the scope of work of the new request • Have a Council discussion with information from the City Manager on the impact of the new request • Conduct surveys and community workshops • Use the commissions • Be transparent about staff capacity • Inventory requests for future consideration • Regular updates • Better explanation of City processes • Identify other agencies that would be involved Commission work plan ideas: • Commissions add value,provide good input and expertise and their ideas are welcome and important • Determine how the commissions can support the Council's priorities • Need specific,tangible recommendations from commissions • Council could prioritize the work plan elements for commissions • Council could ask commissions to work on specific things • The results of the strategic planning priorities should be shared with commissions • Problem of using staff capacity on projects identified by a single commissioner needs to be resolved • Possible joint meeting of Council and all commissions to discuss the Council's priorities 13 Held April 4,2016 Workshop Report Management Partners Wrap Up The workshop concluded with a discussion of next steps,which include preparation of a workshop report and confirmation of priorities at a Council meeting. Closing Comments from Participants Each member of Council and the executive staff share comments about what they appreciated about the day. • Was a good opportunity meet people, interact with Council and staff,hear from the community • Got our ideas out;prioritized • On major issues coming to Council, it is important for staff to brief the Council in advance • List of priorities provided by staff was helpful • Civility was evident • Heard from decision makers • Accomplished a lot • Liked the visuals provided • Nice way to interact and get to know people • Productive workshop • Came away with priorities;alignment on Council about priorities. • Valuable to hear from each other in a more informal setting;small group discussions were good • Community members came and share their ideas. • Results will be used to help build the budget • Council recognizes there are limited staff resources/capacity • Good turnout of the community • Several commissioners were present • Helpful discussions about the commissions • Constructive day • Liked having everything on one list • Good to have informal discussions with staff • Day was well organized • Sharing of ideas together 14 Held April 4,2016 Attachment A–Priority Tiers With Dot Voting Management Partners PriorityDot Voting Note:A photo of the poster with dots is shown in Attachment C. Top Tier:Key Priorities and Primary Resource Allocation Each Councilmember was given four dots to place beside the highest priorities within this top tier. Priority# .• Dot Voting A-1 Improve Street Maintenance and Rehab Program •••••(5) A-2 Implement Water Reorganization —(3) A-3 Renegotiate Riding Park Lease/Increased Public Access ••(2) A-4 Design and Construct Northwest Open Space Park ••(2) A-5 Resolve Water Lawsuits A-6 Resolve Land Use Lawsuits A-7 Transition to District Elections •(1) A-8 Actively Oppose SDGE Substation Project A-9 Encourage Quality Commercial Development Opportunities ••(2) A-10 Expand Recycled Water to Riding Park A-11 Process Hotel Projects(2) •••(3) A-12 Sell City-Owned Downtown Parcels& Lower Rosan Ranch --(2) A-13 Negotiate Landfill Host City Cooperative Agreement A-14 Process Pacifica San Juan Residential Development A-15 Fill Key Vacancies&Improve Morale Second Tier:Efforts Also Underway Each Councilmember was given four dots(yellow)to place beside items that are their highest priorities, and another three dots(in orange)to place beside items that could potentially be delayed in order to free up capacity. SecondPriority# Dot Voting* Yellow Dots Orange (Highest Dots priority (Items items in Tier that could 2) be delayed) B-1 Identify Options to Address Congregate Living Facilities as (2) B-2 Trail Connection and Improvement Projects as (2) B-3 Resolve"Ghost Train"Issue *see(4) 15 Held April 4,2016 Attachment A—Priority Tiers With Dot Voting Management Partners Priority# Second Tier:Efforts Also Underway Dot Voting* B-4 Drought Ordinance Implementation and Water Conservation B-5 Swanner House License Agreement B-6 The Oaks License Agreement B-7 Blas Aguilar License Agreement B-g Misc.Water/Sewer Infrastructure Capital Projects •(1) •(1) B-9 Uber Partnership Program .•(2) B-10 Improve and Expand Summer Trolley Program ••(2) B-11 IT Master Plan B-12 HTC Master Plan •(1) B-13 Re-Zone City Hall Site for Housing •(1) B-14 Amend Political Sign Ordinance B-15 Personnel Class and Compensation Study B-16 Negotiation of Expiring MOUS for Employee Associations B-17 Complete Citywide Fee Study •(1) B-18 Implement Organic Food Waste Program B-19 Verdugo Street Beautification •(1) ••■(3) Del Obispo Street Widening/San Juan Creek Rd.(Note:these are •••(3) two projects,and there was support to move forward with the (only the San Juan Creek Road project) Del Obispo Street widening B-20 project) B-21 Update Website and Improve Social Media •(1) B-22 Expand Emergency Preparedness Efforts •(1) B-23 Implement Records Management Program/PRA Requests •••(3) •(1) *Note: Yellow indicates highest priorities,orange indicates areas that could be lower priorities. 16 Held April 4,2016 Attachment A—Priority Tiers With Dot Voting Management Partners Third Tier: Non-Programmed Councilmembers were each given two dots(blue)to place beside any items in the third or fourth tiers that they would like to see moved into the second tier. Non-ProgrammedPriority# Third Tier: Dot Voting I C-1 Prepare Long-Range Financial Plan C-2 Additional Sheriff's Deputies •(1) C-3 Additional Code Enforcement Officers •(1) CA Identify and Purchase Site for New City Hall •(1) C-5 Reduce Unfunded Pension Liability C-6 Recycled Water Expansion Feasibility Study C-7 Design and Construct Skatepark •(1) C-8 Monument Sign at Ortega and La Pata Gateway C-9 Monument Sign at Ortega and Del Obispo Gateway C-10 Blas Aguilar Landscaping and Site Improvements C-11 Downtown Parking Structure +(1) C-12 Groundwater Recharge with Stormwater C-13 Revise Neighborhood Parking Program •(1) C-14 Site and Construct Community Pool C-15 LED Street Light Technology C-16 Reata Park Equestrian Improvements C-17 Residential Rental Inspection Program •(1) C-18 Ortega Highway Congestion Relief C-19 News Rack Ordinance Fourth Tier: New Ideas and Emerging Issues No dots were placed on items in this tier. Priority# Fourth Tier:New ideas and Emerging issues D-1 City Council Term Limits D-2 Plan"All Volunteer Day" D-3 Identify East/West Arterial Alignment(Toll Road) D-4 Re-Institute Citizen's Academy D-5 Re-institute Citywide Newsletter D-6 City Non-Profit Organization 0-7 Animal Shelter D-8 Temporary Downtown Parking(Tennis Courts) 17 Held April 4,2016 Attachment B—Workshop PowerPoint Presentation Management Partners Attachment B — Workshop PowerPoint Presentation Public Comments Monday,April 4,2016 Management Partners •• Objectives Today's • Agenda • Public comments • Understand budget and • Discuss accomplishments and understand resource constraints r r, what contributed to them • Establish priorities for the year it�t r _i_, • Orientation to operating environment and project list 1 I, Posi r Establish priorities • Discuss methods of optimizing progress „� • Wrap up What is Priority Setting, Discussion of • Establishes how limited resources will be Any City accomplishment of important City allocated—money,staff time,Council time objectives is the result of partnership between ' Allows for realistic assessment of what can be Council and staff done,so that key items are accomplished •Requires teamwork • Considers the on-going work of the •Requires mutual respect and understanding of organization how each person contributes to success • Is a way for policy makers and staff to be on the same page with expectations 18 Held April 4,2016 Attachment B—Workshop PowerPoint Presentation Management Partners Accomplishments Cited bV Councilmernbers Discussion About Accomplishments New clt,menage,and stall Interchange on Ortega Highway • Roped Creek.9,,-At., Denied Ortega Highway widening Resolyed!.—It, Resolved�esoesrega,ding • What Other I • Reduced spending equennan facdihes and bicycle accomplishments • Advanang Hotel Projects tryds OCCUrred7 Remstituted Design Review Board TIo11-Y program Implemented procedural changes NW open space as cultural cense, ' What factors (e.g.,consent calendar, Guidelines for-ono,. al Rosenberg's Rules pf Order, photographers on los Riot street contributed to our motipn to,lecons,derat,onl • Nringnborhood gwbty of!de success • City Relay rpr life Team lommntee Acqu.sHron and preservation of Restoration of Egan Mouse _ open space 'F"rated streets moved to higher ' Got through the Great Retasslon pn Onty J Orientation • Operating EnvironmentOverview and Resources Staffing • Lean staffing Entirely new executive team • ' Many key personnel with<1 year in organization Limited financial Recent retirements resources Over 15 active recruitments k ' N roughly 20%of workforce j 1 Budget Preview s t Preliminary GF Revenue Outlook • Preparing FY 2016.17 and 2017-18 budget Strong property tax growth • Workshop in May 2016 Declining sales tax in 2016-17 End of"triple flip' • Adoption in June 2016 • Lower gasoline prices • Timing is challenging with new staff • Overall very modest growth in 2016.17 bh �j,lzi�i Maintain healthy reserves �Yfs� Preliminary GF Expenditures Balancing the GF Budget, 2016-17 Key Cost Increases No new positions,programs or services • 6%increase in Sheriff's contract No transfer to CIP Fund or reserves •Affecting all contract titles Use gas tax for street maintenance instead of Ongoing litigation capital projects •City personnel costs(3%increase by contract) One-time freeze in depreciation funding • No transfer from reserves No new revenue sources • Fills all vacancies 19 Held April 4,2016 Attachment B—Workshop PowerPoint Presentation Management Partners ForecastGeneral Fund • -.• • City Manager is"bullish"on San Juan Capistrano • New hotels Z Commercial development opportunities Property tax � sales ux Mitigation lees/pubirc amenities •Downtown redevelopment J • Expiration of judgment obligation bonds Other Options., Mariagemeor Staff During a 40+hour wank • Revenue Enhancement Expenditure Control Pe r.mar.real of ao ou,e •CIC Waste agreement Freeze vacant positions 70%on day-to-day management of the •Grant funding Cut special events depanment(a/-28 haursl • Paid Parking • service reductions •1D%on preparing stall reports for Council meen ngs(+/-4 hours( 10%on committees and task farces(+/-+1 hours) • 10%on special projects additional to.bw per—k on •1 s• �� communlly mono,eveMng meetings, oommunluYem Review of Project • Orientation to Project List •Tiers •Review of each item •Pink: Key priorities and primary resource Review of Tiers allocations • Confirm or modify top tier priorities •Yellow: Efforts also underway • Confirm or modify second tier priorities •Blue: Non-programmed • Determine whether resources are or can be made •Green: New ideas and emerging issues available to do everything on top two tiers • Determine Council consensus 1�ricjritization Methods of Optimizing Progress 1. Stay focused on the agreed upon goals—don't add new things • Top tier-pink: • Be mindful of staff capacity/time • Do all of these represent top priorities of the Council? [mere that other work requet4,le g.from board and commissions) • Second tier—Yellow: do not inadvertently re-prioritize staff time away from Council priorities •What are the highest priorities of Council in this tier? 2. Keep a list of possible new ideas for future consideration •Should any in this tier move to non-programmed? -but don't pursue them now • Third tier-blue; Review the list during budget process or on at a 6 month progress •Are there any of these that are higher priorities than update any items in the pink or yellow tiers? If the Council adds something,be purposeful in explaining that delays will occur • Fourth tier—green; 3. staff works through the city Manager and based on Council •Should any of these displace item(s)from the top two direction as a body tiers? 4. Effective teamwork between Councilmembem and with staff 20 Held April 4,2016 Attachment B—Workshop PowerPoint Presentation Management Partners Roles and Norms McAeling Positive Civw Behavior Council staff • 5J1 polhy drredwn Impt—ant the dit-t—»t by the Operate as a body."th the Counai as a body majority setting duadion • Take day to day dhectton from 1M Be mindful of rasaum conrtnmts GN Managa, Luer to[he commum v'nstluding Stay cdrnnt on p.ol•ssional People who spe..up and Chet• pectins and Wknt ethical who do not Cellorym•C,uit tham�s ataN League of Besp•ct the raN o(proNsuonal Pr de racummendabons to the ' Ask qunbens of staff through the Counul bated on proNsfienal [ity Manager •,perils•and oblecswe.n.Iyvs • tgJt t•enOM m1h 111iNal W.W.W.—t—m the C.—.1,ugh t • y learn about munin I throgls the Gty Manapn,to kelp ConnnZ W the Infprmee govunment t.a LeJgua of TreateverydM arth rasped 'VI, [alifgrma Cann aaimngn ' LL Small • • Discussions Next • • What could impede achieving the priorities? ]an will prepare retreat • Haw could Council deal with report requests for new tasks? • Report will be placed on • Would an annual future Council agenda Commission work plan for approval assist in prioritizing their Final comments from work? Council and executive team 21 Held April 4,2016 Attachment C—Photo of Poster with Dot Voting Management Partners • • of Poster with Dot Voting - a Y _ IT1_.. •rPn Nr-.. .f•.6. _.-.1.., nal Y.rtd::Atipl A-J—� A. aaM C/InN•.arl Nan Nrara•YI O:w•r111aaN Wh A N NI•YprY«(.irttl ll ae ldNasJNt h T san6n.IYLtlral trKUnns .�..; /Y:1rpr:y!}Wna+n KYI.I 1uMIJl.rwi Va0 est p.a txrtrr. '� Il dV Co 1 fle 1 I\('y�lµn!M11 1 •ate-9n }NNIMI N«tY\n nU WA1w.tO N:17r+r VNrY .f JYIf \rr.�..s.11agle�Iren +111' A.1] _ 7rwGl C11Yl1�YrrU\LI.aTlvnipwA OIrY ♦A ta9wn'1(Wen N+M.TI - _ _ .�,1/ -;le 1. it/TtY1\SIT (.Vlalrrn all.l+ rinerN A t� Y-' I•xif s;5wn I rin 11«'W+1 r Unve�nMrrnll - a41S — /... V9LR(N.--MA4nn+nnn fI1M N I tanN/y f101'tr •Aq tr ',n••of 1 ('alnf/aClnl)w v..� Ir G.+-r- t Ill lrr a rU Mtn 'Ia _ Y • 1 N.In�V1'-tanU11 1•,a rb ♦4 U'• II�M(}+y+n.rtlf lfxp.rr..nnl.lurr�r,U Wa1w Cnnar Ywllnn M 1•1Yti11inlr qn 1,sw+F alfrlra.n•eM 1!-e The/>iY t}t eerrrenl (-Y M11 AIl4t1u si. fwl WV •„h 61-Y t rr.aMn W YIIraMr MSO -wnd . nA bA.+na\Ael hrale ern•J b t i 11 NI wl.n Ail - "Rum.—N'M h,1 J 1\r7UiM GIT Nan Cls tlfr NOur P\� An.w.\dµ11Nc•1 fn CH IN nan[! A-t 1 lenl¢nn K wNd C9/n Mallnn 41r8? y�l( N fM ll aiT 4.41'/If!(bi r4TINOk1•e Aa41>Lranrn.._ •.t r CH*A+. w('�\ --ay— U.4— a•tl w - R-tN frnplwwH+H lli YaN[FpNI W.+1e Ae a-1D _- u.wy+•.rNufuaN nn TK( sf M I n ve.�ITtL - u�u•a«avwwn.;nd9r.. n ww(ern. rt12 ignrinn►In.+ q: e.«,.1 art...\. - bz+ Tal..+nnmNa.w.+l+fwt .n1ln alrn/MA11w1iW1T. 7f .IIaY i7n --I ylnn Cl - - - w11tlNNq.s1 MI/f•O« n:w+ _ (•"� iprtti('aM aNf IeT«m Olfaw - G-Y Irlenlf rand NY..w..«SU«IIp NnvY C l NIM -- �� _ T/tl'Itlyd nlron Inn tl;Dr,iM _ _ awd cw.afl was a a1 Gl nwa. dG.r r t-waw+- C-a uyne+Yl J a1�1rT r1 «rld lMal)4»I !H -9 r4r rnfslt anA{+N IT. .(YvesnwrN• C-111 - - 61wnn1Uwir Mw.+ atsr 1w♦ _ C-ll. erm,mdr.n11+1 n f wnlh nrmlwler c.l� \fYlv:fw NT!IWo.11goll n,n>�Iry►r •' - �.11 is« 1A's1N u1 r-r..n��Mw.r.•• c•la _ lscs}�,•rcrrlyns rY�.u..wa _ _ l lnV CcruntU TMT tun U. _ — �- 0.t - - -riLa-nnyMunlawr.owr' — N t'TY ial(llafw+(bT *#1 AlywusrN Ing-1 Nnh/ _ '� (41I Q/rlfMlOY(.STI f 1y s o-� r. Iw .eatl p.•. e] M .!. 1 ..e1Mn • n Inwl in.ilwr 22 3/21/2017 �n F2a City of San Juan Capistrano Agenda Report TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: , n Siegel, City Manager SUBMITTED BY: Steve May, Public Works and Utilities Director,.:40U-t_- Ken AI-Imam, Chief Financial Officer PREPARED BY: Michael Marquis, P.E., Associate Civil Engineer DATE: March 21, 2017 SUBJECT: Consideration of Amending the Scope of the Riding Park Fire Flow and Recycled Water Supply Project (CIP 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 to a Professional Services Agreement for Design of the 2015 Recycled Water Conversion Project (Dudek) (CIP 16601) RECOMMENDATION: By Motion: 1. Amend the scope of the Riding Park Fire Flow and Recycled Water Supply Project (CIP 17201) to add a sewer line to provide sewer service to the site; and, 2. Increase 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 (CIP 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 ATTACHMENT 2 City Council Agenda Report March 21, 2017 Page 2 of 5 time at the discretion of the adjacent property owner with 90 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 (CIP 16601). In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements for a capital project, an Initial Study was prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts of a project that would furnish the proposed water and sewer facilities. The Initial 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. It 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 Inc. 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. Recycled 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 Page 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. It 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. In 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. Sanitary 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 Impact section of this report. Project Schedule: Design for the Project is in progress. Following is the anticipated schedule for the Project through construction: • Design Completion — April 2017 • Competitive Bidding — May 2017 • Construction — July 2017 thru January 2018 (Accommodates Blenheim Facilities Management Schedule of events) City Council Agenda Report March 21, 2017 Page 4 of 5 FISCAL IMPACT The Fiscal Year 2016-2017 budget for the Riding Park Fire Flow and Recycled Water Supply Project (CIP 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: * $462,900 from the Agricultural Preservation Fund (Fund 13); and • $92,300 from the Eastern Open Space Fund (Fund 19). If 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 (CIP 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 Intent 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 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. 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 IS/MND. It 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 Bill 52, the City sent a letter to the two tribes that requested notification of proposed projects - 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 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 Indians on February 17, 2017, and again on February 23, 2017. A record of this consultation is included as Attachment 3. The Initial 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 Page 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 (CIP 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 (CIP 17201) budget to fund the sewer line. NOTIFICATION: ® On January 12, 2017, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration and Initial Study was posted with the Orange County Clerk recorder, where it remained posted for a period of 30 days. • Blenheim Facilities Management • Utilities Commissioners ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Resolution to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 2: Final Initial 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 RESOLUTION 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 Water and 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, § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 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 Initial Study pursuant to CEQA; and Whereas, the Initial 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 Intent to adopt an Initial 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 "A" and 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/Initial Study,and the City ATTACHMENT 1 Page 1 of 6 Council discussed and considered the Project, the MND/Initial 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 IT 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 Quality Act (CEQA) after having reviewed and considered the information contained in the MND/Initial Study, and the entirety of the administrative record before the City: 1. The City Council finds that the MND/Initial 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/Initial Study, and oral and written comments received, that there is no substantial evidence supporting a fair 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 "A" 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/Initial Study. SECTION 4. The City 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 of 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" day of March 2017. KERRY FERGUSON, MAYOR ATTEST: MARIA MORRIS, CITY CLERK ATTACHMENT 1 Page 3 of 6 EXHIBIT "A" 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 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 DATE TIMING OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLETED NO. I MITIGATION MEASURE METHOD OF VERIFICATION VERIFICATION STAFF &INITIALS Biolog rical Resources To ensure avoidance of impacts to sensitive resources and potential Development jurisdictional habitat associated with the tributary drainage area onsite, Services Alternative Alignment B for the Recycled Water Line shall be eliminated from Plan Check& Department- BR-1 the final project design. The Recycled Water Line shall be constructed using Construction Prior to the start of Planning either Alternative Alignment A or C. Monitoring construction Division & Public Works Department Prior to any construction work, including staging of equipment or materials, Development the boundaries of the "Sensitive Resource Area" shall be clearly marked to Services ensure that no direct impacts occur to the native habitat or to jurisdictional Plan Check& Department- BR-2 resources. Construction Prior to the start of Planning Monitoring construction. Division & Public Works Department 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 Development effects on nesting birds. Appropriate measures may include attenuating Services construction noise (through sound-dampening boards or other equipment) to Plan Check& Department- s level of 60 dBA(as measured in the vicinity of the nest) or otherwise limiting Prior to the start of BR-3 disturbances within a certain distance of the nest until nesting is complete. If Construction construction Planning the level of 60 dBA cannot be achieved, or if the biological monitor otherwise Monitoring Division & considers it necessary to avoid potential impacts, the biological monitor shall Building be present during construction activities to ensure that nesting birds are not Division C) 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 MCD K carried out without disruption of nesting, or when the nest is determined to 0 z have fledged or failed. DATE TIMING OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLETED NO. MITIGATION MEASURE METHOD OF VERIFICATION VERIFICATION STAFF &INITIALS Prior to approval of final construction plans and specifications for the Development proposed pipeline, the City shall submit and will have secured U.S. Fish and USFWS Approval of Services Wildlife Service approval of a Biological Resources Conservation Plan Biological Department- BR-4 (BRCP) that ensures that construction activities for the proposed pipeline Resources Prior to the start of Building (and associated meter station and pressure reducing valve) are consistent Conservation Plan construction. Division & with the goals and objectives of the Rancho Mission Viejo Habitat (BRCP) Planning Conservation Plan. Division Hazards&Hazardous Materials Prior to any trenching or excavation, the City shall establish and mark the Development location of the Kinder Morgan pipeline in the vicinity of the proposed project. Services The use of mechanical construction excavation equipment shall not be Department- permitted within two feet of the alignments of the two Kinder Morgan pipelines Plan Check-Permit Environmental HM- that traverse the site (as identified in Kinder Morgan, 2012). Any activities Review& Field Prior to start of constructionAdministrator 1 that disturb the ground surface within 10 feet of the alignments shall be Monitoring . and monitored by a qualified representative, as determined by Kinder Morgan, of Construction the owner or operator of the pipelines (Kinder Morgan). Inspector D D � C7 v = rn rn m o Z rn � iris i'1 Rancho Mission Viejo Riding Park at San Juan Capistrano Water and Sanitary ',-;ewer 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 sewer facilities 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 of the project's compliance with AB 52 (Appendix E); • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Appendix F). ATTACHMENT 2 Page 2 of 94 ;«.. 1171 Rancho Mission Viejo Riding Park at San Juan Capistrano Water and Sanitary Sewer Facilities Project Public Review Draft Initial Study Development Services Department City of San Juan Capistrano 32400 Paseo Adelanto 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 (CDP 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 forthe 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 Villa Park 00 �; Orange fi 1 Park Acres Garden Orange EI Modena .,a .ti Grove � .r Ho+ttl`� r!, ;;rts (sal 1en G1 owe� " Wastonoon North 1 usttn square. Santiago aster Santa Ana nary Tustin Cantor, r •�,, orchard Ift Csaar allt H do rntain f vr"gfeen a} co-op Limestone 'alley Canyon SS Regional PAP Portola Hills nhn Wayne INIIt@ 74t Foothill ".v Port Ranch 'f' Orange CourMy * Great Park Canyon Santa 7J Canyon HIgnls r,.� Lake For Rancho Santa R ' " Costa Mesa ''� r1ua+l"01 0 Margarita h"dy � Dove < yo TurtleRMpe '''" Laguna anpon Newport Ha� �., , Woods Mission Beach Newport Melo Iia+ Balboa Coast Laguna HAI$ Coto Do crystalcove Las Flores Gaza State Palk S Lnaa+R sal Viejo Galtvan Caeis WfderneCa "' Aliso 73 Rt!gmnel Path Laguna Lader. Beach Ran& Laguna Niguel 0 7a 74 Cls ga MND South Laguna San Juan PROJECT Capistrano LOCATION Monetch REach notA 0. Dana Point C.{p,A'.,• nl San Clemenle San Onoffe e Stale Beach �s Source:Google Maps " Exhibit 1 Regional Location ATTACHMENT 2 Page 5 of 94 ,I l i' -N Sc� 1 Rancho Mission Viejo Riding Park at San Juan Capistrano • '' �'� + #!fir(; i ;tK., V MAk ■� Vic''? 4 +►�..' .�w f' ~• . � it '�I� '�, .;i RANCHO MISSION VIEJO RIDING PARK WATER & SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO wr a �• �� 1,.=:: �` ,,�'' � _ - -= Site l Boundary ,�. •�* P ;-vt , Stables Turf Field �Y Riding Arenas /y+ A - 4A a " fll<IIA � ili slip . Parking LotR Y k e --- `• Z Sensitive �+�.. x '-• -" * .., Resource Areas - ., > r v 4 - 0 i0G ^OGQ! CD N O CO 4�6 Nurce:City of San Juan Capistrano Exhibit 3 Site Features RANCHO MISSION VIEJO RIDING PARK WATER & SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO 7j& 77 ♦ ,f a/ .. '. • _ - '`� . `® Site Rotrndar _ yry �f- - �•�Pi ""� ^yjys`'�"'1' • .,.,fir` v'.y�,� =��«�� I//'}'(" r! _ F " Proposed Dpmestic � Proposed -s Water Li e y ., - , -t Sewer Line �. a r 7 � x 1' 1PrepI'p Sed ' Existing 12" ,R dsA��• Proposed Recycled Recycled ` Re ycled Wat�r Recycled Water Water Line-Alt.A Water Line - Line,;Alt C. Lune-Alt.B r - �--.•- r Sensitive . Resource Areas a M / 4f �Fnr W O X11 �lJ Nurce:City of San Juan Capistrano Exhibit 4 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 Stable Wash Racks (new) 1 2 Domestic Water Line Fire Suppression None.* (new) * Emergency use only(annual average is not applicable) The project also proposes to install 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 onsite. 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.) PROJECT TIME LINE Recycled Water Line Domestic Water Line Sewer Line Sewer Laterals& Manholes Construction Equipment 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(HGP),a Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) and a Master Streambed Alteration Agreement (MSAA), all of which were established prior to purchase of the property by the City when the property was 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 Nith 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.Fish and Wildlife Service, in compliance with conditions of the Habitat Conservation Plan(HCP)that governs the site. 11. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: Uses proposed under the Ranch Plan were addressed as part of Final EIR 589 certified by the County of Orange in 2004. Addendum No. 1 to Final EIR 589 further addressed specific uses planned for Planning Area 1 with the approval of the Master Areas Plan and Subarea Plans. In 2013, the City prepared and adopted an Initial 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 potential 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 Al 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, 2016, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis for the Rancho Mission Viejo Riding Park Water System Initial Study. -City of San Juan Capistrano, General Plan. -City of San Juan Capistrano, General Plan Environmental Impact Report(1999). -City of San Juan Capistrano,Title 9, Land Use Code. -City of San Juan Capistrano, Environmental Review Guidelines. -City of San Juan Capistrano, 2013, Initial Study/MND, -City of San Juan Capistrano,2012, Initial Study/MND, Reata Park and Event Center Master Plan County of Orange, 2004, Final Environmental Impact Report, RMV Ranch Plan. •EDR, 2010. Certified Sanborn Map Report, East Open Space. Prepared for City of San Juan Capistrano. -EEI Geotechnical&Environmental Solutions,July 2009. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, RMV Planning Area 1, Parcels 7 and 8. -Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Hamilton Biological,November 8,2016. Biological Survey Report, RW/DW Utility Project,City of San Juan Capistrano,Orange County, Ca. -Kinder Morgan, Sept. 20, 2012. Letter to Ed Almanza, re Proposed Passive Recreational Park. -Lawson & Associates Geotechnical Consulting, Inc., 2009. Geotechnical due diligence„ Rancho Mission Viejo Property, RMV Planning Area 1 —Parcels 7 and 8 in the County of Orange. Prepared for the City of San Juan Capistrano. 13. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages: ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ® Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology&Soils ® Hazards&Hazardous Mats. ❑ Hydrology&Water Quality ® Land Use&Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population &Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation &Traffic ❑ Utilities& Service Systems ® Mandatory Findings of Significance 14. DETERMINATION. (To be completed by lead agency) Based on this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact"or"potentially significant unless mitigated"impact on the environment,but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzers in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ATTACHMENT 2 Page 13 of 94 Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -S- City of San Juan Capistrano, California ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 15. ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINATION(Section 9-2.201 of SJC Municipal Code): The initial study for this project has been reviewed and the environmental determination is hereby approved: Date: January 6, 2017 Sergio lila , Assistant Development Services Director 16, ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts which may result from the proposed project. For the evaluation of potential impacts,the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and answers are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis considers the project's short-term impacts(construction-related), and its operational or day-to-day impacts. For each question, the following should be provided: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone).A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards(e.g.,the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the City has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation,or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact"to a "Less Than Significant Impact."The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level(mitigation measures from"Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. ATTACHMENT 2 Page 14 of 94 b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts(e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Include a source list and list of individuals contacted or consulted. 8) This form is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Guidelines and all Initial Studies performed on projects within the city must use this format. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify,a)the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question;and b)the mitigation measure identified, if any,to reduce the impact to less than significance. cv o � {Q C cC�pp U U L O 2 U d 6 w U E N Cy C 0 N C a 0 0) N O)� C y � O dfn _ J Vl 3 - J(n E Z 16.1 AESTHETICS. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ b, Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees,rock outcroppings,and historic building along ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a State-designated scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality ❑ ❑ ❑ of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ❑ ❑ ❑ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Principal public views of the site are from portions of Ortega Highway and La Pata Avenue. The Community Design Element of the City's General Plan designates all arterial roadways in the city as Scenic Corridors. As an arterial roadway, Ortega Highway is therefore a Scenic Corridor. The same significance must be attributed to public views from La Pata Avenue, owing to its status as an arterial roadway. Moreover,the site's location at the city's eastern boundary places it at a major gateway between the city to the west and the rural, panoramic views of the open space,agricultural lands,San Juan Creek watershed 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 pipelines will be entirely underground. Only the very relatively small ancillary features(fire hydrants and metering station)will be above ground. While these minor features will be visible from some portions of the Riding Park site,they will not be visible from the public viewshed as seen from Ortega Highway or La Pata Avenue. Nor will they be 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 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 they 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 substantial 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. U ~ O O rJ U d ycm01 E! �+C E a°in J ro S U) z° 16.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance as depicted on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland ❑ ❑ ❑ Mapping and Monitoring Program of the CA. Resources Agency? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act ❑ ❑ ❑ Contract? c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- ❑ ❑ ❑ agricultural use? a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?No impact. No portion of the site is Prime Agricultural Land(as defined by Government Code Section 51201(c)and 56064)or Agricultural Land(as defined by Government Code Section 56016). b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, 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 nonagricultural 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 C � C W 3 N M T C LC C (` L C�p U Fa U ~ V 0 O U n C w- V ` f0 != U E N C O N Ol U1 C (0 01 O. N -- U N O) p 0-U)E J.N� C _j Z 16.3 AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality ❑ ❑ ❑ plan? b. Violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected ❑ ❑ ❑ air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under the applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including ❑ ❑ ❑ E releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ ❑ ID e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ ❑ Infrastructure and utility projects commonly have two major sources of air quality impacts: (1) pollutant emissions generated during construction, and (2) long-term 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 Initial 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 the 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 post-development effects of the facilities are not nearly great enough to exceed these thresholds. Project construction is estimated to occur over a period of approximately 17 weeks for all pipelines and related infrastructure. (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 CaIEEMod (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 of 94 TABLE 1 PEAK CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Pollutant Emissions (lbs./day) Activity VOG NOx CO Sox PM10 PM2.e 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 AQMD 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 transported 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 specified in the AQMP (except as provided for CO in Section 9.4 for relocating CO hot spots). • Whether or not the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in the year of project build- out. Because the proposed 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 result 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 or AQMP. 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 cinder 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(NO2), PM,o and PM2 e, 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 emissions that exceed the SCAQMD recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, the construction and operational emissions of the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable and would result in a less than significant impact. 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 significant pollutant concentrations (see discussion above) and would not affect sensitive receptors. Temporary construction emissions generated on the site will not be significant enough to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Maximum daily emissions 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)'are often a source of pollutants associated with specific activities. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations,even near their source(e.g.,benzene near a freeway). Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about two-thirds of the cancer risk from TACs(based on the statewide average). 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 of TACs. 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 laterals will be entirely enclosed and free of emissions. The proposed pipeline will not result in significant impacts to air quality at the regional 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 manufacturer'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 �3 m m U ... ~ O U .. 0. LE U U U E N C N N C LM O N C lC N Nm O IL 65 E � 'uj � m in E z° 16.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or ❑ M ❑ ❑ 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, ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ® ❑ ❑ limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 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? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ❑ ❑ ❑ 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, ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 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 molle),London Plane Tree(P/atanus X acerifolia),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 lasiolepis),Black Willow(S.gooddingh), Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Blue Elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea), Mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia),and Poison Oak(Toxicodendron diversilobum). Some non-native plants also occur in these areas, including Giant Reed (Arundo donax)and Blue Gum (Eucalyptus globulus). • Coastal sage scrub, dominated by native Coast Goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii), California Sagebrush(Artemisia californica), and Mulefat. • Ruderal habitat dominated by non-native weeds and grasses, including Russian Thistle (Sa/so/a tragus), Black Mustard (Brassica nigra), Australian Saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata), Crystalline ATTACHMENT 2 Page 21 of 94 Iceplant(Mesembryanthemum crystallinum), Italian Thistle(Carduus pycnocephalus), 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 April 2013 and September 2016, the investigating 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 current 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) • 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 cismontane(Chaparral Nolina) • Pentachaeta aurea 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 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)' • 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)' • Myotis yumanensis(Yuma Myotis) • Phrynosoma blainvillei(Coast Horned Lizard) • Polioptila californica californica(California Gnatcatcher) • Setophaga petechia(Yellow Warbler)' ' 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 hammondh(Two-striped Garter Snake) • Vireo bellii pusillus(Least Bell's Vireo) As described previously, an isolated seasonal streambed in the central western portion of the 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 6-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. This 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 policylordinance? No impact. Construction of the proposed facilities will not result in the removal of trees,or otherwise conflict with 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, identified above. With implementation of mitigation measures,potential impacts to biological resources would be reduced to a level below significance. p3 Z a T U ~ C O y C a :7 ami c � N rn m E oE ci rn= y-Lm o 0-U) E _j Fn c �(n z 16.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of CEQA? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 11 El archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of CEQA? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site Ej El 0 or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal 11 El 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 Quality 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 areas, has been disturbed 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 archival and field studies indicated no significant cultural resources to be present within a'/- mile radius of the Riding Park. Although there are recorded prehistoric archaeological sites within a'/4-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 recorded within a '/-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 of formal 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. I C 3 y 2'C L C C A L C U �p F- 5 �p (0 - � U O O U a La u E N C a N C 0 C _ Q^Q N N a in _J 'n C J U) 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ 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- ❑ ❑ ❑ El site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 1994 ❑ ❑ ❑ UBC, creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not ❑ ❑ ❑ available for the disposal of waste water? Responses to questions related to soils and geology are based on a geotechnical investigation prepared for the site(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 loss, injury, or death involving: 1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) No impact. According to the geotechnical study, no active or potentially active faults are known to cross the site (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 (10) earthquakes of Magnitude 6.0 over a period of 10 years.There are several active and potentially active fault zones in the region that could affect the site. The faults within these zones include the Newport-Inglewood, Whittier, San Andreas, San Jacinto, Malibu-Coast-Raymond, Palos Verdes, San Gabriel,and 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 with 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 loss 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 engineering 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 will sufficiently mitigate potential impacts. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No impact. The project does not include the implementation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. ATTACHMENT 2 Page 27 of 94 The project does not have the potential to result in significant impacts related to geology and soils. 3 d L �E guLu•ao � u.. n C N c �o � c A E 16.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly,that ❑ © f, may have a significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the ❑ purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Global Greenhouse Gas(GHG)emissions are measured in million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent ("MMT CO,EQ")units. A metric ton is approximately 2,205 lbs. Some GHGs emitted into the atmosphere are naturally occurring, while others are caused solely by human activities. The principal GHGs that enter the atmosphere because of human activities are: • Carbon dioxide(CO2)enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels(oil,natural gas, and coal), agriculture, irrigation, and deforestation, as well as the manufacturing of cement. • Methane(CH4)is emitted through the production and transportation of coal, natural gas, and oil, as well as from livestock. Other agricultural activities influence methane emissions as well as the decay of waste in landfills. • Nitrous oxide(N20)is released most often during the burning of fuel at high temperatures. This greenhouse gas is caused mostly by motor vehicles,which also include non-road vehicles, such as those used for agriculture. • Fluorinated Gases are emitted primarily from industrial sources, which often include hydrofluorocarbons(HRC),perfluorocarbons(PFC),and sulfur hexafluoride(SFE). 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(CO2EQ)for comparison purposes. The analysis for this Initial Study uses the screening threshold recommended by the SCAQMD working group of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr(Million Tons of CO2EQ per year). The greatest source of GF IG emissions associated with development projects in California,byfar,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 CO2EQ emissions will be well below the screening threshold of 3,000 million tons per year. ATTACHMENT 2 Page 28 of 94 TABLE 2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS(metric tons per year) CO2EQ Construction Emissions 1.67 Total Emissions 1.67 Screening Threshold: 3,000 Exceeds Threshold? No Source: Cadence Environmental Consultants, 2016 Note: Construction emissions are amortized over 30 years in accordance with SCAQMD guidance (50.11 MTCO2e/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 MTCO2e. 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. � 3 � T C L S C L C U a N C N _� N C C y C . [0.1 N d CL 05 _J S _165.9 Z 16.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through ❑ ❑ N ❑ 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 ❑ N ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ N ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N 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 El ❑ ❑ N 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N area? ATTACHMENT 2 Page 29 of 94 C C f0 N (6 .L.. C U U ~ O O U O �w v w m w v E a� c N 2'a N C a 6- � N' � �in E Z g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ❑ ❑ ❑ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to El ElED urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The Riding Park site was the subject of a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment(EEI,2009)prepared for the City of San Juan Capistrano. The purpose of the Phase 1 ESA was to assess the presence or likely 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-hydrocarbon 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 easement. (An inactive 10-inch line also traverses the site in the eastern portion.) a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than significant impact. The proposed improvements and associated activities do not involve the routine use of hazardous materials. 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 onsite. 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 construction 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, 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 significant 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 aviation). f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No impact. The site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing 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. 3 T C t C C fq y C U ° m F- u � •� o c1°i a C'Ec E 16 m N C _a o c a a°v> _ 'T min Z 16.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., �j the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level El which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river. in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off- site? ATTACHMENT 2 Page 31 of 94 TwF = o0 r � f0 dc M (n .nim E o rnE y 2):Ecyi rnE o IL U) -J m2_ �cn_ z d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other ❑ ❑ U ED flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would ❑ ❑ ❑ impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee ❑ ❑ ❑ or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ k. Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters considering water quality parameters such as temperature,dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical stormwater pollutants(e.g. heavy ❑ ❑ ® ❑ metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, and trash)? 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ o. Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes? ❑ ❑ ❑ p. Tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d)list? If so,can it result in an increase in any ❑ ❑ ® ❑ pollutant for which the water body is already impaired? q. Tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? If so, can it ❑ ❑ ® ❑ exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions? r. Have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water ❑ ❑ ® ❑ quality to either marine,fresh, or wetland waters? s. Have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ ATTACHMENT 2 Page 32 of 94 C C N 3 N (0 fir- C ca L5 (C(pp U U ~ {) O O U d t. Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ beneficial uses? u. Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ v. Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction or post ❑ ❑ ® ❑ construction? w. Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage,vehicle or equipment fueling,vehicle or equipment maintenance(including washing),waste handling,hazardous materials ❑ ❑ ❑ handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? x. Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ beneficial uses of the receiving waters? y. Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or ❑ 1:1 10 volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? z. Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or ❑ ❑ ❑ 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(originating 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,DDE(a breakdown product of DDT),phosphorus, selenium, and nitrogen. Other pollutants of concern include: -Heavy Metals -Nutrients (Ammonia, Nitrate, and Total Phosphorus) -Pesticides -Toxic Organic Compounds -Suspended Solid Sediments Trash and Debris -Oil and Grease -Bacteria/Virus 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 basins,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 stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No impact. See response to Response(a)above. • Otherwise substantially degrade waterquality? No Impact. See previous discussion and response to (a)above. ATTACHMENT 2 Page 34 of 94 g) Place housing within a 900-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 orredirect flood flows? No impact. According to FEMA maps, the site is well Outside all 100-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 of Trampas 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 proposed project from seiche, tsunami or mudflow, as no topographical features or water bodies capable of producing such events occur within the project site vicinity. k) Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters? Consider water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical 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 WaterAct 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 Response to (a) above. s) Have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality? No impact. See Responses to(a)and(b)above. t) Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? 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 orpostconstruction? Less than significant impact. See Responses to (a), (c)and (1) above. w) Result in a potential for discharge of s torm 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 stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? No Impact. See Response to(a), (c)and (1)above. z) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? No Impact. See Responses to(a)and (1)above. The project will have no significant adverse effects relative to hydrology and water quality. C > 6O 3 C (tC�p L C C w w U U _ n .N C � N C 07 N C N E gainE °.7 _ J(n z 16.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan. policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the General Plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑ ❑ ❑ community conservation plan? Land uses on and around the site are illustrated in Exhibit 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,orregulation ofan 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? 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. t {Cp C (Cmp U a U ~ U 0 O U . a cc (0 V N C 0 00 fq C O fN/J C d 0-U) E _'N'2 E min E z° 16.11 MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that ❑ ❑ ❑ would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other ❑ ❑ ❑ land use plan? a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. There are no locally-important mineral resources underlying the site. There are no mineral recovery sites on or near the site. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. Refer to Response (a), above. The project will have no impact on mineral resources. c a c � 3 co 6 Tig ° o c� a � cM NcoP La 0 ycm E O N O! U 01 a O d 05E J N 5 C J Cn E z 16.12 NOISE. Would the project: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or ❑ ❑ applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ❑ ❑ ❑ vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ ❑ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in E] ❑ ® ❑ the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or ❑ ❑ ❑ public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? re For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project xpose people residing or working in the project area to excessive El El ❑oise levels? ATTACHMENT 2 Page 37 of 94 During operation,the proposed domestic waterline,recycled waterline and wastewater line will 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 Ordinance limits construction and demolition hours to 7 AM to 6 PM, Monday through Friday and 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM on Saturday. Construction activities are not permitted on Sunday or on national holidays. Compliance with the ordinance would ensure the project's conformance with adopted noise thresholds and avoidance of any adverse impacts related to noise. (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 8:30 AM through 4.30 PM on Saturday, will effectively ensure that the project does not exceed adopted standards and successfully avoids significant noise impacts. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No impact. The site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Construction and use of the proposed facilities will not create significant noise impacts. ATTACHMENT 2 Page 38 of 94 m 3 m fC�pp U U ~ 010 O U O. !_ U 0E N C W N C -O N C N �O N ,y N Ola a.05 E _all V; -01 E 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ Ll ❑ 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. O 8 ~ 8 — - O o. m w u E N C fN/1 C �_ O N C M a Cn E J'f/l 2 J(n 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ Police Protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 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. ,� 3 �, �'C L C C (p � C U E Nc � om (D LM 5 C Erna o acn z 16.15 RECREATION. Would the project: a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities,which might have ❑ ❑ ❑ an adverse physical effect on the environment? a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occurorbe accelerated? No Impact. The proposed 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 T CM 6 C (C(pp U U t U a N U a c = a a E N C N C 7 N C fd _ a in _J J C/) 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ] designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety ❑ ❑ ❑ risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g., farm ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ El ❑ f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting ❑ ❑ 11alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ED 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 exceeded3. 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 substantial 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. '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. 3 ,t,,, Cryry U U ~ O O U p ami c R o w m E N N a d(n J Fn 2 C JU)E Z 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 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 ❑ ❑ E] 0 to solid waste? 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. LC C c L (C�pp U U ~ 10a C w U 0 N e w U E N C O 41 C ," O N C Itl ~O Q U _O) O_ O a-U) J IN 2r C Jfn Z 16.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.Would the project: a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to decrease below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, ED 0 ❑ 1:1 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 F_] El 11 disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? ATTACHMENT 2 Page 43 of 94 Cp C M R M , tCL C C Ip .ice.. E�p U i--U O O UG , C 4_ U w (d 4_ U N C@ N C _�b N C M J Cn 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 past, present, and future effects of other projects)? d. Does the project have environmental effects which will have ® El ❑ substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly? a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to decrease below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than significant with mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-1 will ensure that the pipeline alignment avoids direct impacts 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-tern, 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 ^; CAD ENCE LNVIRONNILN IAL CONSUL fAN IS December 6,2016 o Ed Almanza Ed Almanza&Associates C y P.O.Box 9396 m Laguna Beach,CA 92652 v �o 0 co0 Re: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis for the Rancho Mission Viejo Riding UPark Water and Sanitary Sewer Facilities Project 0 .L E co U Dear Ed, ai o Cadence Environmental Consultants appreciates this opportunity to provide this air quality and 0 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 co U) (.0 prepared for the project under contract to the City of San Juan Capistrano. co E Project Understanding 0 U C 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 co @ water line. Instead, water is currently provided to the Riding Park through two sources: (1)domestic 0 I water from a sub-metered connection sourced from the adjacent property, which has a metered UJ connection to the City's domestic water line);and (2)irrigation water comes from a privately owned 0 water well on the neighboring property to the south (Cotton property) conveyed to the Riding Park N CD through a privately owned pipe. The off-site well, which has provided water to the site for many ,LO years since before the City's purchase of the park site in 2010,will no longer be an available source of 0 cO water after September 2017. The City of San Juan Capistrano is, therefore, undertaking a project to H 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 r CADENCE LNV(RCNMLN IAL CONSUL TAN I 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 E 12-inch fire service connection will be extended from the end of the City's waterline into the v 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 C and 24 to 30 inches wide. m v 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 0 o southwest of the Riding Park property line.The City proposes to construct an 8-inch line from the co PRS, or from a new connection point along the existing 12-inch recycled water line on the site, to U connect to the existing irrigation system. The connection will follow one of the three alternative 0 E alignments. Depending on which alignment is selected, the 8-inch line will be up to 360 feet in Ulength. 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 o to the Riding Park's existing irrigation line. 0 3. Metering Stations-A 2-inch Service Meter will be installed to measure the flow of domestic water co provided to the site.A 6-inch meter and backflow device will be constructed where the Domestic U) C° line crosses the irrigation line, for use as an emergency supply to the irrigation line if recycled 00 E 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. C Q) 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 m U 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 C_ W 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 `v are proposed to extend from the wash down areas to the sewer line.The sewer line will be placed LQ in a trench that ranges from 8 to 14 feet in depth and 24 to 32 inches in width.The lateral lines will LO coo be placed at similar depths with a trench width of 12 to 18 inches. F- 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. 2of17 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 47 of 94 CADENCE (-_ LNVIRONNILN IAL CONSUL IAN IS Construction equipment that would be used to install each of the project components is given below. Domestic Waterline:Caterpillar 416C combination backhoe/loader. E q Sewer Line, laterals and manholes: Construction equipment will include an excavator, a loader, a 0 dump truck and two small pick-up trucks. Excavation of the lateral lines will use a smaller c combination excavator/loader. d ca Recycled Water Line:Caterpillar 416C combination backhoe/loader. CD Air Quality Impact Analysis 0 CO QIn accordance with Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines, a project could have a potentially significant U o air quality impact if any of the following were to occur: c� E (a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; c� U ai (b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality o violation; 0 `v°, (c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project CO region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard 00 (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors); E o (d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations;or U C (e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. U C Explanation of Checklist Answers U oThe City of San Juan Capistrano is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which exceeds F_ LU national and State ambient air quality standards for several air pollutants. The SCAQMD is the Co 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 C) Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, and local governments and cooperates Iq CO 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 3of17 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 48 of 94 CADENCE C LNJVIRONfvILN IAL COUSUL iAN IS 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 E 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 mpotential 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 v recommends be followed during environmental review processes required by CEQA. The CEQA Air o 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 U mitigate these impacts. The SCAQMD intends that by providing this guidance, the air quality o impacts of plans and development proposals will be analyzed accurately and consistently throughout L the region,and adverse impacts will be minimized. E U In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA review process,the City of San Juan Capistrano assesses the o 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 c>3 such mitigation. The City does not, however, have the expertise to develop plans, programs, U) procedures, and methodologies to ensure that air quality within the county and region will meet ca CO federal and state standards. Instead, the city relies upon the expertise of the SCAQMD and utilizes E the CEQA Air Quality Handbook and newer thresholds of significance as the guidance documents for 0 the environmental review of plans and development proposals within its jurisdiction. a� (a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. a� -c3 Less Than Significant Impact. 0 The SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary(area and point), mobile, LU ® and indirect sources to meet federal and State ambient air quality standards. It has responded to this N requirement by preparing a series of AQMPs.The most recent of these was adopted by the Governing CD Board of the SCAQMD on December 7, 2012 and supplemented in February 2015. This AQMP, LO C) referred to as the 2012 AQMP,was prepared to comply with the federal and State Clean Air Acts and 00 F 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 populations exposure 4of17 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 49 of 94 CADENCE LNVIRONbiLN IALCUNSUt?ANI S to unhealthful levels of pollutants,even while substantial population growth has occurred within the Basin. o The future air quality levels projected in the 2012 AQMP are based on several assumptions. For U C: example, the SCAQMD assumes that general new development within the Basin will occur in m accordance with population growth and transportation projections identified by the Southern c 4) California Association of Governments (SCAG) in the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable CU 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 0 C) emissions generated during construction and operation in accordance with SCAQMD and local M jurisdiction regulations which are designed to address air quality impacts and pollution control U measures. 0 EFor general development projects, the SCAQMD recommends that consistency with the current ro U AQMP be determined by demonstrating consistency with adopted local land use plan designations > and/or population projections used in the development of the AQMP. Projects that are consistent L 00 with adopted local land use plan designations and/or applicable population projections would not 6 interfere with air quality attainment because the growth of the project is included in the projections M utilized in the formulation of the 2012 AQMP.As such,projects,uses, and activities that are consistent U) C2 with the applicable assumptions used in the development of the AQMP would not jeopardize 00 E attainment of the air quality levels identified in the AQMP, even if they exceed the SCAQMD's o 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 a� attainment of the air quality conditions projected in the AQMP and is considered to be a significant ro impact. �Ul V — The proposed water and sanitary facilities improvements do not require any changes to the existing w land use designation for the project site and do not foster any increase in growth. Therefore, the CD 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 r 0 u� standards in the area under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The impact of the project would be less LO CO than significant. 5of17 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 50 of 94 e� ' CADENCE j I LNVIRONWNInLLONSULIAN IS (b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. E Less Than Significant Impact. U C: A project may have a significant impact if project-related emissions would exceed federal, State, or dregional standards or thresholds, or if project-related emissions would substantially contribute to an M 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 ca 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 0 operational air quality impacts. 0 TABLE 1 - SCAQMD THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE E Pollutant Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds (pounds/day) (pounds per day) Volatile Organic Compounds(VOC) 75 55 a - - �� Nitrogen Oxides(NOx) 100 55 U) — — m Carbon Monoxide(CO) 550 550 Sulfur Oxides(SOx) 150 150 co - — Respirable Particulate Matter(PMlo) 150 _ 150 C) Fine Particulate Matter(PM2 s) 55 55 Source of table data: South Coast Air Quality Management District,Air Quality Significance Thresholds, website:http: N ww w.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/cepa/handbook/scagmd-air-quality-significance-tliresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2. W Mass Daily Regional Construction-Related Emissions 0 LU 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 s daily construction-related emissions are shown in Table 2. As shown, the mass daily regional CD n 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. 6of17 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 51 of 94 CADENCE LNVIRONMEN TAL CONSUL IAN IS TABLE 2 - ESTIMATED MASS DAILY REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Emissions in Pounds Per Day Year of Construction o VOC NOx CO Sox PMto PM2 > 2017 1.3 10.5 8.4 <0.1 l 1.6 1.1 c — — v SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 75.0 100.0 550.0 150.0 150.0 55.0 Significant Impact? No No No No No No m u Construction emission calculations based on the construction phasing discussed previously in this report. The emissions shown in this table are the unmitigated overall construction emissions totals shown on page 4 of the 0 CalEEMod summer results sheets. a� CaIEEMod summer emissions results sheets are attached to this letter report. U n -- 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 n� standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone r, precursors). {; Less Than Significant Impact. n Because the South Coast Air Basin is currently in nonattainment for ozone, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), t� PM10 and PM2.5, related projects may likely exceed an air quality standard or contribute to an �T f>> existing or projected air quality exceedance. With respect to determining the significance of the proposed project contribution, the SCAQMD neither recommends quantified analyses of construction w 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. Instead, the SCAQMD recommends that a project's potential contribution to cumulative impacts be assessed utilizing the same significance criteria as those for project specific `'er) 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. 7of17 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 52 of 94 CADENCE e�j LNVIRONNILN[ALCONSUL IAN 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 E 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 dSignificance 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 a� cumulative air quality impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. W Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. a 0 rn Less Than Significant Impact. d U A significant impact may occur if a project were to generate pollutant concentrations to a degree that 0 would significantly affect sensitive receptors.Land uses that are considered more sensitive to changes COin air quality than others are referred to as sensitive receptors. Land uses such as primary and U secondary schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes are considered to be sensitive to poor air p 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 m D sensitive because people in residential areas are often at home for extended periods of time, so they c0 could be exposed to pollutants for extended periods. Recreational areas are considered moderately 00 sensitive to poor air quality because vigorous exercise associated with recreation places a high o demand on the human respiratory function. U m The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed project site are the residential properties located to the c southeast of the riding park that are in close proximity to the proposed fire service line pipeline track. a� a CZ UThe localized emissions of concern are NOx, CO, PMlo, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD has developed localized significance threshold (LST)look-up tables for project sites that are one, two, and five acres w 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 Oq these LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or 0 `n contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality LO CO 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,PMIo,and PM2.5 impacts to the area surrounding the proposed project site. 8of17 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 53 of 94 CADENCE Localized Construction Emissions Table 3 identifies the maximum daily emissions that are estimated to occur at the project site during E 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. U C N TABLE 3 - ESTIMATED DAILY LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS U Emissions in Pounds Per Day Construction Phase — 0 NOx CO PMto PM2.5 a rn Pipeline Trenching and Installation `r 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 co Localized thresholds for construction emissions for a five-acre site at a receptor distance of 25 meters, as established by the N SCAQMD for sites in SRA 21. 0 p The emissions shown in this table are the unmitigated construction on-site emissions totals shown on page 7 of the io CalEEMod summer results sheets. CalEEMod summer emissions results sheets are attached to this letter repart. c_o co Localized Operational Emissions E c0a 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. c- (e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. v Q) No Impact. 0 W Odors are typically associated with industrial projects involving the use of chemicals, solvents, C) 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 v r� r� would be self-contained and would not involve the use of any chemicals or processes that could o generate odors.Therefore,no impact would occur. F- 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: 9of17 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 54 of 94 CADENCE ( INJVIRONMI-N f A L c-ONSUL!AN P, (a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment;or o (b) Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or regulation for the purpose of reducing the emissions of ° C: GHG. m m d Background M Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions refer to a group of emissions that are believed to affect global 0 climate conditions.These gases trap heat in the atmosphere and the major concern is that increases in CD GHG emissions are causing global climate change. Global climate change is a change in the average CO 6' weather on earth that can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation and temperature. Q U Although there is disagreement as to the speed of global warming and the extent of the impacts 0 attributable to human activities, most agree that there is a direct link between increased emission of GHGs and long-term global temperature.What GHGs have in common is that they allow sunlight to Qi enter the atmosphere, but trap a portion of the outward-bound infrared radiation and warm up the p 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 CO operations have elevated the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere. This accumulation of GHGs E has contributed to an increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere and contributed to global ° climate change. N Q) c The principal GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur m hexafluoride 06), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and water vapor (H2O). o0 CO2 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 w o and reported as CO2 equivalents(CO2e). According to the 2006 California Climate Action Team (CAT) Report, temperature increases arising 0 IQ from increased GHG emissions potentially could result in a variety of impacts to the people, LO CO 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 CADENCE C LNVIIICNrvILtI!ALC_<»;',')i_!ANIS 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 E statewide emissions of GHG would be progressively reduced,as follows: 0 U > • By 2010,reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; a� a� c • By 2020,reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels;and m .o A By 2050,reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. 0 In response to Executive Order S-3-05, the Secretary of Cal/EPA created the Climate Action Team 0 rn (CAT), which, in March 2006, published the Climate Action Team Report to Governor v 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. EThese are strategies that could be implemented by various State agencies to ensure that the c� �a Governor's targets are met and can be met with existing authority of the State agencies. ai p In 2006, California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006(Assembly Bill No.32; 0 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 � (.0other measures, such that feasible and cost-effective statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 1990 r- °o levels by 2020. E U 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 oCalifornia, improve the environment, reduce the State's dependence on oil, diversify the State's wenergy 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 r N recommendations of the Scoping Plan include strategies to enhance and expand proven cost-saving 0 energy efficiency programs; implementation of California's clean cars standards; increases in the Ln amount of clean and renewable energy used to power the State; and implementation of a low-carbon co H 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. 11 of 17 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 56 of 94 CADENCE �.- LNVIf3C:NfJIL•N(nL CONSUL 1/1N f; 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 E recognized by the State of California. The 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy Discussion v 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 m prioritized,government resources will be identified.Finally,the strategy includes identifying research needs and educating the public. 0 o Climate change risks are evaluated using two distinct approaches: (1) projecting the amount of co climate change that may occur using computer-based global climate models and (2) assessing the U natural or human system's ability to cope with and adapt to change by examining past experience 0 with climate variability and extrapolating this to understand how the systems may respond to the Uadditional impact of climate change. The major anticipated climate changes expected in the State of ai California include increases in temperature, decreases in precipitation, particularly as snowfall, and o 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 Cb to public health, ocean and coast resources, water supply, agriculture, biodiversity, and the M U) transportation and energy infrastructures. 00 E Key preliminary adaptation recommendations included in the Strategy are as follows: 0 Y > • Appointment of a Climate Adaptation Advisory Panel; 0 m m c • Improved water management in anticipation of reduced water supplies, including a 20 percent m m reduction in per capita water use by 2020; • Consideration of project alternatives that avoid significant new development in areas that cannot be LU adequately protected from flooding due to climate change; 0 It N • Preparation of agency-specific adaptation plans,guidance or criteria by September 2010; v 0 "Q . Consideration of climate change impacts for all significant State projects; L0 0 CX) . 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 CADENCE . Development of guidance by the California Department of Public Health by September 2010 for use by local health departments to assess adaptation strategies; o . Amendment of Plans to assess climate change impacts and develop local risk reduction strategies U by communities with General Plans and Local Coastal Plans;and a� a� • Inclusion of climate change impact information into fire program planning by State fire fighting M agencies. 0 In August 2007, the Legislature adopted Senate Bill 97(SB 97),which required the Governor's Office 0 of Planning and Research (OPR)to prepare and transmit new CEQA guidelines for the mitigation of QGHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions to the Natural Resources Agency by July 1, 2009.On 0 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 CU CEQA Guideline amendments provided guidance to public agencies regarding the analysis and U mitigation of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions in draft CEQA documents. On December 31, 7 p 2009, the Natural Resources Agency transmitted the Adopted Amendments and the entire rule- r making file to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). On February 16, 2010, OAL approved the is m 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. co E 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. (D Instead, the amendments encourage lead agencies to consider many factors in performing a CEQA W analysis and rely on the lead agencies to make their own significance threshold determinations based m upon substantial evidence. The CEQA Amendments also encourage public agencies to make use of 0� programmatic mitigation plans and programs from which to tier when they perform individual W project analyses. _r Explanation of Checklist Answers N o (a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant o impact on the environment. co 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 CADENCE LNVIRONMLN fAL CON,JL !.AN I S considerable challenge of analyzing the relationship between local activities and the resulting potential, if any, for global environmental impacts. Most environmental analyses examine the E "project-specific" impacts that a particular project is likely to generate. With regard to global v 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. -o u 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 0 o published some draft thresholds several years ago, they were never adopted and the ARB c� recommended that local air districts and lead agencies adopt their own thresholds for GHG impacts. Q U L 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 0 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 L oin the evaluation of GHG impacts. mThe SCAQMD has been evaluating GHG significance thresholds since April 2008. In December 2008, C6 the SCAQMD adopted an interim 10,000 metric tons of CO2e (MTCO2e) per year screening level co threshold for stationary source/industrial projects for which the SCAQMD is the lead agency. The E SCAQMD has continued to consider adoption of significance thresholds for residential and general 0 Y development projects. The most recent proposal issued in September 2010 uses the following tiered approach to evaluate potential GHG impacts from various uses: C W L) 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 LU 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. cv C) Tier 3 Consider whether the project generates GHG emissions in excess of screening thresholds for Lr) individual land uses. The 10,000 MTCO2e/year threshold for industrial uses would be cz� recommended for use by all lead agencies. Under option 1, separate screening thresholds are proposed for residential projects (3,500 MTCO2e/year), commercial projects(1,400 MTCO2e/ year), and mixed-use projects (3,000 MTCO2e/year). Under option 2 a single numerical screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/year would be used for all non-industrial projects. If 14 of 17 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 59 of 94 CADENCE the project generates emissions in excess of the applicable screening threshold, move to Tier 4. o Tier 4 Consider whether the project generates GHG emissions in excess of applicable performance U C: standards for the project service population (population plus employment). The efficiency 4) u targets were established based on the goal of AB 32 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to c 1990 levels by 2020. The 2020 efficiency targets are 4.8 MTCO2e per service population for project level analyses and 6.6 MTCO2e per service population for plan level analyses. If the project generates emissions in excess of the applicable efficiency targets,move to Tier 5. 0 rnTier 5 Consider the implementation of CEQA mitigation(including the purchase of GHG offsets)to vreduce the project efficiency target to Tier 4 levels. 0 M The thresholds identified above have not been adopted by the SCAQMD or distributed for cCU 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 p adoption is uncertain. 0 Fa However, for the purpose of evaluating the GHG impacts associated with the proposed project, this cn analysis utilizes the SCAQMD's draft tiered thresholds. These thresholds have also been used to C2 evaluate the impacts for other projects in San Juan Capistrano. CO E Tier 1 0 U 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 0 LU 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 �t N 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 LO have adopted a GHG reduction plan that has gone through public hearings and CEQA review, that CO F- has an approved inventory,includes monitoring,etc.Therefore,the analysis moves to Tier 3. Tier 3 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 I CADENCE LN'-11RUN MLN'AL CONSUL IAN I shown in Table 4. As shown, the annual emissions would not exceed the draft 3,000 MTCO2e threshold for non-industrial projects. Therefore, the City of San Juan Capistrano, as lead agency, may E conclude that the GHG emissions generated in association with the proposed project would not have v a significant impact on the environment. c a� m = TABLE 4 - ESTIMATED ANNUAL GHG EMISSIONS uEmissions Source CO2e Emissions in Metric Tons per Year Construction 1.67 a Operation(Area Sources) 0.00 co - — - - °� Total Emissions 1.67 Q o SCAQMD Draft Tier Threshold 3,000.00 Exceeds Threshold? — _ No M C 7 Construction emissions are amortized over 30 years in accordance with SCAQMD guidance(50.11 MTCO2e/30 j years). 0 The emissions shown in this table are the unmitigated overall construction emissions totals shown on page 4 of the CalEEMod annual results sheets. - — — — - tn CalEEMod annual emissions results sheets are attached to this letter report. c2 00 (b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation for the purpose of reducing the E o emissions of GHG. a Less Than Significant Impact. U G V1 As discussed previously, the 2006 CAT Report and the ARB's Scoping Plan were developed to direct U othe 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 UJ development of plans to reduce GHG emissions, but are not applicable to each and every new c� et. general development project. N d' Lf? The proposed project does not include any new uses or facilities that would generate an increase in fi operational GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable 1— 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 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. E Sincerely yours, U c m m v C m �o 0 o Michael Brown M Q President U 0 (a E m U ai n 0 rn m U) cfl w E 0 U C N N U C N m �U1 V O C_ W 0 N O LO O 00 I-- 17 of 17 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 62 of 94 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/DW 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 City 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 potentially 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 N Figure 1. The project is lo- Hamilton Biological �� 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, Y Project Site and San Juan Creek is to the west. Aerial source: Google Earth Pro. 316 Monrovia Avenue Long Beach,CA 90803 562-477-2181 robbChamiltonbiological.com ATTACHMENT 2 Page 64 of 94 Biological Survey Report, San Juan Creek RW/DW Utility Project Hamilton Biological, Inc. December 22,2016 Page 2 of 10 *. er x'u R \ W { W "° 4 o G. 9 r f � 7'' c� 4 or Z �.4 �► .. a kA OM LL .o o ro —4A Ln UJ J .i w RR• .'!f 1�'t •C � M W Pq zUJ .Ci` rr W. � • � '� ` O YN '�• k�••i�" ii t 4 CC e a O • ""+fit t. ms yf 0 UJ it Figure 2. Exhibit 4 from the City's Initial Study shows the project site and identifies the proposed facilities; this exhibit also shows designated Sensitive Resource Areas. The proposed pipeline alignments, and the pro- posed sewer line and laterals, including various alternative alignments, pass mainly through disturbed and developed areas 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 Hamilton Biological, Inc. December 22,2016 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 mostly 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 April 29, 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 (S. 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 Hamilton Biological, Inc. December 22,2016 Page 4 of 10 Ruderal habitat dominated by non-native weeds and grasses, including Russian Thistle (Salsola tragus), Black Mustard (Brassica nigra), Australian Saltbush (Atri- plex se)nibaccata), Crystalline Iceplant (Mesenibryanthemum cnjstalhimm), Italian Thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), Ripgut Brome (Brorrtus diandrus), and Slender Wild Oats (Avena barbata). Wildlife Wildlife habitat value associated with the pipeline alignment 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 its Guidelines, or 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 California 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 special-status species recorded within the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5' topographic quadrangle for San Juan Capistrano. Review of this 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 coulteri (Coulter's Saltbush) • Brodiaea frlifolia (Thread-leaved Brodiaea) • Calocllortus weedii var. interpnedius (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) • Euphorbin misera (Cliff Spurge) • Nolina cismotitane(Chaparral Nolina) ATTACHMENT 2 Page 67 of 94 Biological Survey Report,San Juan Creek RW1DW Utility Project Hamilton Biological, Inc. December 22,2016 Page 5 of 10 • Pentachaeta aurea 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) • Ammodralnus savannarum (Grasshopper Sparrow) • Anaxyrus californicus (Arroyo Toad)' • 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)' • Myotis yumanensis (Yuma Myotis) • Phrynosoma blainvillei (Coast Horned Lizard) • Polioptila californica californica (California Gnatcatcatcher) • Setophaga petechia (Yellow Warbler)' • Spea hammondii (Western Spadefoot) • Thamnophis hammondii (Two-striped Garter Snake) • Vireo bellii pusillus (Least Bell's Vireo) ' 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 Hamilton Biological, Inc. December 22,2016 Page 6 of 10 The proposed alternative alignments, the sewer line and laterals, as well as proposed staging areas, occur almost exclusively within disturbed/developed areas, nearly all of it essentially bare ground. No special-status species 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 Rancho 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 near the northern terminus would be trimmed or removed for construction, 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 Hamilton Biological, Inc. December 22,2016 Page 7 of 10 f 4 Figure 3. Alternative Design B Scale 1"= 50' N '" Hamilton Biological 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 vegetation at the northwest terminus is associated with a drainage course that feeds into San Juan Creek, and therefore appears to fall under CDFW jurisdiction. Aerial source: Google 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 removed 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 Hamilton Biological, Inc. December 22,2016 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 construction (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 Hamilton Biological, Inc. December 22,2016 Page 9 of 10 LIST OF VERTEBRATE SPECIES DETECTED Robert Hamilton detected the following vertebrate species in the project vicinity during surveys conducted on April 29, 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 Hamilton Biological, Inc. December 22,2016 Page 10 of 10 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) 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 of the 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 —500 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 —80 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 RANCHO MISSION VIEJO RIDING PARK WATER & SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO ' i 10 s��pr0posAd ,�C.� Original Location f. �lr L ;. � Location ` ' Metered Potable of Metered M Connection � f PotableConnecti !• •' r' Proposed Relocation r �a .-*--of Recycled r Water Line-Alt.A •1K�7F fes+ - " .♦ � - _ - 4 _.��. a - - '� �/ - - -! Wastewater Pipeline •� �►- M ' i+ R Realignment C1) v — v 1-1 c 0 .p Source:City ofsanJuan 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 EI Harake, Branch Chief, Regional-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 (R/W) will require discretionary review and approval by Caltrans and an encroachment permit will be required for any work within the Caltrans R/W 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 STATE OR CALIFO9NIA—CAL1EQ8N1A STATE TRANS OI' UA'IT,f3N AGENCY FDMLM C BROWN 11„Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 1750 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 100 SANTA ANA,CA 92705 PHONE (657)328-6267 Serious drought. FAX (657)328-6510 Help save water! TTY 711 }yWwAot.ca oy February 3, 2017 Mr. Sergio Klotz File: IGR/CEQA City of San Juan Capistrano SCH#: 2017011025 Planning Department 12-ORA-2017-00407 32400 Paseo Adelanto SR-74 PM 2.591 San Juan Capistrano,CA 92675 Dear Mr.Klotz: The California Department of Transportation(Caltrans)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 stoirm 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 (R/W)will require discretionary review and approval by Caltrans and an encroachment permit will be required for any work within the Caltrans R/W 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 submittal to be reviewed and for a permit to be issued. "Provide a safe,sustainable,integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance Coitfornia's economy and livability" ATTACHMENT 2 Page 82 of 94 Mr. Klotz,City of San Juan Capistrano January 31, 2017 Page 2 5. When applying for the Encroachment Permit,please incorporate Environmental Documentation, Stormwater Pollution Prevention 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:/Iwww.dot.ca.gov/hgAraffops/`developsery/permits/ 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 Caltrans R/W shall be submitted by the permittee/contractor for review and approval before work commences. 8. Exhibits 3 and 4 of the MND identifies the project boundaries near Caltrans 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 HARARE Branch Chief,Regional-IGR-Transit Planning District 12 c: OPR State Clearinghouse "Provide a safe,sustainable,integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" ATTACHMENT 2 Page 83 of 94 From:Turner, Jennifer@Wildlife [rnailto:Jennifer.Turner(&wildlife.ca.crov] Sent:Tuesday, February 07, 2017 4:37 PM To: Sergio Klotz Cc: william b millerQ6 fws.cl 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 Endangered Species Act (CESA; Fish and Game Code § 2050 of seq.) and Fish and Game Code section 1600 of 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 ASSEMBLY 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 i MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CA 9267599 (949)493.1171 Gly (949)493-1053 FAX Ly' ��I�"�0s101 SERGIO FARIAS FERGUSON x-x,>n,.san carica ish•ano.a ss 776 t9�1 KERRY K. . MARY ON � P �' I776 BRIAN L. MARYOTT • • PAM PATTERSON,ESQ. DEREK REEVE January 17, 2017 Joseph Ontiveros Cultural Resources Director Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians P.O. Box 487 San Jacinto, CA 92581 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 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 �V Pnnied on 10090 recycled paper 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. Respectful) submitted, 1 Michael Marquis P E Associate Civil E eer City of San Juan Capistrano ATTACHMENT 2 Page 88 of 94 32400 PASEO ADELANTO � MEMBERS OF THE CIN COUNCIL SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO,CA 92675Lq (949)493-1171 ,�tr2ra�rnr SERGIO FARIAS (949)493.1053 FAx Fsrnlsseaw 1961 KERRY K.FERGUSON x,lr,li:sonjuanccapistrarto.org 1776 BRIAN L.MARYOTT • • PAM PATTERSON,ESQ. DEREK REEVE January 17, 2017 Joyce Stanfield Perry Tribal Manager 4955 Paseo Segovia, Irvine, CA 92603 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 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 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 Pnnled on 100`.,recycled papci 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. Respectfull s mitted, 1„ �d . �1 Michael Marquis, E 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 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 2 Page 92 of 94 DATE TIMING OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLETED NO. I MITIGATION MEASURE IT METHOD OF VERIFICATION VERIFICATION STAFF &INITIALS Biological Resources To ensure avoidance of impacts to sensitive resources and potential Development jurisdictional habitat associated with the tributary drainage area onsite, Services Alternative Alignment B for the Recycled Water Line shall be eliminated from Plan Check & Department- BR-1 the final project design. The Recycled Water Line shall be constructed using Construction Prior to the start of Planning either Alternative Alignment A or C. Monitoring construction Division& Public Works Department Prior to any construction work, including staging of equipment or materials, Development the boundaries of the "Sensitive Resource Area" shall be clearly marked to Services ensure that no direct impacts occur to the native habitat or to jurisdictional Plan Check & Department- BR-2 resources. Construction Prior the start of Planning construction. Monitoring Division & Public Works Department 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 Development effects on nesting birds. Appropriate measures may include attenuating Services construction noise (through sound-dampening boards or other equipment) to Plan Check & Department- BR-3a level of 60 dBA(as measured in the vicinity of the nest)or otherwise limiting Prior to the start of Construction Planning disturbances within a certain distance of the nest until nesting is complete. If construction the level of 60 dBA cannot be achieved, or if the biological monitor otherwise Monitoring Division & I' considers it necessary to avoid potential impacts, the biological monitor shall Building "I Division be present during construction activities to ensure that nesting birds are not tQ n disturbed. The biological monitor shall have authority to halt any construction �p = activity determined to be potentially disturbing the nesting of any bird. Construction may continue when the monitor determines the activity can be Ca m carried out without disruption of nesting, or when the nest is determined to O Z have fledged or failed. CO .p N DATE TIMING OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLETED NO. MITIGATION MEASURE METHOD OF VERIFICATION VERIFICATION STAFF &INITIALS Prior to approval of final construction plans and specifications for the Development proposed pipeline, the City shall submit and will have secured U.S. Fish and USFWS Approval of Services Wildlife Service approval of a Biological Resources Construction Plan Biological Department- BR-4 (BRCP) that ensures that construction activities for the proposed pipeline Resources Prior n the start of Building (and associated meter station and pressure reducing valve) are consistent Construction Plan construction. Division & with the goals and objectives of the Rancho Mission Viejo Habitat (BRCP) Planning Conservation Plan. Division Hazards&Hazardous Materials Prior to any trenching or excavation, the City shall establish and mark the Development location of the Kinder Morgan pipeline in the vicinity of the proposed project. Services The use of mechanical construction excavation equipment shall not be Department- permitted within two feet of the alignments of the two Kinder Morgan pipelines Plan Check-Permit Environmental 1 construction that traverse the site (as identified in Kinder Morgan, 2012). Any activities Review& Field Prior to start of Administrator 1 that disturb the ground surface within 10 feet of the alignments shall be Monitoring . and monitored by a qualified representative, as determined by Kinder Morgan, of Construction the owner or operator of the pipelines (Kinder Morgan). Inspector D cQ CD? CD = to A, m 0 Z (0 __-I -h N Project Memorandum To: File: Rancho Mission Viejo Riding Park Water System Project Re: Assembly Bill 52 Consultation From: Michael Marquis, P.E., Associate Civil Engineer Date: 2/17/2017 and 2/23/2017 Re: Phone Consultation Assembly Bill 52 Consultation with Juaneno Band of Mission Indians,Acjachemen Nation I sent a letter to Joyce Stanfield Perry of the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation on Monday January 23, 2017. By February 17, 2017, 1 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 Initial Study document, with a finding of No Significant Impact. 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 Initial Study for the Water and Sanitary Sewer Facilities project at the Riding Park. On Thursday February 23, 2017 1 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 Impact 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 of the 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,fora total 2 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. -1- 540023.1 61147.02100\1022992 5.1 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. CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO By: ATTEST: Benjamin Siegel, City Manager By: Maria Morris, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM* DUDEK B By: Je allinger, ity Attorney D. Michael Metts, PE-Assistant Secretary -2- 540028.1 61147.02100110229925.1 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 Presentations 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 DUDEK Project Management Plan (PMP). Each project receives a customized plan to meet project goals and NONTXIY PROORE58 REPORT IMre: \mrr.lr.r Is. objectives. Michael Metts PE will serve as the main .h\.mh I I M1.InI\.r.r. I\;nl I\I.v I'I.•i Nrh J-il:r.r,•n I...•.srr:ny rrryrcl\I.n.y.. f.\In in. r^. 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 AA[tll/PL[l[ riMrn •rhrxb nlrrit wl Nur.h 1.1 together with City staff, will determine the project critical success factors. r/-1�s[o.\elLhltlt.4?r_\[Vera/rl Our PMP requires input for Critical Success Factors, i� ..tl' " nnh.. n.,.:h.r n,l•nr::.::,ui:.• 1111+UI I�I""4'nunulniw,r..vr.,1.1...... � document distribution file structures schedule budget tracking, deliverables, QA/QC procedures, 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 SIMILAR PROJECT EXPERIENCE 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 team members of their responsibilities. % �qM., 765./15 P50jM1 ButlON 8 SCt1etlU1[8(01US ,�•• In addition to online project tracking, the PMP W.611 �c5ot�C�tl.el YP• „ t a, 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 w W and client coordination events: progress meeting dates, submittal dates, stakeholder meetings, ic.su ia. customer meetings, and the production of 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 beginning 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 modifications are inevitable in a conversion project, as the project must adapt to regulatory requirements, inspection availability, DUDEK ATTACHMENT 4 Page 4 of 8 SIMILAR 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 DDW 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 Site Investigation and Report Task 2.1 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, c specifications, reports and operating s: 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 Our team will conduct data to recycled water. Our team will meet collection and an on-site with the City and property owners for investigation for all sites, additional information necessary for the conversion process. DUDEK 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 final 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 SIMILAR RROJLCI_ LXPLRILN(_L 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 Final Design and Construction Documents Task 4.1 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. r In the event that purpose built site drawings are not available, site µ 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 r ,4k THIS AGREEMENT is made, entered into, and shall become effective this -day ofd, 2015, by and between the City of San Juan Capistrano (hereinafter referred to as the "City") and Dudek (hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant"). RECITALS: WHEREAS, City desires to retain the services of Consultant regarding Design of the 2015 Recycled Water Conversions Project and; WHEREAS, Consultant is qualified by virtue of experience, training, education and expertise to accomplish such services. NOW, THEREFORE, City and Consultant mutually agree as follows: Section 1. 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. Section 2. Term. This Agreement shall commence on the effective date and shall terminate, and all services required hereunder shall be completed, no later than one (1) year after the effective date. Section 3. Compensation. 3.1 Amount. Total compensation for the services hereunder shall not exceed$106,020.00 as set forth in Exhibit 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. 1 ATTACHMENT 5 Page 1 of 15 3.3 Records of Expenses. Consultant shall keep complete and accurate records of all costs and expenses incidental to services covered by this Agreement. These records will be made available at reasonable times to the City. Invoices shall be addressed as provided for in Section 16 below. Section 4. Independent Contractor. 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 benefits which accrue to Agency's employees. Section 5. Limitations Upon Subcontracting and Assignment. 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. If Consultant is permitted to subcontract any part of this Agreement by City, Consultant shall be responsible to the City for the acts and omissions of its subcontractor as it is for persons directly employed. Nothing contained in this 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. Changes 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. In 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. Familiarity with Work and/or Construction Site. By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants that: (1) it 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, difficulties 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 Agreement until written instructions are received from the City. Standard of Care, 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 9. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement, Section 9. Compliance with Law. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes and regulations of federal, state and local government. Section 10. Conflicts of Interest. Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the services contemplated by this Agreement. No person having such 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 drawings containing 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. Section 12. Ownership of Documents. All reports, information, data and exhibits 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. Indemnity. 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, including interference with use of property, arising out of, pertain 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 City, is due to the negligence, 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. Section 14. Insurance. 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 for the 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 subcontract until all insurance required of the Consultant has also been obtained for the subcontractor. Insurance required herein shall be provided by Insurers in good standing with the State of California and having a minimum Best's Guide Rating of A- Class VII 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. If a Commercial General Liability Insurance 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 Liability coverage, including owned, hired and non- owned vehicles in an amount not less than one million dollars per occurrence ($1,000,000.00). 14.3 Workers' Compensation. If 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 Insurance in the statutory amount as required by state law. 14.4 Proof of Insurance Requirements/Endorsement. Prior to beginning any work under this 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 activities performed by or on behalf of Consultant, including the insured's general supervision of Consultant; products and completed operations of Consultant; premises owned,occupied or used by Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded City, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. 14.5 Errors and Omissions Coverage Throughout the term of this agreement, Consultant shall maintain Errors 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 Cancel lation/TermMation of Insurance. The above policy/policies shall not terminate, nor shall they 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"verifying that Consultant has complied with all insurance requirements of this Agreement. Section 15. Termination. City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without cause by giving thirty (30) days' advance written notice of termination to Consultant. In 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. If the other party does not cure the breach of contract, 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 32400 Paseo Adelanto San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Attn: Thom Coughran, P.E. Interim Public Works & Utilities Director 5 ATTACHMENT 5 Page 5 of 15 To Consultant: Dudek 750 Second Street Encinitas, CA 92024 Attn: D. Michael Metts, P.E. Section 17. Prevailing Wades. Effective March 1,2015, if the services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or"maintenance"project, in addition to the foregoing,then pursuant to Labor Code sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Consultant and all subconsultants must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations ("DIR"). Consultant shall maintain registration 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 DIR. It shall be Consultant's sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements, including the submission of payroll records directly to the DIR. Section 18. Dispute Resolution. In the event of a dispute arising between the parties regarding performance or interpretation of this Agreement,the dispute shall be resolved by binding arbitration under the auspices of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service ("JAMS"). Section 19. Entire Agreement. 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 the same effect as if all the Parties had executed the same instrument. Counterpart signatures maybe transmitted by facsimile, email, or other electronic means and has the same force and effect as if they were original signatures. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] 6 ATTACHMENT 5 Page 6 of 15 tN W T"NESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement; CITY O SAiV JUAN CARISTRAN[] Derek Reeve, Mayor DUDEK f By, Mike Mats ATT: S i Maria ri ,' C HN Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: aff Karlinger, elty Attorney 7 ATTACHMENT 5 Page 7 of 15 2 Scope of Services 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 Presentations 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 ouru Project Management Plan (PMP). Each project I,K�Mnav auacr+csa p�v9nY receives a customized plan to meet project goals and flus: tinaoNvi ld 24W objectives. Michael Metts, r PE will serve as the main €(.I�i/„4ox 11Y6::€vin l'w iW4.lrob,u danna*a,mann hy,e111,lape F7!)r,wl.!. point of contact between Dudek and the City. Mr. M•�U.,•Mrts:Jo-+'utgrc,�qu Mn Is,+nnN ,w IM fM-14if4ww Hex4a F4tyru,444 min• ArW�'�r nryN.�rwµ++4l c,r..4pati v Ppl'sN. Metts will make sure assigned team members are rytwymrtl>r4.n+mn,M ie•,+rwr«n,rwvwnw aware of the project goals and objectives, and .,,4l.,,.�..� 'HI ww.Hl+tF MP4•�Ja4du,°-"V,+�3w,3r,R;ar4 + F ••N i4..I nd7•tanl.Fa a.rwav+clul+i rk+•+..q.F*.wn�l+n{nv!i. together with City staff, will determine the project � I r.Wnar„at wsq�+n�M1w ,wri w.a�111aw!y:.F hri94W1+YF H14�1A1�,MWH.N T:sap{64+w R.*Is'NK[I44�1. critical success factors. 1 I•wk'u, hrt r.m.•.l.r.aarircridirpi.. 1.P.yRH+NFA'l='A"nwn.+MrL4pa.�:agi✓+N ••11 _•Jrlp�'/fkf 4q€.�•nl Wru-y.A4 Our PMP requires input for Critical Success Factors, i F "�4""•�dY�N1h1h'w f3a at�S�nm4Y,dn document distribution, rschedule,file structures c�dn 4, ,u.?=pl.�aM1 +4L •ti,«, 4-ltylLe>s..,Yiilr errpse.m. budget tracking, deliverables, QA/QC procedures, 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 2015 Recycled Water Conversions Project 6 Exhibit A ATTACHMENT 5 Page 8 of 15 SIMILAR PROJECT EXPERIENCE 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 team members of their responsibilities. xi+n Piepc Sud%Z1;7iw1owWatue vra.tk.�rn In addition to online project tracking, the PMP includes worksheets for schedule tracking and s•9�wu C..«6:w tracking project progress in relation to the project budget (see example of earned-value tracking to HIM �+ M left). Included within the schedule will be Dudek s • and client coordination events: progress meeting dates, submittal dates, stakeholder meetings, rwi �, customer meetings, and the production of k r. 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 beginning 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 modifications are inevitable in a conversion project, as the project must adapt to regulatory requirements, inspection availability, DUDEK 2015 Recycled Water Conversions Project 7 ATTACHMENT 5 Page 9 of 15 SIMILAR 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 intemally. 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 DDW 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 Site Investigation and Report s Task 2.1 Data Collection X Data collection is a critical component of the success of the City's ^ yY� 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 t City), and evaluate each for conversion Our team will conduct data to recycled water. Our team will meet collection and an on-site with the City and property owners for investigotion;orollsites. additional information necessary for the conversion process. DUDEK 2015 Recycled Water Conversions Project 8 ATTACHMENT 5 Page 10 of 15 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 Pians 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 final 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 2015 Recycled Water Conversions Project o ATTACHMENT 5 Page 11 of 15 SIMILAR PROJECT EXPERIENCE 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 Final Design and Construction Documents Task 4.1 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 drawinas 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 V = 20' scale and will DUDEK 2015 Recycled Water Conversions Project 10 ATTACHMENT 5 Page 12 of 15 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. Task 4.4 General Delivery Using the developed document sharing website, City staff will have unlimited access to project documents as they are developed. The following documents will be prepared for delivery, as well as any other documents needed for project completion: • Four sets of 50 percent design drawings to City for review. Four sets of 90 percent design drawings to City for review. Comments from each design submittal will be documented in meeting minutes for distribution. • Original hard copy 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 drawings in AutoCAD 2010 or 2014 format. • Final design and analysis materials, prepared and submitted in accordance with the City's Digital Submission Standards DUDEK 2015 Recycled Water Conversions Project 11 ATTACHMENT 5 Page 13 of 15 SIMILAR PROJECT EXPERIENCE Task 4.5 Schedule & Cost Estimates Dudek will develop final construction cost estimate and schedule for the proposed work based up on the final plans and specifications. Dudek will also prepare a project schedule that will include, at a minimum, bidding, award construction and project close-out. DUDEK 2015 Recycled Water Conversions Project 12 ATTACHMENT 5 Page 14 of 15 Dudek Fee Estimate City of San Juan Capistrano 2015 RW Conversions Project 2015 RECYCLED WATER CONVERSIONS PROJECT Title I PIC 8 QA/QC Project manag2r CmssControl Sr.Engineer Engineer I CAD Admin Total Labor Expenses Namal B.Ohlund M Melts J,Robinson E.Caliva S-Diaz C.Durbin P.Bnstov. Subcontrad TASK REM $/Hr Hrs $ 250 Hrs $ 205 Hrs $ 150 Hrs 3 170 Hrs $ 140 Hrs $ 115 HIM 5 80 Hours $Cost Costs Total Cost 1.General Administration,Meetings,and Presentations 1.1 Coordination rH 2 H 4 12 _ S 500 $ 1.640 $ - $ 680 $ • $ S - S 2,8 0 550 S 2.670 1.2Pm)ac[tstWlS and Strategy 4 4 4 _. 12 S 5 820 S 600 S 680 $ $ - S - S 2.100 S 50 $ 2.150 P*1ed sdmdris. __ B $ 1.640 S - _.T-- $ - S T. S - 8 - $ 1540 .$ 1.640 1.4 Design Progress Meelings(3 Total) 12 6 6 29 26 _ Cost _ S $--2,460 _-$' goo 3 1;020 $ - $^ • S 160 S 4,Sd0 $• _150 $• R 4,690 '$u�otal Task 1 Hrs 2 - 32 10 14 1 0 0 2 Subtotal Task 1 $ $ 500 $ 6,560 $ 1_,500 $ 2,380 $ $ $ 160 $ 17,900 _$_ $ 250 $ 11,350. 2.Site Investigation and Report ` - 2.1 Data CoOectlon Hrs 4 8 24 16 52 _ Cost 5 - $ _820 $ 1,200 $ 4,080 $ 2,240 $ $ - $ 8,340 $_---100 $ 6.440 2 Ske InaSen Hrs 20 20 20 40 100 - s _ Cost $ $ 5 3,000 $ 3,400 $ 2,800 5 4,600 $ $ 13,800 $ 300 $ 14,100 2.3 Preliminary Report and Plans •"• Hrs 30 24 _8 @0 4 126 Cost S S 8 4.500 $ 4,080 $ 1,120 S 6,900 $ 320 $ 16,920 S 100 $ 17,020 2.4 Presem Preliminary Findings __ Hrs 2 2 B 16 16 2 44 _ Cast $ 500 S 410 $ 1,200 F2,7 $ - $ 1,840 T-160 $ 6,830 S 50 $ 8,880 Subtotal Task Firs 2 6 66 8444 116 6 322 bubtotai rasa- $ $ 500 S 1,230 S 9,900 $ 6,160 $ 13,340 $ 480 $ 45,890 $ - $ 550 $ 46,440 3.Regulatory Tasks 3.1 Division of Drinking Water Approval Hrs 16 168 2 42Cost -- $ -- -- $ $ 2,400 $ 1,120 $� $ 160 $ 6,400 $ 6,400 ectionHrs 24 16 _ B 2 _ 50 � _ Cost '$ _ - $ - $` 3,600 3 _2,720 $ 1,120 $ $ 160 'S-.--7.600 $ 7,600 3.3 Amend Supplemental Engineering Report Hrs 18 16 _ 4 38 --i Cost $ - $ - $ 2,400 S 2,720 S • $ - S 320 $ 5,440 $ 5,440 3.4 Administer On Slte Supervior Consent Form Hrs 8 24 - --� - Cost $ $ - $ 1,200 $ 4,080 $ 2,240 $ -_ $ - $ 7.520 -- - $ 7,520 Subtotal Task Hrs 0 0 64 72 32 0 8 176 Subtotal task- $ $ - $ s 9,600 $ 12,240 $ 4,480 $ - $ 640 S 26,960 $ - $ $ 26,960 4.Final Design and Construction Doctnnents j- 4.9 Final Pians _ Hrs 2 8 4 32 44 -- Cost $ Soo S $ 1,200 $ 680 $ - $ 3,680 $ $ 6,060 $ 6,060 42 TaehMeel Hrs 2 4 16 - _ -- 20 _ ----- _ Cost $ 500 $ _ --- $ 63$2000 $ 2,720 - _ $. S $ _ s___3$20 _ _ _ $ _ 3,820 4.3 Bid Documents _ Hrs 2 _ _ 4 _ 16 _ 16 36 _ Cost S _500 _$ -- $ 600 $ 2,720 S _ _ $ -1,840 $ $ 51660 $ 5,660 t0 (� 4.4 General Debvery �_ Hrs _ k23,700 4 4 8, - _ Cost $ $ $ 680 J $ $ 460. $ 3 1,140 $ _ 1,140 -_- _.._ ._ - __ d.5 Schedule and Cost Estimate Hrs 1 _ 24 24 _ 30 M -- - -- - - ------ Cost $ T 250 _ S _ - S 660 - $ 3.350 S _ $ $ ___4,590_ $ 4.590 p Z - _ Subtotal Task3 Hrs 7 6 1844 24 52 0 138 _ i subtotal task S $ 1,750 $ $ 1,480 $ 3,350 $ 5,980 $ $ 21,270 $ - $ - $ 21,270 CJ1 C.11 r v r rs a - iUlA- $ $ 2,750 $ 7,790 $ 36,380 $ 14,000 $ 19,320 S 1,280 105,220 i$ $ 800 - io Exhibit B