Addendum - Granicus

July 2016 | Addendum To the San Juan Hotel & Villas Project Mitigated Negative Declaration

Kimpton Hotel Capistrano City of San Juan Capistrano

Prepared for:

City of San Juan Capistrano Contact: Mathew Evans, Contract Planner

32400 Paseo Adelanto San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

949.487.4314

Prepared by:

PlaceWorks Contact: Nicole Morse, Esq., Associate Principal

3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, California 92707

714.966.9220 [email protected] www.placeworks.com

arauterkus

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT 6

K I M P T O N H O T E L C A P I S T R A N O I N I T I A L S T U D Y A D D E N D U M C I T Y O F S A N J U A N C A P I S T R A N O

Table of Contents

July 2016 Page i

Section Page

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE .................................................................................................. 1 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES ............................................................................................................ 1 1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION ................................................................................................. 2

2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ......................................................................................................... 5 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION ....................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ....................................................................................................................... 5

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................. 13 3.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 13 3.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................... 14

4. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .................................................................................................. 27 4.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................. 27 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................................................... 28 4.3 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) ......................................... 28 4.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................................................ 29

5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 31 5.1 AESTHETICS ...................................................................................................................................................... 31 5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ................................................................................... 45 5.3 AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................................................................... 47 5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................... 56 5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................... 59 5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................................................................................................. 64 5.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................................... 69 5.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ......................................................................................... 72 5.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................................................... 77 5.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING ...................................................................................................................... 88 5.11 MINERAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................. 91 5.12 NOISE .................................................................................................................................................................... 92 5.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................................................................ 100 5.14 PUBLIC SERVICES .......................................................................................................................................... 102 5.15 RECREATION .................................................................................................................................................. 104 5.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC .................................................................................................................. 105 5.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................... 118 5.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................. 122

6. LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................................ 125 LEAD AGENCY (CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO) ...................................................................................... 125 PLACEWORKS .................................................................................................................................................................. 125 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS ................................................................................................. 125

7. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 127


Table of Contents

Page ii PlaceWorks

APPENDICES

Appendix A View Simulation Analysis

Appendix B Air Quality and GHG Modeling Data

Appendix C Geotechnical Report

Appendix D Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan

Appendix E Noise Modeling Data

Appendix F Traffic Impact Analysis


Table of Contents

July 2016 Page iii

List of Figures

Figure Page

Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................................. 7

Figure 2 Local Vicinity ......................................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 3 Aerial Photograph ............................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 4a Elevations ............................................................................................................................................. 17

Figure 4b Elevations ............................................................................................................................................. 19

Figure 4c Elevations ............................................................................................................................................. 21

Figure 4d Elevations ............................................................................................................................................. 23

Figure 5 Conceptual Landscape Plan .............................................................................................................. 25

Figure 6 View Simulation – Park View Looking South ................................................................................ 35

Figure 7 View Simulation – Del Obispo View Looking West .................................................................... 37

Figure 8 View Simulation – Mercado Village Parking Lot View Looking North .................................... 39

Figure 9 View Simulation – Camino Capistrano View Looking East ........................................................ 41

Figure 10 Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan ................................................................................ 83

Figure 11 Study Area and Location of Analyzed Intersections ................................................................... 109

List of Tables

Table Page

Table 1 Development Statistics, Program EIR ............................................................................................ 13

Table 2 Development Statistics, 2014 Approved Project and Modification ........................................... 15

Table 3 Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions ...................................................................... 51

Table 4 Maximum Daily Regional Operation Emissions ........................................................................... 52

Table 5 Localized Construction Emissions ................................................................................................... 54

Table 6 Project-Related GHG Emissions ..................................................................................................... 71

Table 7 Traffic Noise Project Contribution .................................................................................................. 96

Table 8 Typical Maximum Construction Equipment Noise Levels.......................................................... 98

Table 9 Trip Generation Estimates .............................................................................................................. 112

Table 10 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis – ICU Method .................. 114

Table 11 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis, HCM Method of Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 115


Table of Contents

Page iv PlaceWorks

This page intentionally left blank.

July 2016 Page 1

1. Introduction 1.1 BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE This document is an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“2014 MND”) adopted by the City of San Juan Capistrano (“City”) for the San Juan Hotel & Villas project on November 18, 2014 (“2014 Approved Project”) to analyze environmental impacts associated with the Kimpton Hotel Capistrano (“Hotel Capistrano”). The 2014 MND, in conjunction with this Addendum, serve as the environmental review for the proposed modifications to the previously approved San Juan Hotel & Villas project (“Modification” or “proposed project”), as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code 21000 et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regs. §§ 15000-15387).

Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City is the Lead Agency charged with deciding whether or not to approve the proposed project. This Addendum addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project and will be considered by the City during the proposed project’s entitlement process.

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City’s review of the Addendum focuses on the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project that might cause a change in the conclusions of the adopted 2014 MND, including changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would substantially change those conclusions.

Pursuant to Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines that one or more of the following conditions are met:

Substantial project changes are proposed that will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

Substantial changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions to the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or


1. Introduction

Page 2 PlaceWorks

New information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified or the negative declaration was adopted shows any of the following:

A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration.

B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR.

C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.

D. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.

If some changes or additions to the previously prepared EIR or negative declaration are necessary, but none of the conditions specified in Section 15162 are present, the lead agency shall prepare an addendum (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164[a]). In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, since none of the conditions specified in Section 15162 are present, the City has determined that an Addendum to the adopted 2014 MND is the appropriate form of environmental review for the proposed project.

This Addendum reviews the changes proposed by the proposed project and any changes to the existing conditions that have occurred since the adoption of the 2014 MND. It also reviews new information of substantial importance related to environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and/or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known with exercise of reasonable diligence at the time that the 2014 MND was adopted. It further examines whether, as a result of any changes or any new information, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration may be required. This examination includes an analysis of the provisions of Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines and their applicability to the Modification.

The Environmental Checklist Form included in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines has been completed by the City and included in Section 4 of this Addendum. The checklist includes findings for the environmental effects of the proposed project as compared with the findings of the 2014 MND.

1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION This Addendum relies on the environmental analysis in the 2014 MND. A summary of the previous environmental documentation and how it relates to this Modification is provided below.

The technical studies and documents discussed below are available for review at the City of San Juan Capistrano, 32400 Paseo Adelanto, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675.


1. Introduction

July 2016 Page 3

1.3.1 2014 MND The 2014 MND analyzed the environmental impacts associated with the 2014 Approved Project, including Tentative Tract Map 17626, Conditional Use Permit 13-08, Architectural Control 13-23, Grading Plan Modification 13-03, and Tree Removal Plan; Historic Town Center Form Based Code (FBC) Administrative Modifications to the Town Center Zone District standards; and Amendment to the Historic Town Center Master Plan (HTCMP) to allow for 33 townhouse-style villas and a 69,282-square-foot, 136-guest-room hotel. The 2014 MND identified less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated to aesthetics (light and glare), air quality, biological resources (wildlife movement and compliance with local policies), cultural resources (historical and archaeological resources), geology and soils (unstable soils including instability due to liquefaction), water quality, noise, public services (fire protection), and transportation and traffic. Impacts to agricultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, and utilities and service systems were identified as less than significant or no impact.

1.3.2 Incorporation by Reference This Initial Study uses information and analysis in the HTCMP, General Plan Amendment, Rezone Final Program EIR, 2011 (SCH No. 2011011036) (“Program EIR”). The Program EIR contains extensive information about existing conditions in downtown San Juan Capistrano (also referred to as the Historic Town Center or Revitalization Area) and analyzes the overall growth planned for the area, including the project site. The Program EIR is therefore incorporated and referenced where used in this Initial Study. The Program EIR identified less than significant impacts after implementation of mitigation to the following resources:

Biological Resources

Cultural Resources

Geology and Soils

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Land Use and Planning

Noise

Public Services

Transportation and Traffic

Utilities and Service Systems

And less than significant impacts (or no impacts) to the following resources:

Aesthetics

Agricultural Resources


1. Introduction

Page 4 PlaceWorks

Air Quality

Hydrology and Water Quality

Mineral Resources

Population and Housing

Recreation

July 2016 Page 5

2. Environmental Setting 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The project is in the Historic Town Center downtown of the City of San Juan Capistrano in southern Orange County, as shown in Figure 1, Regional Location. Regional access to the site is from Interstate 5 (I-5), about 600 feet to the east, via Ortega Highway (State Route 74) and Camino Capistrano.

The 3.16-acre Hotel Capistrano project site is at 31872, 31878, and 31882 Camino Capistrano. The site is bounded on the north by Forster Street and the City-owned Historic Town Center (HTC) Park; on the east by commercial uses along Del Obispo Street and Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) Station #7; on the south by commercial uses; and on the west by Camino Capistrano and the Judge Richard Egan House (see Figures 2, Local Vicinity and 3, Aerial Photograph). The Egan House is historically significant and listed on the City’s Inventory of Historic & Cultural Landmarks (IHCL). The Esslinger Building, north of Forster Street at 31866 Camino Capistrano, is also historically significant and listed on the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, and the City’s IHCL. The project site is accessed from Forster Street on the northwest site boundary, as shown on Figure 2.

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2.2.1 Existing Land Use The project site is developed with three office buildings; a one-story office building at 31872 Camino Capistrano which was constructed in 1966; and two 2-story office buildings at 31882 and 31878 Camino Capistrano which were constructed in 1970 and 1973, respectively. The remainder of the site consists of surface parking and a small, publicly accessible space with landscaping and a fountain at the southeast corner of Forster Street and Camino Capistrano. There are several planters onsite, both next to buildings and in the parking lot, with landscape vegetation including trees and grasses.

2.2.2 Surrounding Land Use The project site is bounded on the north by Forster Street and the City-owned HTC Park; on the east by commercial uses along Del Obispo Street and OCFA Station #7; on the south by commercial uses (the “Mercado”); and on the west by Camino Capistrano and the Judge Richard Egan House (see Figures 2 and 3). The Egan House is historically significant and listed on the City’s IHCL. The Esslinger Building at 31866 Camino Capistrano is listed on the National Register, California Register, and the City’s IHCL. Mission San Juan Capistrano is about 700 feet north of the project site.


2. Environmental Setting

Page 6 PlaceWorks


PlaceWorks

Figure 1 - Regional Location

K I M P TO N H O T E L C A P I S T R A N O I N I T I A L S T U D Y / A D D E N D U MC I T Y O F S A N J U A N C A P I S T R A N O

Base Map Source: ESRI, USGS, NOAA, 2016

0

Scale (Miles)

3Note: Unincorporated county areas are shown in white.

Site

5

405

74

5



Page 8 PlaceWorks


PlaceWorks

Figure 2 - Local Vicinity


Base Map Source: ESRI, USGS, NOAA, 2016

0

Scale (Feet)

1,000

5

5

5

74

Site Boundary



Page 10 PlaceWorks


PlaceWorks

0

Scale (Feet)

250

Base Map Source: Google Earth Pro 2013

Figure 3 - Aerial Photograph

Del Obis

po S

t

Cam

ino

Cap

istra

no

El C

amin

o R

eal

Forster St

5

Site Boundary

Los

Rio

s St

Commercial

Rai

lroad

Commercial

Commercial

Commercial




Page 12 PlaceWorks


July 2016 Page 13

3. Project Description 3.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND 3.1.1 Historic Town Center Master Plan On April 2012, the City Council of San Juan Capistrano certified the Program EIR and adopted the Historic Town Center Master Plan and the Historic Town Center FBC. The HTCMP covered an approximately 150-acre site bounded by Acjachema Street to the north, the San Diego Freeway (I-5) to the east, Avenue La Paloma and existing retail to the south, and Paseo Adelanto to the west. The HTCMP envisioned that the planning area could increase total building area by approximately 61 percent. Proposed uses on the project site in the HTCMP consisted of multifamily residential, commercial, and mixed use; however, building areas and numbers of residential units proposed were not specified. Table 1 shows the buildout of the HTCMP.

Table 1 Development Statistics, Program EIR

Nonresidential Uses (Rounded to nearest 1,000 square

feet) Residential Units Hotel Rooms Existing Conditions 917,000 40 0 To Be Removed 274,000 0 0 To Be Developed 378,000 239 214 Net Change 104,000 239 214 HTCMP Buildout 1,020,000 279 214 Source: Program EIR

The project site is within a 44-acre Revitalization Area proposed in the HTCMP. The Revitalization Area is the centerpiece of the City’s HTCMP. This downtown area includes retail uses on both sides of Camino Capistrano as well as retail, hotel, office, and associated parking in the area surrounding HTC Park.

3.1.2 San Juan Hotel & Villas Project The San Juan Hotel & Villas project consisted of a 136-room hotel, 33 townhouse-style residential villas, 2,664 square feet of spa and retail space, and a 6,301-square-foot restaurant on the same 3.16-acre site as the project. The San Juan Hotel & Villas project is described throughout this Initial Study as the “2014 Approved Project.”

The hotel included 69,282 square feet and connects to the spa, restaurant, and event space. The spa and retail consisted of 2,664 square feet, with the opportunity for one to three retail bays fronting Forster Street with additional access from the hotel. The 6,301-square-foot restaurant included 2,814 square feet of ground-floor retail, 721 square feet of outdoor dining, and a 2,766-square-foot roof deck for dining and bar.


3. Project Description

Page 14 PlaceWorks

The 2014 Approved Project’s residential portion included 33 townhouse-style villas with complementary Mediterranean and Spanish colonial architecture averaging 2,100 square feet of gross floor area per unit. The proposed villas included two design concepts—one with an auto courtyard providing access to side-loaded garages, and a more conventional concept with garage doors facing the private streets. The villas were designed with indoor-outdoor spaces, using pocket doors and ±300-square-foot roof decks for additional private open space. The homes incorporated live, work, and play components described in the HTCMP, with office lofts for virtual workers, allowing residents to maximize the benefits of a walkable town center.

The San Juan Hotel & Villas project was never constructed.

3.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.2.1 Project Objectives The project objectives for the Hotel Capistrano project closely parallel and support HTCMP objectives. These objectives, listed below, will be considered in the environmental process to determine consistency with the City’s HTCMP.

To create a timeless design to complement Mission San Juan Capistrano by reflecting the historic character of the Mission and the City.

To provide needed services to residents and visitors to San Juan Capistrano, including hotel, restaurant, and a public promenade space.

To increase the City’s revenue-generating tax base through transient occupancy tax (TOT) receipts and sales taxes generated by hotel guests.

To promote business activity in downtown San Juan Capistrano by providing multiple event spaces within the hotel property along with sales generated by hotel guests.

To provide functional and safe pedestrian access and circulation by improving access points to the Mercado Village, new sidewalks on Camino Capistrano and Forster Street, and pedestrian access to the east to Del Obispo.

3.2.2 Project Characteristics Description of the Project The Kimpton Hotel Capistrano project—described throughout as “Modification” or “proposed project”—would include a 102-room hotel within a 65,315-square-foot building, including a pool and fitness center, and indoor and outdoor event space. A 6,937-square-foot restaurant is included, consisting of a single-level restaurant with rooftop deck, approximately 30 feet in height.

Hotel Capistrano consists of a three-story building above a basement. The event space would include a 5,600-square-foot banquet room and an outdoor public promenade area adjacent to the HTC Park. The pool would



July 2016 Page 15

be outdoors on the first-floor level on the south side of the building. The restaurant would include a 2,281-square-foot ground floor, a rooftop deck of 2,274 square feet, and a ground-floor outdoor dining area at the northwest corner of the site near Camino Capistrano and Forster Street.

The hotel is designed to reflect classic Spanish colonial architecture with ornately landscaped grounds and resort amenities, including multiple pedestrian pathways that are designed to inspire public use and connect the downtown, HTC Park, Mercado Village, and the retail along Del Obispo. The hotel building would be in a ‘V’ shape with the open end of the V facing HTC Park to the north, providing further connectivity to the downtown. Building elevations are shown in Figures 4a through 4d, Elevations.

A tree removal permit is required to remove, relocate, and replace the approximately 73 existing trees onsite. As shown on Figure 5, Conceptual Landscape Plan, the project will incorporate trees, shrubs, groundcover, and other landscaping throughout the site. The landscaping plan also includes plantings along the perimeter of the site and would preserve several existing large sycamore and eucalyptus trees adjacent to the site perimeter.

Comparison to Previously Approved Project

Table 2 shows a comparison of the proposed project to the 2014 Approved Project. Overall, the proposed project would result in a reduction of 34 hotel rooms and 33 townhomes, and an increase in 636 square feet of restaurant space.

Table 2 Development Statistics, 2014 Approved Project and Modification Hotel Capistrano

(Proposed Project) San Juan Hotel & Villas (2014 Approved Project)

Net Change

Hotel (Rooms) 102 136 -34 Restaurant (Square Feet) 6,937 6,301 +636 Townhomes 0 33 -33

Access, Circulation, and Parking Vehicular site access would be from Forster Street on the northwest site boundary. All 159 required parking spaces for the hotel and restaurant would be provided as subterranean/tuck-under parking at the hotel and surface parking in the east, south, and west parts of the site.

The site plan provides functional and safe vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian access and circulation throughout the site. Circulation would also enhance the downtown area circulation because the proposed project maintains and improves access points to the Mercado Village, provides new sidewalks on Camino Capistrano and Forster Street, and provides pedestrian access to the east private commercial property (O’Reilly Auto Parts Store) and to Del Obispo.

The proposed project would involve demolition of the three office buildings onsite. At least 50 percent of demolition debris would be reused or recycled in compliance with Section 5.408 of the California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 11).



Page 16 PlaceWorks

3.2.3 Discretionary Approvals The applicant is seeking approvals for the implementation of the proposed project. An Initial Study was completed to enable the City of San Juan Capistrano, other responsible agencies, and interested parties to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project, thereby enabling them to make informed decisions with respect to the following requested entitlements:

Architectural Control of the proposed site planning and architectural design of the proposed project.

Grading Modification Plan to allow grade to be altered by more than two feet.

Sign Program to provide commercial business identification signage consistent with the Title 9 Land Use Code.

Conditional Use Permit for the allowable hospitality use.

Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal of existing tree with a diameter of six inches or greater.

Base Map Source: Hannouche Architects, Inc., 2016

PlaceWorks

Figure 4a - Elevations

Hotel EntryWest Elevation

Forster StreetNorth Elevation




Page 18 PlaceWorks



PlaceWorks

Figure 4b - Elevations

0

Scale (Feet)

8

Restaurant EntrySouth Elevation

Restaurant EntryEast Elevation

Restaurant EntryWest Elevation

BanquetNorth Elevation




Page 20 PlaceWorks



PlaceWorks

Figure 4c - Elevations

0

Scale (Feet)

8

South Elevation

East Elevation




Page 22 PlaceWorks



PlaceWorks

Figure 4d - Elevations


0

Scale (Feet)

8

North Elevation



Page 24 PlaceWorks


KIMPTON HOTEL - SAN JUAN CAPISTRANORev: 02-03-16

PAGE 2

12-15-15

Rev: 02-19-16Rev: 02-22-16

Rev: 02-24-16Rev: 02-25-16 KIMPTON HOTEL - SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO

OVERALL CONCEPTUAL PLANBase Map Source: Hannouche Architects, Inc., 2016

PlaceWorks

Figure 5 - Conceptual Landscape Plan

0

Scale (Feet)

50




Page 26 PlaceWorks


July 2016 Page 27

4. Environmental Checklist 4.1 BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Kimpton Hotel Capistrano

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Juan Capistrano 32400 Paseo Adelanto San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Mathew Evans, Planner 949.487.4314

4. Project Location: The project site is in the downtown part of the City of San Juan Capistrano in southern Orange County. The 3.16-acre site is at the southeast corner of Camino Capistrano and Forster Street; the addresses onsite are 31872, 31878, and 31882 Camino Capistrano. The site is approximately 600 feet west of Interstate 5 and 700 feet south of Mission San Juan Capistrano.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Stratus Development Partners, LLC 17 Corporate Plaza, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660

6. General Plan Designation: General Commercial

7. Zoning: Town Center District

8. Description of Project: See Section 3.2, Project Description

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: See Section 2.2.2, Surrounding Land Use

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required: None.


4. Environmental Checklist

July 2016 Page 29

4.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. 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 would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

B. 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.

C. Once the lead agency 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.

D. “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.

E. 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 Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

F. Lead agencies are encouraged to 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. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

G. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.


4. Environmental Checklist

Page 30 PlaceWorks

H. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

I. 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 significant.

July 2016 Page 31

5. Environmental Analysis This section provides evidence to substantiate the conclusions in the environmental checklist. The section will briefly summarize the conclusions of the 2014 MND and discuss whether or not the proposed project (Modification) is consistent with the findings in the 2014 MND. Mitigation measures referenced are from the 2014 MND.

5.1 AESTHETICS 5.1.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the 2014 MND The 2014 MND concluded that the then-proposed San Juan Hotel & Villas project would not be visible from Interstate 5, would not block views of Mission San Juan Capistrano from Camino Capistrano, and would not block prominent views of hillsides to the east and west from HTC Park. Although project development would change the visual nature of the project site, the site is in an urban area characterized by a mixture of building forms, land uses, and public spaces. Impacts were identified as less than significant.

5.1.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project:

Environmental Issues

Substantial Change in

Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions

Substantial Change in Circum-stances

Requiring Major EIR Revisions

New Information

Showing New or Increased Significant

Effects

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or

New Information Requiring

Preparation of an EIR No Impact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? x

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

x

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

x

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

x


5. Environmental Analysis

Page 32 PlaceWorks

Methodology

The project applicant provided four view simulations for the purpose of analyzing aesthetic impacts. PlaceWorks performed third party peer review of these views to ensure that they represented an accurate depiction of the project, as proposed. The methodology and findings of the review is included in Appendix A. Following third party review, the applicant provided an updated view from Camino Capistrano and Forster looking east/southeast to reflect modifications to the restaurant design and to include a photograph (instead of a rendering) of the Egan House.

Comments: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Scenic vistas are panoramic views of features such as mountains, forests, the ocean, or urban skylines. The project site is in an urban area and in the interior of a block surrounded by other urban land uses. Although the project site offers some views of distant hillsides and ridgelines, these are limited and largely obscured by surrounding buildings, trees, and vegetation. Furthermore, the lower profile of the proposed project allows for more-distant views of ridgelines when compared to the 2014 Approved Project. Therefore, the proposed project, like the 2014 Approved Project, would not create a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista currently visible from the project site.

Although the proposed restaurant building partially fronts on Camino Capistrano, it would not obstruct views northward toward the Mission, and views of the Egan House and Esslinger Building would remain prominent to motorists traveling north and south along Camino Capistrano. The Esslinger Building is separated from the project site by Forster Street, and the Egan House would be separated from the proposed project by a minimum 20-foot setback, which is the same as larger than the 20-foot setback provided at this location under the 2014 Approved Project. Furthermore, under the 2014 Approved Project, the westernmost portion of the proposed hotel building (which included the project’s restaurant and retail components) would have obstructed southward views of the Egan House and northward views of the Esslinger Building for a limited stretch of roadway. Under the proposed project, the restaurant component of the project is substantially set back from Camino Capistrano, ensuring that both historic buildings would be clearly visible from the street. In general, the proposed project has a lower vertical profile near Camino Capistrano and Forster Street compared to the 2014 Approved Project, resulting in a project that is less visually prominent when viewed from the public realm. Therefore, impacts to scenic views of the area’s visual amenities would be reduced under the proposed project compared to those identified in the 2014 MND. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. There are no state or county scenic highways within or near the project site. Ortega Highway (SR-74) east of



July 2016 Page 33

I-5 and I-5 south of SR-74 are eligible for scenic highway status but not officially designated. These roadway segments are offsite and not visible from the project site. Views of the project site from these roadway segments would be obstructed by surrounding buildings, trees, and vegetation.

The 2014 Approved Project, as analyzed in the 2014 MND, would have involved removal, relocation, and replacement of approximately 73 existing onsite trees. The proposed project would occur on the same site identified in the 2014 MND and would not impact additional trees. Furthermore, the trees to be removed are nonnative, ornamental trees and do not meet the City-defined criteria of heritage trees. There are no historic buildings or unique or scenic above-ground geologic features (such as rock outcroppings) on the project site.

As discussed above, there are two historic buildings are adjacent to the project site: the Esslinger Building and the Egan House. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in damage to either historic resource because it would not result in the demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings. Although the project would alter the overall visual context of the Egan House by constructing a building in close proximity to the house, the Egan House’s overall relationship to the street and public realm would be unchanged (see also Section 5.5, Cultural Resources). The Egan House would remain in full view from Camino Capistrano. As a result, impacts of the proposed project on scenic resources would remain less than significant. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR.

General Plan Community Design Element The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan Community Design Element, which contains policies to guide future development in the “Mission District” (Historic Town Center). The proposed project includes “plazas, patios and arcades”; provides “well-designed pedestrian access for both new and existing uses”; and buffers loading areas from public view. The proposed project would be consistent with provisions of the Community Design Element related to scenic corridors by locating a well-articulated and pedestrian-oriented front building façade along Camino Capistrano. Since the HTCMP and FBC expressly allow three-story structures for hotels uses, the proposed project is also consistent with building height provisions of the Community Design Element, which require that new buildings not overshadow the existing scale of the area.

Historic Town Center Master Plan Implementation of the proposed project would replace the existing three office buildings, surface parking, and fountain plaza with a 102-room, three-story (with one subterranean/tuck-under level of parking) hotel, and therefore it would substantially alter the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings. The existing office development is now largely hidden from public view, and new buildings would be more visually prominent from Camino Capistrano, El Camino Real, Forster Street, and HTC Park. However, existing development on the site is not consistent with the urban design vision established for the Historic Town Center by the FBC. Unlike existing onsite development, the proposed project is intended to embody the



Page 34 PlaceWorks

“village character” prescribed in the HTCMP. Consistent with the HTCMP, the proposed project would create a walkable village character; feature active ground-floor retail space; use Mediterranean period architectural styles; and feature numerous design features that reflect the desired level of architectural detail (e.g., trellises, smooth plaster walls, red tile roofs, decorative grills and railings, and a covered colonnade) identified in the applicable design guidelines. The proposed project includes architectural control with review by the Planning Commission to ensure that the project’s architecture is consistent with the FBC and Architectural Design Guidelines.

Aesthetic Compatibility

Although the proposed restaurant building partially fronts on Camino Capistrano, it would not obstruct views of the Egan House, as the setback separates the buildings by 20-feet. The 20-foot setback is the same setback provided under the 2014 Approved Project. Furthermore, under the 2014 Approved Project, the westernmost portion of the proposed hotel building (which included the project’s restaurant and retail components) would have obstructed southward views of the Egan House and northward views of the Esslinger Building for a limited stretch of roadway. Under the new proposed project, the restaurant component of the proposed project is substantially set back from Camino Capistrano, ensuring that both historic buildings would be clearly visible from the street.

Additionally, Chapter 9-3.316 HTCMP, Table 2, requires that new buildings have a setback of 0- to 10 feet, with no less than 10 feet measured from the property line/edge of right-of-way (street) to the building. In order to preserve views of the Egan House when looking south from the Mission, the project proposes to set the restaurant building back 28 feet, while adding in a simple, open trellis structure that will extend 18- to 20 feet outward from the building towards the street, thus meeting the code requirement of the HTCMP. A low four-foot tall planter wall located on the property line is also provided to create a front-yard patio seating area that will be accessible from the interior of the restaurant (except for required emergency egress), which will be required by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverages (ABC) in order for the restaurant to offer beer, wine, and sprits. It should also be noted that the restaurant building will have a setback from Forster Street of approximately 18 feet from the new sidewalk, with a trellis structure and porte cochere element that will have setback ranging from 0- to 10 feet based on the angle of the street, as it relates to the building. The hotel building is setback approximately 120 feet from the Egan House. The increase in setback and lower profile buildings would reduce impacts on aesthetics compared to the 2014 Approved Project.

View Simulations View simulations have been prepared for the proposed project by the project applicant and peer reviewed by PlaceWorks (see Appendix A). The view simulations do not provide an exact rendering of the proposed buildings’ architectural details and design, but provide conceptual views, subject to change, to illustrate the project’s impact on site character. The simulations are shown in Figures 6 through 9.


PlaceWorks

Figure 6 - View Simulation - Park View Looking South


After Site BoundaryKey Map

Photo Location and Direction

0

Scale (Feet)

350

Del O

bispo

St

Cam

ino

Cap

istra

no

Foster St

Yorba St

El C

amin

o R

eal

Before

View

View



Page 36 PlaceWorks



PlaceWorks

Figure 7 - View Simulation - Del Obispo View Looking West



0

Scale (Feet)

350

Del Obis

po S

t

Cam

ino

Cap

istra

no

Foster St

Yorba St

El C

amin

o R

eal

Before

View


View



Page 38 PlaceWorks



PlaceWorks

Figure 8 - View Simulation - Mercado Village Parking Lot View Looking North

After

Site BoundaryKey Map


0

Scale (Feet)

350

Del Obis

po S

t

Cam

ino

Cap

istra

no

Foster St

Yorba St

El C

amin

o R

eal

Before

View

View




Page 40 PlaceWorks



PlaceWorks

Figure 9 - View Simulation - Camino Capistrano View Looking East



0

Scale (Feet)

350

Del Obis

po S

t

Cam

ino

Cap

istra

no

Foster St

Yorba St

El C

amin

o R

eal

View

View




Page 42 PlaceWorks




July 2016 Page 43

Description of Views and Related Impacts

View A, Park View Looking South. View A roughly corresponds to View 1 evaluated in the 2014 MND. It is a vantage point in the center of HTC Park facing south toward the northern portion of the project site. The existing view from this location shows that the existing brick office building on the project site is largely obscured by trees in the park and on the project site. The building’s one-story massing also minimizes its visual prominence from the park. The boundary between HTC Park and the project site is defined by a low stucco wall. A minor view of ridgelines in eastern San Juan Capistrano can be seen in the distance on the left side of the photograph.

Instead of three-story residential buildings directly facing onto HTC Park, as under the 2014 Approved Project, the proposed project would feature a one-story covered colonnade facing a majority of the project site’s interface with the park. The hotel building would step back from this outdoor space, creating a more subtle and visually permeable transition between the park and the proposed project. In general, the proposed project would have a dramatically reduced visual bulk compared to the 2014 Approved Project, and existing views of ridgelines visible from the park would remain intact. Therefore, impacts on the visual character and quality of HTC Park would be reduced, and impacts would remain less than significant.

View B, Del Obispo View Looking West. View B roughly corresponds to View 5 as analyzed in the 2014 MND. View B shows a vantage point looking west from the termination of Forster Street east of the project site. Views of the project site are fully obstructed by existing mature ornamental trees and shrubs, a low wall, and a steel guard rail. Like the 2014 Approved Project, the proposed project would feature three-story building elevations facing the east side of the project site. Figure 7 demonstrates that, under the proposed project, this elevation of the hotel would remain well screened by onsite landscaping and existing offsite trees. Because the proposed project, unlike the 2014 Approved Project, does not propose a full-width street section for the portion of Forster Street at this location, existing landscaping along Forster Street would be left more intact, further shielding urban development on the project site. Furthermore, the proposed Mediterranean architectural style would be visually compatible with the neutral colors and red tile roofs of surrounding buildings. Visual impacts related to views of the proposed project from land uses to the south would remain less than significant.

View C, Mercado Village Parking Lot View Looking North. A view simulation for this view was not prepared as part of the 2014 MND. This view shows small glimpses of the project site through existing trees and commercial buildings. Under the proposed project, the three-story massing of the proposed hotel would be visible but largely obscured by existing offsite trees. Furthermore, a three-story hotel building was proposed for this side of the project site under the 2014 Approved Project. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the severity of visual impacts analyzed by the 2014 MND. Impacts on visual character and quality related to land uses to the south of the project site would remain less than significant.

View D, Camino Capistrano View Looking East. This view roughly corresponds to View 3 in the 2014 MND. This view looks southeast toward the project site from the intersection of Camino



Page 44 PlaceWorks

Capistrano and Forster Street. As shown in Figure 9, the historic Esslinger Building can be seen on the far left and the historic Egan House can be seen on the far right. While the 2014 Approved Project proposed a three-story building that directly fronted onto Camino Capistrano and obscured southward views of the Egan house, the proposed project includes a substantially shorter single-level restaurant building with roof-top deck at this location. The building would be set back from the street, providing generous views of the Egan House from the north and the Esslinger Building from the south. The scale and massing of the proposed restaurant building more closely matches the scale of these two visual amenities while also maintaining a visually appealing streetscene along Camino Capistrano and Forster Street. Visual interest would be provided by trellises (setback 10 feet from the sidewalk), red tile roofs, landscaping, and decorative rails. The taller hotel building behind the restaurant building is set back across an entry driveway, reducing its visual impact on the Camino Capistrano corridor. Impacts on visual character and quality related to the Egan House, Esslinger Building, and Camino Capistrano corridor would be reduced under the proposed project when compared to the 2014 Approved Project. Impacts would remain less than significant.

As discussed above and shown in Figures 6 through 9, the proposed project would substantially alter the existing visual character of the project site. Existing views of ornamental trees and parking areas would be replaced by views of multistory building forms. However, the project site is in an urban environment that is characterized by a vibrant mixture of building forms, land uses, and public spaces. In general, the addition of a three-story hotel building on the project site would be consistent with the varied nature of downtown’s visual character. The project’s proposed architectural design, building articulation, and landscaping would enhance the site’s visual quality and character. Based on the architecture plans provided and a color palette that is substantially consistent with the design guidelines, no significant adverse impact would occur. For the above reasons, the proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Modification would add safety and security lighting and signage on the hotel and restaurant buildings and in parking areas, driveways, and walkways. The lighting and signage would be similar to the types of lighting and signage evaluated in the 2014 MND, but would be in different locations.

Similar to the previous approval, the Modification would be consistent with San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code Section 9-3.529, Lighting Standards. The municipal code recommends that lighting levels be maintained “at minimum levels to protect the public safety and at the same time enhance the appeal of buildings and landscaping to protect the desired atmosphere of the community.” Lighting standards in the code are based on the recommended standards of the Illuminating Engineering Society for streets, parking lots, parking structures, pedestrian routes, and commercial uses.

Glare created by the Modification would be minimized by the architecture of the proposed buildings and by perimeter landscaping. Because the City’s standards allow the minimal level of lighting to provide safety,



July 2016 Page 45

convenience, and security, the Modification would include only the minimum amount of light necessary to meet these standards. Furthermore, development of the proposed project would be required to comply with California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, which outlines mandatory provisions for lighting control devices and luminaires. Compliance with the municipal code, Title 24, and previously adopted Mitigation Measure AES-1 would ensure that the proposed project doesn’t result in significant light and glare effects. Therefore, no new or substantially increased impact would occur when compared to the 2014 MND.

5.1.3 2014 MND Mitigation Measures AES-1 Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall submit a lighting

and photometric plan to the City Development Service Department for review and approval that complies with all applicable requirements and policies of the City. The lighting plan shall include the number, location, height, orientation and intensity (foot-candle) of street and building lighting—limited to the minimum necessary for public safety in order to reduce potential for light and glare and incidental spillover onto adjacent properties. The lighting plan shall demonstrate that lights will be designed, installed, and shielded in accordance with all City standards.

5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES 5.2.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the 2014 MND No impact to agricultural or forestry resources was identified in the 2014 MND, because the project site was built out with urban uses and there was no mapped important farmland, agricultural use, forest land, or zoning for forest use onsite.

5.2.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project






New Information


Effects




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?

x

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? x



Page 46 PlaceWorks






New Information


Effects




c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

x

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? x

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

x

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

Comments: 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. There is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the project site. No impact to mapped farmland would therefore occur.

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

No Impact. There is no zoning for agricultural use on the project site and no Williamson Act contracts. The zoning designation on the project site is Historic Town Center Master Plan – Town Center District. No impacts would occur.



July 2016 Page 47

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

No Impact. The project site is developed and does not contain zoning for forest land. No impacts would occur.

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

No Impact. The project site is built out with urban land uses. Forest land is not present onsite or in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

No Impact. The project site and its immediate vicinity do not have any agricultural or forestry land uses. Therefore, the project would not involve any changes to land uses or any changes to the environment that would result in the conversion of farmland or forest land to other land uses. No impact would occur.

5.2.3 2014 MND Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures related to agriculture and forestry resources were identified in the 2014 MND, and no mitigation measures are required.

5.3 AIR QUALITY 5.3.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the 2014 MND Applicable Air Quality Plan The 2014 MND evaluated air quality impacts associated with development of a 136-room hotel, 33 townhouse-style residential villas, 2,664 square feet of spa and retail space, and a 6,301-square-foot restaurant on the 3.16-acre site:

Consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP): The 2014 MND concluded that the 2014 Approved Project would neither conflict with nor obstruct implementation of the AQMP. The impact was identified as less than significant and no mitigation measures were required.

Emissions from Construction Activity: According to the 2014 MND, the maximum daily construction-related emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOX) for the 2014 Approved Project would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) construction significance thresholds during peak construction scenario. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the maximum daily construction-related emissions of NOX would be reduced to below the SCAQMD construction significance thresholds. Therefore, the 2014 MND concluded that with incorporation of



Page 48 PlaceWorks

mitigation, impacts to the regional air quality from project-related construction activities would be less than significant.

Emissions from Operational Activity: According to the 2014 MND, the total daily emissions resulting from operation of the 2014 Approved Project would not exceed the SCAQMD operational significance thresholds. Therefore, the 2014 MND concluded that impacts from project-related operational activities to the regional air quality would be less than significant and no mitigation measures were required.

Impacts on Sensitive Receptors: The 2014 Approved Project included onsite sensitive receptors, and the 2014 MND included an evaluation of air quality compatibility from siting these receptors proximate to I-5. The health risk assessment (HRA) prepared for the 2014 MND indicated that the estimated incremental cancer risk to project residents from mobile and stationary sources would exceed the SCAQMD threshold. However, with incorporation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2 through AQ-4, cancer risk impacts to future residential occupants of the 2014 Approved Project were reduced to less than significant levels.

Odor Impacts: The 2014 Approved Project would not include uses that would generate significant objectionable odors. As concluded in the 2014 MND, the impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures were required.

5.3.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the proposed project:






New Information


Effects




a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? x

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

x

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

x



July 2016 Page 49






New Information


Effects




d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? x

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? x

Methodology

SCAQMD’s most recent air quality analysis model, CalEEMod 2013.2.2., was utilized to compare the impacts of the 2014 Approved Project with those of the proposed project. Resulting construction and operational emissions are compared to the significance thresholds adopted by SCAQMD. Air quality modeling results are included in Appendix B.

Comments: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) to achieve National and California ambient air quality standards (AAQS). SCAQMD prepared an AQMP that was adopted on December 7, 2012, by the SCAQMD Governing Board. The 2012 AQMP is a regional and multiagency effort by SCAQMD, California Air Resources Board, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The two principal criteria for conformance to an AQMP are:

1. Whether the project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations; cause or contribute to new violations; or delay timely attainment of air quality standards and

2. Whether the project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP.

With respect to the first criterion, the analyses in responses to 5.3(b) and 5.3(c) below demonstrate that the Modification would not generate short-term or long-term emissions of criteria pollutants that could potentially cause an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations; cause or contribute to new violations; or delay timely attainment of air quality standards beyond those impacts considered in the 2014 MND.

With respect to the second criterion, the Modification would not increase or modify SCAG’s population, housing, or employment projections beyond what was already anticipated for the area with adoption of the



Page 50 PlaceWorks

2014 MND. Therefore, the Modification would be consistent with the region’s AQMP. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. There would be no new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The following describes changes in regional impacts from short-term construction activities and long-term operation of the Modification compared to construction and operation of the 2014 Approved Project.

Construction-Related Impacts

The 2014 MND identified that criteria air pollutant emissions generated during construction activities would exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds. Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which limits soil haul to 270 trucks per day, was incorporated into the 2014 MND to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

The Modification would include 102 guest rooms in 65,315 square feet of building area that would connect to the pool, restaurant, and event space. The Modification would require up to 3,000 cubic yards of soil export (19 trucks per day) for creation of the basement, which is less than the 26,277 cubic yards of soil export required for the 2014 Approved Project. Table 3, Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions, shows the maximum daily construction emissions generated by the proposed Modification compared to that identified in the 2014 MND. As shown in Table 3, air pollutant emissions from the Modification’s construction-related activities would be less than those identified in the 2014 MND and less than SCAQMD regional construction thresholds. Consequently, the Modification would not result in an increase in the severity of any significant impacts previously identified in the 2014 MND.



July 2016 Page 51

Table 3 Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions

Construction Phase

Pollutants (pounds per day)

VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5

2014 MND 2014 Maximum Daily Emissions with Mitigation Measure AQ-1 19 94 121 <1 11 5

Modification1, 2 2016 Building Demolition 1 12 10 <1 1 1 Building Demolition + Building Demo Debris Haul 2 17 20 <1 7 2

Asphalt Demolition 1 7 5 <1 1 <1 Asphalt Demo Debris Haul 1 10 12 <1 4 1 Site Preparation 3 27 14 <1 2 2 Rough Grading 3 27 14 <1 2 2 Rough Grading + Rough Grading Soil Haul 3 30 21 <1 3 2 2017 Utility Installation 1 8 7 <1 1 1 Fine Grading 2 25 14 <1 2 1 Concrete Foundation 1 7 7 <1 1 1 Building Construction 1 8 9 <1 1 1 Building Construction + Architectural Coating 1 11 12 <1 1 1 2018 Building Construction + Architectural Coating 1 9 11 <1 1 1 Building Construction + Architectural Coating + Asphalt Paving + Finishing/Landscaping 3 26 23 <1 2 2

Overall Maximum Daily Emissions 3 30 23 <1 7 2 Net Change Net Change in Maximum Daily Emissions -16 -64 -98 <1 -4 -3 SCAQMD Regional Construction Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significant? No No No No No No Sources: San Juan Capistrano 2014; CalEEMod 2013.2.2. Notes: Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 1 Construction phasing is based on the preliminary information provided by the applicant. Where specific information regarding project-related construction activities

was not available, construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by SCAQMD of construction equipment and phasing for comparable projects.

2 Includes implementation of fugitive dust control measures required by SCAQMD under Rule 403, including watering disturbed areas a minimum of two times per day, reducing speed limit to 15 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, replacing ground cover quickly, and street sweeping with Rule 1186-compliant sweepers.

Operation-Related Impacts

Long-term air pollutant emissions generated by the project are associated with the burning of fossil fuels in cars (mobile sources); energy use for cooling and heating (energy); and landscape equipment use (area sources). The primary source of long-term criteria air pollutant emissions generated by the project would be emissions produced from project-generated vehicle trips.



Page 52 PlaceWorks

As identified in the 2014 MND, the 2014 Approved Project would not result in a substantial increase in air pollutant emissions and would not exceed SCAQMD’s significance standards for air pollutants. Table 4, Maximum Daily Regional Operation Emissions, shows the maximum daily operation emissions generated by the proposed Modification compared to the 2014 Approved Project. As shown in Table 4, air pollutant emissions from the Modification’s operation-related activities would be less than those identified in the 2014 MND and less than the SCAQMD regional operation thresholds. Consequently, the Modification would not result in an increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts compared to those identified in the 2014 MND.

Table 4 Maximum Daily Regional Operation Emissions

Construction Phase

Pollutants (pounds per day)

VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5

Emissions Identified in the 2014 MND Area 5 <1 3 <1 <1 <1 Energy <1 1 1 <1 <1 <1 Mobile Sources 6 6 65 <1 13 3 Maximum Daily Emissions 11 8 68 <1 13 4 Modification Area 2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Energy <1 1 1 <1 <1 <1 Mobile Sources 3 6 30 <1 6 2 Maximum Daily Emissions 5 7 31 <1 6 2 Net Change Net Change in Maximum Daily Emissions -6 -1 -37 <1 -7 -2 SCAQMD Regional Operation Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant? No No No No No No Sources: San Juan Capistrano 2014; CalEEMod 2013.2.2. Notes: Highest winter or summer emissions are reported. Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding.

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Orange County portion of the SoCAB is a nonattainment area for O3, PM10 (state only), and PM2.5. According to SCAQMD methodology, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values would not add significantly to a cumulative impact (SCAQMD 1993). The 2014 MND found that the 2014 Approved Project, with incorporation of mitigation, would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment. The Modification would not increase the total amount of development allowed in the project site, as evaluated in the 2014 MND. Also, as discussed under 5.3(b), above, the Modification would not result in a substantial increase in regional construction or operational emissions when compared to the previous analyses. Therefore, the Modification would not result in any new cumulatively considerable emissions increases or



July 2016 Page 53

new cumulative air quality impacts, nor would it result in an increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts compared to those identified in 2014 MND.

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?


The following describes impacts on sensitive receptors from the Modification compared to the 2014 Approved Project.

Construction LSTs

The 2014 MND found that construction of the 2014 Approved Project would result in less than significant localized air quality impacts. Table 5, Localized Construction Emissions, shows the Modification’s maximum daily construction emissions (pounds per day) generated during onsite construction activities compared with the SCAQMD’s LSTs. As shown in the table, the maximum daily construction emissions generated from onsite construction activities for the Modification would be less than their respective SCAQMD LSTs. Therefore, the Modification would not create a new significant impact and it would not require major revisions to the 2014 MND.



Page 54 PlaceWorks

Table 5 Localized Construction Emissions

Source Onsite Criteria Air Pollutants (lbs/day)1,2

NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 2016 Asphalt Demolition 6 5 <1 <1 Asphalt Demolition + Asphalt Demo Debris Haul 6 5 4 1 =<1.00-Acre LST 91 696 37 14 Exceeds LST No No No No Building Demolition 11 9 1 1 Building Demolition + Building Demo Debris Haul 11 9 6 2 1.50-Acre LST 111 844 40 15 Exceeds LST No No No No Site Preparation 26 13 2 1 Rough Grading 26 13 2 1 Rough Grading + Rough Grading Soil Haul 26 13 2 1 2.00-Acre LST 131 993 43 16 Exceeds LST No No No No 2017 Building Construction 6 5 <1 <1 Building Construction + Architectural Coating 9 8 1 1 =<1.00-Acre LST 91 696 37 14 Exceeds LST No No No No Utility Installation 7 6 1 <1 Concrete Foundation 7 6 1 <1 1.50-Acre LST 111 844 40 15 Exceeds LST No No No No Fine Grading 25 13 2 1 2.00-Acre LST 131 993 43 16 Exceeds LST No No No No 2018 Building Construction + Architectural Coating 8 7 1 1 =<1.00-Acre LST 91 696 37 14 Exceeds LST No No No No Building Construction + Architectural Coating + Asphalt Paving + Finishing/Landscaping 25 19 2 1

2.00-Acre LST 131 993 43 16 Exceeds LST No No No No Source: CalEEMod 2013.2.2; SCAQMD, Localized Significance Methodology, 2006, October, Appendix A. Note: In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, only onsite stationary sources and mobile equipment occurring on the project site are included in the analysis. NOX

and CO LSTs are based on receptors within 82 feet (25 meters). PM10 and PM2.5 LSTs are based on receptors within 500 feet (152 meters). 1 Construction phasing is based on the preliminary information provided by the applicant. Where specific information regarding project-related construction activities

was not available, construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by SCAQMD of construction equipment and phasing for comparable projects.

2 Includes implementation of fugitive dust control measures required by SCAQMD under Rule 403, including watering disturbed areas a minimum of two times per day, reducing speed limit to 15 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, replacing ground cover quickly, and street sweeping with Rule 1186-compliant sweepers.



July 2016 Page 55

Operation LSTs

The 2014 MND found that operation of the 2014 Approved Project would not generate substantial quantities of emissions from onsite stationary sources and that localized air quality impacts related to stationary-source emissions would be less than significant. Land uses that have the potential to generate substantial stationary sources of emissions that would require a permit from SCAQMD include industrial land uses, such as chemical processing and warehousing operations where substantial truck idling could occur onsite. The Modification does not fall within these categories of uses. While operation of the Modification would result in the use of standard onsite mechanical equipment such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units and the occasional use of landscaping equipment for site maintenance, air pollutant emissions generated from these activities would be nominal. Therefore, like the 2014 Approved Project, localized air quality impacts related to stationary-source emissions would be less than significant for the Modification, and no mitigation measures are required. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, and it would not require major revisions to the 2014 MND.

Carbon Monoxide Hotpots

The 2014 MND found that the 2014 Approved Project would not have the potential to substantially increase CO hotspots at intersections in the vicinity of the project site. The SoCAB has been designated attainment under both the National and California AAQS for CO. Under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited—in order to generate a significant CO impact (BAAQMD 2011). The Modification would result in approximately 1,273 average daily trips during a weekday, 58 trips during the morning peak hour, and 83 trips during the evening peak hour—substantially less than the volumes cited above. Furthermore, the SoCAB is in attainment of both the National and California AAQS for CO. The Modification would not have the potential to substantially increase CO hotspots at intersections in the vicinity of the project site. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile-source emissions would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. The proposed project would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, and it would not require major revisions to the 2014 MND.

Health Risk Assessment

The 2014 Approved Project involved siting residential land uses within 550 feet of I-5 and 440 feet of a railroad easement utilized by Amtrak and Metrolink passenger trains and freight trains; therefore, the health risk from these mobile sources and additional identified stationary sources of toxic air contaminants was evaluated. Based on the HRA, the 2014 MND found that cancer risk impacts to future residential occupants would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures, and the noncarcinogenic impacts to future residential occupants would be less than significant.

The proposed project involves the development of hotel and restaurant uses and would not site sensitive receptors near mobile and stationary sources of toxic air contaminants. Therefore, an HRA is not warranted, and Mitigation Measures AQ-2, AQ-3, AQ-4 would not apply to the proposed project. The proposed project



Page 56 PlaceWorks

would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, and it would not require major revisions to the 2014 MND.

Furthermore, as recently confirmed by the California Supreme Court, with a few exceptions, the assessment of the environment’s impact on the project is not considered an impact under CEQA (California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369).

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

No Impact. According to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993), land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project does not include any uses associated with odors and therefore would not produce objectionable odors. The proposed project would have no impact related to objectionable odors.

5.3.3 2014 MND Mitigation Measures The mitigation measures identified in the 2014 MND are not required for the Modification because regional construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD regional construction thresholds (Mitigation Measure AQ-1) and the proposed project is not considered a sensitive land use for the purpose of this air quality analysis (Mitigation Measure AQ-2, AQ-3, and AQ-4).

5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5.4.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the 2014 MND The 2014 MND found less than significant impacts to sensitive species and habitats supporting those species; no impact to wetlands, riparian habitats, or sensitive natural communities; and no impact to habitat conservation plans. Impacts to trees that could house nesting birds were identified as less than significant after implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Implementation of BIO-1 was also found to reduce impacts to Heritage Trees, as defined by the City of San Juan Capistrano, to less than significant.




July 2016 Page 57






New Information


Effects




a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

x

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

x

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?

x

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?

x

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

x

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?

x

Methodology Comments: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species

identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

No Impact. Sensitive biological resources are habitats or species that have been recognized by federal, state, and/or local agencies as endangered, threatened, rare, or in decline throughout all or part of their historical



Page 58 PlaceWorks

distribution. The project site is built out and there are no known sensitive habitats or species on the project site. This would be consistent with what was identified in the 2014 MND; therefore, the Modification would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

No Impact. The project site is built out and in a highly urbanized area. It does not have any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in plans, policies, or regulations or by fish and wildlife agencies. This is consistent with the findings in the 2014 MND; therefore, the Modification would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

No Impact. The 3.16-acre project site is fully developed with urban land uses. There are no wetlands or watercourses of any kind on the project site. Therefore, development of the project would not affect protected wetlands, and no impact would occur. This is consistent with the findings in the 2014 MND; therefore, the Modification would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

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 Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Modification does not feature any natural vegetation or wildlife habitat, nor does it feature a watercourse or wetland area. The project site is not in a designated wildlife corridor. However, the proposed project would remove the existing ornamental trees onsite that may be used as nesting sites for migratory or native resident birds. This is consistent with the findings in the 2014 MND; therefore, the Modification would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would also apply to the project.

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Although the Modification would reduce the overall development intensity on the project site, the development footprint and disturbed areas would generally be the same as the 2014 Approved Project. The Modification would be required to comply with the City’s tree preservation ordinance (Municipal Code Section 9-2.349) ensuring that heritage trees are preserved. The proposed project includes a permit to remove all existing trees with a diameter of six inches or greater. Removal of all trees would be documented by the permit consistent with the City’s tree preservation ordinance.



July 2016 Page 59

In addition, the proposed project is required to comply with Title 5, Chapter 5 of the City’s Municipal Code, which prohibits anyone from trapping, hunting, shooting, molesting, injuring, or killing any bird, and prohibits nests and eggs from being damaged, destroyed, or otherwise tampered with. Previously adopted Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would mitigate any potential impacts of the proposed project on birds and bird nests. These findings are consistent with those of the 2014 MND; therefore, the Modification would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

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?

No Impact. The project site is in the plan area of the Orange County Central-Coastal Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). However, the project site is in an area designated for urban development and not in the NCCP reserve system (Orange County 1996). Therefore, consistent with the 2014 MND findings, the Modification is consistent with the applicable conservation plans and no impact would occur.

5.4.3 2014 MND Mitigation Measures BIO-1 Prior to issuance of any Tree Removal Permit or prior to engaging in any construction-

related activities (e.g., construction staging, demolition, site clearing, etc.) that would occur during the breeding season for native birds (February 15 thought July 31), the project applicant shall retain the services of a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct a preconstruction bird survey of the construction zone. The City will require the developer to submit a copy of the executed contract for such services prior to the issuance of any grading permits. The survey shall be performed not more than seven days prior to the initiation of grading/construction activities. If the biologist detects any occupied nests of native birds within the construction zone, they shall be mapped on construction plans, and the project applicant will fence off the area(s) supporting bird nests with temporary construction fencing, providing a minimum buffer of 200 feet between the nest and limits of construction (except for any nesting raptors, for which a minimum of 500-foot buffer will be provided). The construction crew will be instructed to avoid any activities in the zone until any bird nests are no longer occupied, per a subsequent survey by the qualified biologist. Alternatively, the project applicant will consult as appropriate with the US Fish and Wildlife Service to discuss the potential loss of nests of native birds covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to obtain the appropriate permit from the USFWS.

5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 5.5.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the 2014 MND Historical Resources The 2014 MND determined that the project area is surrounded by properties and structures that have significant historical value. The site is near the prehistoric/ethnohistoric village of Acjacheme. Mission San



Page 60 PlaceWorks

Juan Capistrano moved adjacent to the village in 1778 due to problems with its previous location. The area south of Mission San Juan Capistrano was the location of the mission plaza and early homes of Juaneños, mission soldiers, and settlers (Juaneño adobes). The project site itself included a portion of the mission orchard and the wall around it. By the 1880s, the majority of the project site and immediate vicinity were owned by the Forster family, with the southern border owned by Richard Egan. The Forsters were a prominent family in San Juan Capistrano from the 1840s onward. Egan settled in San Juan Capistrano in the 1860s and became a judge and county supervisor. Both the Forsters and Egan constructed large brick homes on their properties in 1883. Egan House is preserved, but Forster’s Casa Grande was demolished in 1965.

As determined by the 2014 MND, there are no aboveground historical structures currently on the project site. However, there are offsite and onsite subsurface historical resources that may be affected by the project. Offsite resources consist of the adjacent Egan House to the immediate southwest, the Esslinger Building to the north across Forster Street, and the original alignment of Camino Capistrano. Subsurface historic resources include the potential archeological remnants of Juaneño adobes, Forster’s Casa Grande, and the foundation of the Mission’s garden wall. The Egan House, Esslinger Building, and Casa Grande characteristics are described in the 2014 MND. Impacts related to subsurface remnants of Forster’s Casa Grande are evaluated below under Archaeological Resources.

The 2014 MND determined that the 2014 Approved Project would not result in direct impacts to two historical resources, the Egan House and Esslinger Building; however, indirect effects from construction vibration or differential settlement had the potential to harm the physical structures. Mitigation Measures N-5 and N-6 were incorporated to ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, the 2014 MND acknowledged that the 2014 Approved Project would comply with the City’s standard conditions for onsite monitoring and mitigation enforcement for historic resources, outlined in San Juan Capistrano Policy 601. Policy 601 requires Native American monitoring and archeological monitoring during all grading and excavation.

Archaeological Resources The 2014 MND determined that the project site is considered archaeologically significant by the City of San Juan Capistrano and by the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation. Archaeological monitoring of utility trenches in 1988 near the southwest project boundary recovered numerous prehistoric and historic archaeological artifacts and three historic-era features, albeit in a disturbed context. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 establishes procedures for treatment of archaeological resources in the event that they are discovered during project construction, conforming with City of San Juan Capistrano Policy 601 requiring Native American and/or archaeological monitoring of ground-disturbing activities. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Paleontological Resources The 2014 MND determined that that 2014 Approved Project’s ground-disturbing activities would not disturb rock or sediment likely to contain fossils. Sediments onsite to depths of up to approximately 41 to 43 feet are Quaternary alluvium and colluvium less than 10,000 years old, too young to contain fossils. The alluvium and colluvium are underlain by Capistrano Formation siltstone, 9 to 5 million years old. Capistrano Formation



July 2016 Page 61

rock has produced numerous fossils of marine animals and plants. The 2014 Approved Project site grading and construction would not involve ground disturbances to depths reaching Capistrano Formation rock. Therefore the 2014 MND determined that impacts would be less than significant.

Disturb Human Remains The 2014 MND concluded that it was unlikely that project ground-disturbing activities would disturb human remains, considering extensive past disturbances of the site. In the unlikely event that human remains were encountered during ground-disturbing activities, the 2014 MND noted that the project construction contractor and the Orange County Coroner would be required to comply with relevant California Health and Safety Code requirements. Therefore the 2014 determined that impacts were less than significant.







New Information


Effects




a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?

x

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological

resource pursuant to § 15064.5? x

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

x

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? x

Comments: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in

§ 15064.5?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The development footprint and building heights of the proposed project are similar to the 2014 Approved Project with some notable exceptions. The restaurant building adjacent to the Egan House would be 30.5 feet in height (compared to the approximate 45 foot height of the 2014 Approved Project) and would not exceed the height of the historic structure (35.3 feet). Additionally, the restaurant would have a 25-foot setback from Camino Capistrano to create greater visual prominence for the Egan House (compared to the approximate 20-foot setback of the 2014 Approved Project).



Page 62 PlaceWorks

Consistent with the findings of the 2014 MND, the Modification would not result in any physical impacts to the surrounding historical resources. Indirect visual impacts to the Egan House would be reduced under the Modification due to the reduced building footprint, reduced building height, and increased setback. The Modification could indirectly impact adjacent historical resources during construction activities from vibration. However, previously adopted Mitigation Measures N-5 and N-6 would ensure that impacts are less than significant. These findings are consistent with and less than those identified in the 2014 MND; therefore, the Modification would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The development footprint is similar to the 2014 Approved Project. As determined by the 2014 MND, the entire project is in an area considered archaeologically sensitive by the City, as detailed in the cultural resources element of the general plan and by the local Native American community.

Similar to the 2014 Approved Project, most of the grading for the proposed project involves minor grading of less than 18 feet. Considering the historical use of this locale and the proximity of known archaeological and built-environment resources—including the prehistoric and historic-era archaeological material recorded on the Egan House property—there is a relatively high potential for subsurface cultural artifacts, deposits, or features. These may include historic-era refuse deposits and hollow space features such as privies or cisterns associated with the Juaneño adobes, Casa Grande, and Egan House or footings of the mission garden wall, as well as significant prehistoric/ethnohistoric cultural materials or deposits, such as burials or the remnants of the Juaneño adobe homes. This area may thus contain significant subsurface prehistoric or historic-era archaeological resources that have the potential to yield information important to local or regional prehistory or history and that would be eligible for California Register listing.

Consistent with City Council Policy 601, full-time archaeological and Native American monitoring is required for excavations of more than 18 inches (due to disturbances from prior development). Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would also apply to the Modification to ensure proper treatment of archaeological resources in the event that they are discovered during project construction. These findings are consistent with those identified in the 2014 MND; therefore, the Modification would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

No Impact. The Modification would not result in excavations into soils with a high potential for paleontological resources. Because the subterranean/tuck-under hotel parking garage in the proposed project would only require excavation up to 23 feet below grade, excavation on the proposed project site is not anticipated to encounter or disturb fossils in the Capistrano Formation (at over 40 feet depth). No impacts to paleontological resources are anticipated. These findings are consistent with those identified in the 2014



July 2016 Page 63

MND; therefore, the Modification would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Based on previous investigation, the 2014 MND did not identify any human remains or known human burial sites on the project site or in its vicinity. Since the project site has been heavily disturbed in the past, it is unlikely that any human remains exist on the site. Furthermore, historical habitation of the area is associated with the Mission period, during which the deceased would have been interred in the Mission cemetery along the east side of Mission San Juan Capistrano or in the Mission cemetery near Ortega Highway (SR-74). However, although unlikely, the excavation and grading activities of the Modification could result in impacts to unknown prehistoric human remains.

California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. Specifically, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that disturbance of the site shall halt until the coroner has conducted an investigation and made recommendations concerning the remains’ treatment and disposition to the person responsible for the excavation or to his or her authorized representative in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner has reason to believe that the human remains are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. Compliance with existing law would ensure that, while disturbance of human remains may occur during project activities, those impacts would be less than significant

5.5.3 2014 MND Mitigation Measures CR-1 A Monitoring and Unanticipated Discovery Plan (MUDP) written by a qualified historical

archaeologist shall be prepared. The MUDP shall be submitted to the City’s Development Services Director for review and approval prior to the start of project-related ground disturbance. This preconstruction task will guide and facilitate the identification, treatment, curation, and management of archaeological and paleontological resources found during project activities. The MUDP shall:

1. Identify avoidance or archaeologically sensitive areas within and adjacent to project impact areas.

2. Require cultural awareness education for supervisory and construction personnel; define the responsibilities of monitors and associated staff.

3. Outline a protection or treatment plan for historical resources or significant fossils; and summarize communication and procedures if cultural resources, including human remains and paleontological resources, are encountered.



Page 64 PlaceWorks

The MUDP shall also include the following provisions:

4. A qualified archeologist or paleontologist (archeological monitor) should be onsite during all phases of project construction that involve earth movement, including grading, trenching, and excavation.

5. Should cultural resources, including human remains or fossils, be discovered during construction activities, project personnel shall halt such activities in the immediate area and immediately notify the on-call monitor. The archeological monitor shall evaluate the resource(s) encountered and recommend the development of mitigation measures for potentially significant resources consistent with PRC Section 21083.2(i) and City Council Policy 601. Preservation in place is the preferred method of mitigation and should be considered first. Construction activities may continue in other areas of the site as determined appropriate by the monitor in consultation with the construction supervisor. Any dispute between the archeological monitor and construction supervisor shall be arbitrated by the Development Services Director. If the discovery proves to be significant, additional investigation, such as evaluation and data recovery excavation, may be warranted. Further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until an agreement has been reached about the appropriate preservation or mitigation measures between the qualified project archaeologist or paleontologist, the City as the lead agency, and the Native American tribal representative if relevant.

6. If preservation in place of a discovered resource is not feasible, comprehensive documentation of the resource or other such measures by a qualified field archeologist shall be performed prior to removal of the resource.

N-5 During project construction and grading activities, the use of vibratory rollers shall be prohibited. Static compactors shall be used for areas requiring soil compaction. This requirement shall be placed as a note on all grading plans and shall be discussed at the pregrade meeting.

N-6 Hoe rams shall be not be used to break up concrete grade slabs within 50 feet of the Egan House. Less intensive methods such as the use of a jackhammer shall be used. Concrete slabs can be sawed and lifted away to another location where they may be broken up by the hoe ram. This requirement shall be placed as a note on all grading plans and shall be discussed at the pregrade meeting.

5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 5.6.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the 2014 MND Development of the 2014 Approved Project would subject people and structures to strong ground shaking. The project site is in a zone of required investigation for liquefaction mapped by the California Geological Survey, and project development could expose people and structures to hazards arising from liquefaction.



July 2016 Page 65

Approximately the top five feet of soil onsite is fill soil, unsuitable for supporting the 2014 Approved Project development. The 2014 Approved Project included best management practices (BMPs) for water quality protection involving infiltration of stormwater into soil; such BMPs could also reduce soil stability onsite.

Mitigation Measure GEO-1 reduced impacts related to instability in fill soils onsite, and Mitigation Measure GEO-2 avoided impacts from stormwater infiltration on soil stability affecting structures and utilities. Geology and soils impacts were less than significant after implementation of mitigation.







New Information


Effects




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 for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

x

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? x iii) Seismic-related ground failure,

including liquefaction? x iv) Landslides? x

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? x

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?

x

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

x

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?

x



Page 66 PlaceWorks

The analysis in this section is based on a geotechnical engineering investigation prepared by Geotechnologies, Inc., in March 9, 2016. The report is included as Appendix C to this Initial Study.

Comments: 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 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. There are no active faults on the project site or in the City of San Juan Capistrano. The project site and City are not in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. As shown on the Fault Activity Map of California prepared by the California Geological Survey, the nearest active fault to the project site is an offshore portion of the Newport-Inglewood Fault, three miles to the southwest (DOC 2010). This portion of the fault has not ruptured in the last 11,000 years. The nearest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone is 20 miles to northwest along the portion of the Newport-Inglewood Fault that traverses the City of Huntington Beach (DOC 2001). Given the distance of the mapped active faults from the project site, the possibility of a surface rupture is considered remote. These findings are consistent with those of the 2014 MND, and no new impacts would occur.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. San Juan Capistrano is in a seismically active region, and strong ground shaking can be expected to occur in the lifetime of structures that would be developed on the project site. As determined in the 2014 MND, the project site is not expected to result in excessive differential settlement (Geotechnologies, Inc. 2013). Furthermore, development on the project site would be required to comply with seismic safety provisions of the California Building Code (CBC). Upon compliance with these existing building regulations, geologic hazards related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. This is consistent with the findings identified in the 2014 MND; therefore, the Modification would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. As determined in the 2014 MND, the project site is in a zone identified as having a high liquefaction potential. However, based on the dense consistency of the coarse gravelly and cobbley sands and the fine grained composition of the soil, the potential for liquefaction at the site is considered remote (Geotechnologies 2016). Nevertheless, the Modification would be required to comply with Section 58-2.06, Excavation and Grading, of the City’s Municipal Code and the most recent version of the CBC. Compliance with these existing regulations and Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce potential impacts related to seismic-related ground failure. This is consistent with the findings identified in the



July 2016 Page 67

2014 MND; therefore, the Modification would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

iv) Landslides?

No Impact. The project site is in a flat, highly urbanized region of Orange County that does not experience landslides. No impact would occur.

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The existing project site is almost completely developed with impervious surfaces, which include three office buildings and extensive surface parking. The preliminary water quality management plan for the Modification (see Appendix D of this Initial Study) determined that the site is currently 90 percent impervious and that it would be 81 percent impervious upon development of the project.

During construction activities, soil would be exposed, and there would be increased potential for soil erosion compared to existing conditions. However, the potential for erosion would be minimal and temporary. Furthermore, construction on the project site would be required to comply with provisions of the project’s required stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), which will include measures for controlling construction-related erosion and sediment. Compliance with these measures would reduce potential soil erosion impacts to a less than significant level. This is consistent with the findings identified in the 2014 MND; therefore, the Modification would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. As determined in the 2014, the project site is in a flat area that does not experience landslides. Based on the dense consistency of the coarse grained soils and fine grained composition of the soft soils, the potential for lateral spreading and liquefaction at the site is considered remote (Geotechnologies 2016). However, the existing fill materials are not suitable for support of the proposed foundations, floor slabs, or additional fill. Development of the project site would require the existing fill material to be completely removed and recompacted. Consistent with the 2014 MND, Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 would be required and would reduce impacts to less than significant. Additionally, the Modification would be required to comply with Section 58-2.06, Excavation and Grading, of the City’s Municipal Code and the most recent version of the CBC.

The proposed project includes various infiltration BMPs throughout the site. Even though the soil may be suitable for infiltration BMPs, the locations of BMPs are within close proximity to structures, foundation walls, and utilities. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 identified in the



Page 68 PlaceWorks

2014 MND are required to ensure that hydrologic project features do not create adverse impacts to proposed buildings related to soil stability.

This is consistent with the findings identified in the 2014 MND; therefore, the Modification would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 19-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. As determined in the 2014 MND and reconfirmed in the updated geotechnical report (Appendix C), geologic materials on the project site have a low to moderate expansion range (Geotechnologies 2016). The geotechnical investigation conducted for the Modification found that no special measures would be necessary to address impacts of the Modification related to expansive soils. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is necessary. This is consistent with the findings identified in the 2014 MND; therefore, the Modification would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

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?

No Impact. Proposed land uses would be connected to the City’s sewer system and would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. No impact would occur.

5.6.3 2014 MND Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures identified in the 2014 MND are applicable to the Modification, as revised (with underline and strikeout).

GEO-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the “Updated Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the Proposed Residential and Hotel Ddevelopment, at 31872, 31872, 31878, and 31882 Camino Capistrano, San Juan Capistrano, CaliforniaA” prepared by Geotechnologies, Inc., in March 9, 2016July 2013 shall be updated to analyze the final project design. The final design shall include the final detailed grading plan prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer and the project design features, infiltration measures, and best management practices recommended in the final water quality management plan. The updated geotechnical report shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Public Works & Utilities Department Engineering Division and shall evaluate faults, subsidence, slope stability, settlement, foundations, grading constraints, liquefaction potential, shallow groundwater, and other soil engineering design conditions, and provide site-specific recommendations to mitigate these issues/hazards. The geotechnical reports shall be prepared and signed/stamped by a registered civil engineer specializing in geotechnical engineering and a certified engineering geologist. The proposed structures shall be designed based on applicable geotechnical



July 2016 Page 69

parameters prescribed in the report for foundation design as well as those established by the California Building Code.

GEO-2 The project foundations shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendation of the geotechnical engineer to address the effects of water filtration and hydrostatic pressure on foundation settlement. The geotechnical report prepared for the project shall be amended to reflect BMPs recommended by the geotechnical engineer.

5.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 5.7.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the 2014 MND The 2014 MND evaluated greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts associated with development of 136-room hotel, 33 townhouse-style residential villas, 2,664 square feet of spa and retail space, and a 6,301-square-foot restaurant on the 3.16-acre site. The 2014 MND concluded that the long-term GHG emissions generated by the 2014 Approved Project would not exceed SCAQMD’s Working Group’s bright-line screening threshold. Therefore, the 2014 Approved Project’s cumulative contribution to GHG emissions was determined to be less than significant. The 2014 MND also indicated that the 2014 Approved Project would not conflict with applicable regulations and policies adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

The 2014 Approved Project at buildout was estimated to generate 2,924 metric tons of GHGs (MTCO2e) annually, without deducting estimated GHG emissions generated by existing land uses onsite. Total estimated GHG emissions from the 2014 Approved Project were determined to be slightly below SCAQMD Working Group’s bright-line screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e.1 Because the GHG emissions associated with the 2014 Approved Project would not exceed the aforementioned threshold, the 2014 Approved Project’s cumulative contribution to GHG emissions was determined to be less than significant and no mitigation measures were necessary.

The 2014 Approved Project did not interfere with state GHG reduction goals and strategies and was consistent with SCAG’s 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The 2014 Approved Project did not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation intended to reduce GHG emissions. The 2014 MND determined that impacts would be less than significant.

1 This threshold is based on SCAQMD’s 3,000 MTCO2e combined threshold proposed by SCAQMD’s Working Group, which is based on a survey of the GHG emissions inventory of CEQA projects. Approximately 90 percent of CEQA projects GHG emissions inventories exceed 3,000 MTCO2e, which is based on a potential threshold approach cited in CAPCOA’s white paper, “CEQA and Climate Change.”



Page 70 PlaceWorks







New Information


Effects




a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

x

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

x

Comments: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant

impact on the environment?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. A project does not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global climate change; therefore, GHG emissions impacts are a measure of a project’s contribution to the cumulative environmental impact. The 2014 MND concluded that the long-term GHG emissions generated by the 2014 Approved Project would not exceed SCAQMD’s proposed bright-line screening threshold.

The Modification would contribute to global climate change through direct emissions of GHG from onsite area sources and vehicle trips generated by the project, and indirectly through offsite energy production required for onsite activities, water use/wastewater generation, and waste disposal. Table 6, Project-Related GHG Emissions, shows the annual GHG emissions for the Modification compared to those identified in the 2014 MND. As shown in Table 6, GHG emissions from the Modification’s operation-related activities would be less than those identified in the 2014 MND and would not exceed the SCAQMD’s bright-line threshold. Consequently, the Modification would not result in an increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts compared to those identified in the 2014 MND.



July 2016 Page 71

Table 6 Project-Related GHG Emissions

Source

MTCO2e/year Emissions Identified in the

2014 MND Modification Net Change Area 9 <1 -8 Energy 8121 4822 -330 Mobile 1,949 971 -978 Waste 102 40 -62 Water 30 2 -28 Amortized Construction Emissions3 23 9 -14 Total Emissions 2,924 1,504 -1,420 SCAQMD’s Bright-Line Threshold 3,000 3,000 3,000 Exceeds Bright-Line Threshold No No No Sources: San Juan Capistrano 2014; CalEEMod 2013.2.2. Notes: Percent changes from each source may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. MTCO2e: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent 1 Assumes implementation of the California Green Building Code and 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The 2013 Standards are 25 percent more energy

efficient than the 2008 Standards for residential buildings and 30 percent more energy efficient than the 2008 Standards for non-residential buildings. Modeling assumes an overall 25 percent reduction.

2 Assumes implementation of the 2013 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) and 2016 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The 2016 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards are 33.5 percent more energy efficient than the 2008 Standards for non-residential buildings.

3 Construction emissions are amortized over a 30-year project lifetime per recommended SCAQMD methodology.

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Both the 2014 Approved Project and the Modification’s GHG emissions would be reduced by compliance with statewide measures that have been adopted since AB 32 was adopted and would not have the potential to interfere with the State of California’s GHG reduction goals and strategies. Consequently, the Modification would not result in an increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts compared to those identified in the 2014 MND.

Since adoption of the 2014 MND, SCAG has adopted the 2016 RTP/SCS. The RTP/SCS outlines a development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, would reduce GHG emissions from transportation (excluding goods movement). Both the 2014 Approved Project and the Modification would be proximate to existing public transit and would be developed on an infill site, with access to existing infrastructure. Also, the Modification would be within the City’s General Plan and SCAG’s growth projections. Therefore, neither the 2014 Approved Project nor the Modification would interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the RTP/SCS. Consequently, the Modification would not result in an increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts compared to those identified in the 2014 MND.



Page 72 PlaceWorks

5.7.3 2014 MND Mitigation Measures Impacts were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.

5.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 5.8.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the 2014 MND Hazardous Materials The 2014 MND determined that the project site was not listed on an environmental database. Hazardous materials sites were identified on 12 nearby properties; none of those sites were found to be environmental concerns for the project site. The existing office buildings onsite, due to their ages (built between 1966 and 1973) could contain asbestos and/or lead-based paint. Project construction and project operation would each use some hazardous materials; however, impacts were determined to be less than significant after compliance with existing regulations.

Airport-Related Hazards The project site is over 20 miles from the nearest public-use airport, and there are no private airstrips near the site. No impact would occur.

Emergency Response Plan The 2014 MND determined that project development would not interfere with implementation of the City of San Juan Capistrano’s Emergency Preparedness Plan. The project extension of Forster Street would improve emergency access to the project site and vicinity, and no adverse impact would occur.

Wildfire Hazards The 2014 MND determined that the project site and surrounding areas are built out with urban uses, and no wildfire hazard impact would occur.




July 2016 Page 73






New Information


Effects




a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

x

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?

x

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

x

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

x

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?

x

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?

x

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

x

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?

x



Page 74 PlaceWorks

Comments: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or

disposal of hazardous materials?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. As determined in the 2014 MND, the project construction would involve the routine uses of hazardous materials such as fuels, greases, paints, and cleaning materials. Hazardous materials impacts relating to construction would be similar to the 2014 Approved Project. The construction contractor would be required to comply with existing federal, state, and local regulations of several agencies, including the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the EPA, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, Caltrans, OCFA, and the Orange County Environmental Health Division (OCEHD). Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. Therefore, hazards to the public or the environment arising from the routine use, transport, or storage of hazardous materials during project construction would be less than significant.

Operation of the proposed hotel, restaurant, spa, and retail space would likely involve use of small amounts of hazardous materials for cleaning and maintenance purposes. Commercial-grade chemicals would be required to be transported, used, and disposed of consistent with current local, state and federal laws and regulations of several agencies, including DTSC, EPA, OSHA, OCFA, and OCEHD. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner, and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. Therefore, hazards to the public or the environment arising from the routine use, transport, or storage of hazardous materials during project operation would be less than significant.

These findings are consistent with those identified in the 2014 MND; therefore, the Modification would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

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 Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Modification would require the same level of demolition as the 2014 Approved Project and would have the same impacts related to the potential exposure of asbestos-containing materials and lead based paint. As determined in the 2014 MND and required for the Modification, demolition activities would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 1403, Code of Federal Regulations(Title 29, Section 1926.62), and California Code of Regulations Section 1532.1, which would ensure impacts are less than significant.

As stated, hazardous materials such as fuels, greases, paints, and cleaning materials would be used during project construction. The project applicant would be required to comply with existing local, state, and federal regulations, which would reduce potential impacts arising from accidental releases of hazardous materials. Additionally, the proposed project would be constructed and operated with strict adherence to all emergency



July 2016 Page 75

response plan requirements of the City of San Juan Capistrano and the OCEHD. Therefore, impacts resulting from implementation of the Modification related to accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant.


c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

No Impact. San Juan Elementary School is approximately 0.25 mile from the project site. However, as discussed under Sections 3.8(a) and 3.8(b) above, the proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste except for small quantities used for cleaning and maintenance. Therefore, no impact would occur. These findings are consistent with those identified in the 2014 MND; therefore, the Modification would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

No Impact. The following four environmental databases were searched for listings on the project site on July 5 2016:

GeoTracker, State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)

EnviroStor, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)

EnviroMapper, US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

Solid Waste Information System (SWIS), California Department of Resources Recovery and Recycling (CalRecycle).

No listings were identified on the project site. These findings are consistent with those identified in the 2014 MND; therefore, the Modification would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or 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 proposed project is not within the plan area of an airport land use plan and is over 20 miles from the nearest public use airport. Therefore, no impact would occur.



Page 76 PlaceWorks

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 proposed project is not within the plan area of an airport land use plan and is over 20 miles from the nearest public use airport. Therefore, no impact would occur.

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. As discussed in the 2014 MND, the City of San Juan Capistrano has an emergency preparedness plan that designates procedures to be followed in a major emergency. The plan identifies resources available for emergency response and establishes coordinated action plans for specific emergency situations and disasters, including earthquakes, fires, major rail and roadway accidents, flooding, hazardous materials incidents, civil disturbance, and nuclear disasters and attack. As discussed in other sections of this Initial Study, the project site is not susceptible to significant hazards related to wildland fires, flooding, or hazardous materials.

Furthermore, the construction of internal circulation and a secondary emergency fire truck access creating an access point on the east boundary of the site to Del Obispo Street would allow better access and circulation in the project vicinity during an emergency. This would also provide increased access to downtown San Juan Capistrano from OCFA Station No. 7 directly to the east. The Modification would not interfere with emergency access to or evacuation from surrounding properties. It would also not interfere with implementation of provisions of the City’s emergency preparedness plan. Impacts would be less than significant.


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. The project site is in downtown San Juan Capistrano and is completely surrounded by urbanized land uses. As shown on maps prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the project site is outside of very high fire severity zones. The nearest such zone is over a mile to the northeast, in the northeast corner of the City. Implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to wildland fire hazards and no impact would occur.

5.8.3 2014 MND Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures related to hazards and hazardous materials were identified in the 2014 MND, and no mitigation measures are required.



July 2016 Page 77

5.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 5.9.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the 2014 MND Hydrology and Drainage The 2014 Approved Project included hydromodification BMPs to limit post-project runoff rates and durations to not substantially greater than pre-project rates and durations, so as to minimize erosion to San Juan Creek and Trabuco Creek.

Water Quality A preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) was prepared for the 2014 Approved Project in compliance with San Diego Regional Water Resources Control Board (SDRWQCB) Order No. R9-2009-0002, the municipal stormwater permit for the part of Orange County within the SDRWQCB’s jurisdiction. The WQMP specified BMPs for water quality protection that would be implemented during project design and project operation; implementation of the WQMP would reduce operational water quality impacts to less than significant.

A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) specifying BMPs to be implemented to minimize stormwater pollution during project construction, was required for the 2014 Approved Project. Construction water quality impacts were less than significant after implementation of the SWPPP.

Flood Hazards The project site is outside of 100-year and 500-year flood zones and dam inundation zones. The northwest quadrant of the project site is subject to occasional localized flooding due to inadequate storm drainage infrastructure in the area. The 2014 Approved Project involved improvements to the onsite stormwater drainage system, including construction of an infiltration trench and pond, the use of pervious pavers and pavement, and an extension of the public storm drain. Thus, development of the 2014 Approved Project had some favorable impact regarding flooding.




Page 78 PlaceWorks






New Information


Effects




a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? x

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)??

x

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?

x

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?

x

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems?

x

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? x

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

x

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

x

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?

x

j) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? x



July 2016 Page 79






New Information


Effects




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)?

X

l) Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction?

X

m) Could the proposed project result in increased erosion downstream? X

n) Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff? X

o) Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes?

X

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?

X

q) Tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? If so, can I exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions?

X

r) Have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water quality to either marine, fresh, or wetland waters?

x

s) Have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality? X

t) Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses?

X

u) Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? x v) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from

construction or post construction? X 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 handing or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor water areas?

X



Page 80 PlaceWorks






New Information


Effects




x) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters?

X

y) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm?

X

z) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? x

Comments: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The project site is currently built out and was developed at the time of the 2014 MND. Similar to the 2014 Approved Project, the Modification would reduce impervious surfaces on the project site compared to existing conditions, from 90 percent to 81 percent.

The Modification would not result in a significant change in the amount of impervious surfaces compared to the 2014 Approved Project, although the hotel building footprint and parking areas would be redesigned and the residential villas would be eliminated. The proposed restaurant would be in a similar location as the 2014 Approved Project. The new buildings and parking areas proposed in connection with the Modification would replace impervious surfaces and therefore would not result in a new source of polluted runoff. The Modification would be required to comply with the EPA National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program and the water pollution controls in the SWPPP and WQMP.

Similar to the 2014 Approved Project, the Modification would affect the quality of stormwater runoff during construction activities. During construction activities, portions of the site may house exposed demolition debris and soils. Waste discharge requirements for construction are set forth in the General Construction Permit, issued by the SWRCB in 2009. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a SWPPP for the Modification must be prepared. Its implementation during construction would ensure that water quality standards and waste discharge requirements are not violated and that construction-related impacts to water quality are less than significant.

Post-construction measures to minimize stormwater pollution are detailed in BMPs specified in the final WQMP. Required BMPs include low impact development (LID)/site design BMPs, source control BMPs, and treatment control BMPs. As shown in Figure 10, Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan, infiltration BMPs include five permeable interlocking concrete pavement areas over 1- to 2.4-foot storage layers and a 155-square-foot, 4-foot-deep rain garden. LID BMPs are intended to collectively minimize directly connected



July 2016 Page 81

impervious areas, limit loss of existing infiltration capacity, and protect areas that provide important water quality benefits necessary to maintain riparian and aquatic biota, and/or areas particularly susceptible to erosion and sediment loss, as feasible. The design of the Modification has incorporated site design concepts as described below.

The project design would minimize the impervious footprint by constructing streets, sidewalks, and parking lot aisles to the minimum widths necessary. In addition, alternative paving materials are proposed to minimize impervious area. Permeable pavers are proposed in parking spaces on the south and east sides of the site. Drought-tolerant plants would be used in conformance with the City’s development code and water conservation ordinances. The site would also disconnect impervious surfaces. The hotel and patio would drain through a curb that sheet flows over the drive aisle and to the permeable paver areas. The restaurant roof drains would outlet to a bioretention garden. The Modification would have no new impacts and no increases in the severity of impacts on water quality. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would apply to the project.

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)?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The project site would be 80 percent impervious upon completion of the Modification. The Modification would include installation of five areas of permeable pavement totaling about 10,000 square feet, mainly along the site perimeter, over stormwater storage layers up to 3.7 feet thick. The Modification would include about 17,500 square feet of other pervious areas, including a 155-square-foot rain garden in the western part of the site. The design capture volume for the project site—that is, the stormwater volume from an 85th-percentile storm, or about a two-year storm—is approximately 6,700 cubic feet. The total storage volume of the five areas of permeable pavement plus the rain garden would be about 19,200 cubic feet, nearly three times the design capture volume for the site. The 2014 Approved Project also included permeable pavement and an infiltration trench. The Modification would add stormwater infiltration capacity to the site and would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge compared to the 2014 Approved Project. Impacts would be less than significant. These findings are consistent with those identified in the 2014 MND; therefore, the Modification would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.



Page 82 PlaceWorks

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?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Upon completion of the Modification, stormwater that is not captured by permeable pavement would be directed toward the south corner of the site, except for part of the west portion of the site where stormwater would be directed west to the rain garden. The Modification drainage plan conforms with the requirements in the above-mentioned municipal stormwater permit. Therefore, development of the Modification would not cause increased erosion or siltation compared to the 2014 Approved Project, and impacts would be less than significant. These findings are consistent with those identified in the 2014 MND; therefore, the Modification would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

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?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Development of the Modification, including the proposed drainage plan, would not increase runoff rates or volumes compared to existing conditions and those of the 2014 Approved Project, and no increase in flooding would occur. These findings are consistent with those identified in the 2014 MND; therefore, the Modification would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The drainage plan proposed for the Modification would accommodate the design capture volume for the project site and would conform with hydromodification requirements in the municipal stormwater permit. Thus, Modification development would not generate runoff exceeding the capacity of nearby storm drains, and impacts would be less than significant. These findings are consistent with those identified in the 2014 MND; therefore, the Modification would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

No Impact. The Modification would not increase adverse water quality impacts compared to those of the 2014 Approved Project, as substantiated above in Section 5.9.2(a).

FF = 102.40

FF = 102.40

1179

4976

10802

3509

ATRIUM

LUG. RECEPT.

OFFICE

LOUNGE

LAUNDRY

GYM

REST.

BAR

POOL DECK

ELEC.

OPEN TO B

ELOW

RESTAURANT

STOR.

BAR

COURTYARD

JACUZZI

POOL DECK

STORAGE ROOM

REST.

STOR.

MEETINGROOM MEETINGROOM

STOR.

3,509 S.F.

1,833 S.F.

EGAN HOUSE

10,791 S.F.

7733

7,733 S.F.

ECO GARDEN

114.4'111.55'

-124

UPPER GROUND FLOOR

LOWER GROUND FLOOR

FF = 114.40

FF = 114.40

FF = 102.40

UPPER GROUND FLOOR

D-10.748 AC

B-1

1.209

AC

F-10.163 AC

CONCEPTUAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN

FEET0 20 40

NOTES

LEGEND

C5

KIMPTON HOTEL, SAN JUAN CAPISTRANOPROJECT: 15016 | DATE: MARCH 8, 2016

FF = 102.40

FF = 102.40

1179

4976

10802

3509

ATRIUM

LUG. RECEPT.

OFFICE

LOUNGE

LAUNDRY

GYM

REST.

BAR

POOL DECK

ELEC.OPEN T

O BELO

W

RESTAURANT

STOR.

BAR

COURTYARD

JACUZZI

POOL DECK

STORAGE ROOM

REST.

STOR.


STOR.

3,509 S.F.

1,833 S.F.

EGAN HOUSE

10,791 S.F.

7733

7,733 S.F.

ECO GARDEN

114.4'111.55'

-124

UPPER GROUND FLOOR

LOWER GROUND FLOOR

FF = 114.40

FF = 114.40

FF = 102.40

UPPER GROUND FLOOR

D-10.748 AC

B-1

1.209

AC

F-10.163 AC


FEET0 20 40

NOTES

LEGEND

C5

KIMPTON HOTEL, SAN JUAN CAPISTRANOPROJECT: 15016 | DATE: MARCH 8, 2016

FF = 102.40

FF = 102.40

1179

4976

10802

3509

ATRIUM

LUG. RECEPT.

OFFICE

LOUNGE

LAUNDRY

GYM

REST.

BAR

POOL DECK

ELEC.

OPEN TO B

ELOW

RESTAURANT

STOR.

BAR

COURTYARD

JACUZZI

POOL DECK

STORAGE ROOM

REST.

STOR.


STOR.

3,509 S.F.

1,833 S.F.

EGAN HOUSE

10,791 S.F.

7733

7,733 S.F.

ECO GARDEN

114.4'111.55'

-124

UPPER GROUND FLOOR

LOWER GROUND FLOOR

FF = 114.40

FF = 114.40

FF = 102.40

UPPER GROUND FLOOR

D-10.748 AC

B-1

1.209

AC

F-10.163 AC


FEET0 20 40

NOTES

LEGEND

C5

KIMPTON HOTEL, SAN JUAN CAPISTRANOPROJECT: 15016 | DATE: MARCH 8, 2016Base Map Source: Hannouche Architects, Inc., 2016

PlaceWorks

Figure 10 - Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan

0

Scale (Feet)

40




Page 84 PlaceWorks




July 2016 Page 85

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

No Impact. The project site is outside of 100-year flood zones, and Modification development would have no impact on flooding within such zones.

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

No Impact. See response to Section 5.9.2(g), above.

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 project site is outside of a dam inundation area and no impact would occur.

j) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

No Impact.

Seiche A seiche is a surface wave created when an inland water body is shaken, usually by an earthquake. There is no existing seiche flood hazard to the site that would be exacerbated by development of the proposed, and no impact would occur.

Tsunami A tsunami is a sea wave caused by a sudden displacement of the ocean floor, most often due to earthquakes. The project site is outside of tsunami flood zones, and no tsunami flood hazard would be exacerbated by development of the Modification. No impact would occur.

Mudflow A mudflow is a landslide composed of saturated rock debris and soil with a consistency of wet cement. The project site and surroundings are built out with urban land uses, and Modification development would not exacerbate any existing mudflow hazard. No impact would occur.

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)?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. See response to Section 5.9(a).



Page 86 PlaceWorks

l) Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction?


m) Could the proposed project result in increased erosion downstream?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. See response to Section 5.9(c).

n) Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. See response to Sections 5.9(a), (d) and (e).

o) Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. See response to Sections 5.9(a), (d) and (e).

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?

No Impact. The Modification would have no impact on wetlands or other sensitive waters. See response to Section 5.4(b) and (c).

s) Have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. See response to Sections 5.9(a) and (b).



July 2016 Page 87

t) Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. See Sections 5.9(a), (b), (c), and (f).

u) Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat?

No Impact. The Modification would have no impact on wetlands or other sensitive waters. See response to Section 5.4(b) and (c).

v) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction or post construction?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. See response to Sections 5.9(a), (d), and (e).

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 handing or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor water areas?


x) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters?


y) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm?

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. See response to Section 3.9(a), (d) and (e).

z) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas?

Less Than Significant Impact. See response to Section 3.9 (c).

5.9.3 2014 MND Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure from the 2014 MND applies to the Modification.

HYD-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, a Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be prepared and shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Senior Engineer-Environmental or his designee. The Final WQMP shall only include BMPs that have been



Page 88 PlaceWorks

identified in the Conceptual WQMP, identified by the project Geotechnical Engineer as appropriate for the post-excavation geologic conditions onsite, and approved by the City.

5.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING 5.10.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in 2014 MND The 2014 MND determined that the 2014 Approved Project would not divide an established community and was consistent with the Orange County Central-Coastal Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan designation of the site as urban development (not in the NCCP/HCP reserve system).

The 2014 MND determined that the 2014 Approved Project was consistent with the City’s General Plan and HTCMP FBC. The project site is designated General Commercial in the General Plan and Town Center Zone District in the HTCMP FBC. The TC Zone District allows a broad range of residential and nonresidential land uses. Therefore, the 2014 Approved Project, a mixed-use development, which was anchored by a hotel but also included retail and residential uses, would not conflict with applicable land use designations. The 2014 MND also determined the that project furthered the goals of the HTCMP, including Policy 1.3, which encourages mixed commercial and residential use projects in the Mission District downtown area.

The 2014 MND determined that the 2014 Approved Project met the intent of the height and setback requirements to the Egan House and allowed for a modification the “Esslinger Building & Judge Egan House” text in the HTCMP through an amendment by allowing an average setback methodology. It determined that the amendment to the HTCMP would not materially alter or result in a significant historical resources impact to the Egan House or Esslinger Building. Therefore, the 2014 Approved Project would not result in an adverse impact related to a land use plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Ultimately, although the 2014 Approved Project required an amendment to the HTCMP, it was determined in the 2014 MND to be consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations. Therefore, impacts were less than significant.







New Information


Effects




a) Physically divide an established community? x



July 2016 Page 89






New Information


Effects




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?

x

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

x

Comments: a) Physically divide an established community?

No Impact. Development of the proposed would not divide an established community; the nearest residences are several hundred feet from the site. Additionally, the project is designed to connect visitors and area residents to the adjacent HTC Park and create a more cohesive downtown community. No impact would occur.

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Modification requires a Conditional Use Permit, Architectural Control, Grading Modification Plan, Sign Program, and Tree Removal Permit.

General Plan Consistency The Modification is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan, including the Community Design Element (CDE) and Cultural Resources Element (CRE). The project will be consistent with the following:

CDE Policy 1.2: The Modification would encourage high-quality and human scale design in development to maintain the character of the City because the proposed hotel and restaurant buildings rely on the use of varied roof lines, alternative building massing, landscaped areas and gardens, colonnades, balconies, wood and metal railing, exposed rafter tails, varied color palettes and materials and demonstrates the design elements of Spanish Colonial style architecture. The pedestrian circulation is



Page 90 PlaceWorks

enhanced with a large pedestrian walkway that traverses through the northern portion of the property adjacent to the HTC Park connecting Camino Capistrano with Del Obispo Street, enhanced paving throughout the entrances and pedestrian corridors of the site and landscaping along the all exteriors of the project. The site plan and building architecture help to create a development plan that helps to limit the mass and scale of the proposed buildings, and features high quality building materials, building articulation and architectural detailing which helps to give the project a human scale;

CDE Policy 2.1: The Modification would encourage development which complements the City's traditional, historic character through site design, architecture, and landscaping because the proposed design of the buildings is reflected in the history and tradition of San Juan Capistrano as well as the surrounding historic structures that provide an eclectic mix of architectural style and design found within the HTC. The proposed hotel and restaurant reflect the Spanish Colonial architectural design which includes the use of terracotta tile roofs, arched doorways and entrances, wood support columns, balconies, exposed wood supports, a tower dome element treated with coper, wood railings, and other high-quality building materials. The proposed landscaping design provides a tree palette that not only saves some of the existing trees found on site, but also offers local examples of California friendly species. Furthermore, the proposed Kimpton hotel building has a setback from the Egan House property line of approximately 120 feet, and a setback from the adjacent restaurant building of 20 feet; and,

CRE Policy 1.1: The Modification would balance the benefits of development with its potential impact to existing cultural resources because the proposed development of a hotel and restaurant will be complementary to the historic downtown and will have a minimal impact on the adjacent cultural resources.

HTCMP Policy The Modification meets the intent of the height and setback policy of the HTCMP related to the Egan House. The project site property line lies adjacent to the north and east boundaries of the Egan House parcel. The HTCMP policy requires that new buildings on directly adjoining lots must provide a minimum setback equal to the height of the new structure and cannot exceed the height of the Egan House. As determined in the 2014 MND, an average setback methodology was determined to meet the intent where a proposed hotel mixed-use building bordered two or more sides of the historic structure.

Here, the Modification includes a restaurant building with a height of 30.5 feet, which is less than the Egan House height of approximately 35 feet (measured from finished grade to its roof peak). Specifically, the height of the restaurant is proposed to range from approximately 18 feet to a maximum of 30 feet at the peak of the penthouse/elevator shaft/restroom structure. At 20 feet away from the Egan house, the restaurant building is approximately 18 feet tall, and at 39 feet away, the roof peak is 30 feet as measured from the finished grade. At no point does the height exceed the setback from the Egan House. Additionally, the proposed restaurant is set back approximately 20 feet from the north side of the Egan House building (the same distance as the 2014 Approved Project). The hotel building on the east side of the Egan House is set back approximately 130 feet from the building, which is a much larger setback than the 2014 Approved Project, far exceeding the Egan House building height of approximately 35 feet. The hotel’s east elevation



July 2016 Page 91

(see Figure 4c) has a building height of 35 feet (the same or slightly less than the Egan House). Although, the Modification does not include a 35 foot setback from the north side of the Egan House, it provides a greater setback to the east and a reduced building height. Therefore, the Modification is also consistent with the policies for the Egan House in the HTCMP, ensuring compatibility with historical resources.

While the 2014 Approved Project proposed a three-story building that directly fronted onto Camino Capistrano and obscured southward views of the Egan house, the proposed project includes a substantially shorter single-story restaurant building with rooftop deck at this location. The restaurant building would be set back from the street, providing generous views of the Egan House from Camino Capistrano. The scale and massing of the proposed restaurant building more closely matches the scale of the Egan House, allowing the Egan House to maintain its visual prominence along Camino Capistrano and Forster Street. The restaurant includes a 10 foot trellis setback 10 feet from the sidewalk creating a step back effect to the roof top deck. This also creates an inviting appearance for pedestrians walking along the sidewalk without obstructing views of the Egan House. The taller hotel building behind the restaurant building would be set back across an entry driveway, eliminating visual impacts on the Camino Capistrano corridor. Therefore, impacts on visual character and quality of the Egan House, would be reduced under the Modification when compared to the 2014 Approved Project. Impacts would remain less than significant and the Modification would not create a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

No Impact. As with the Approved Project, the proposed project would not conflict with the NCCP/HCP and no impact would occur.

5.10.3 2014 MND Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures related to land use and planning were outlined in the 2014 MND, and no mitigation measures are required.

5.11 MINERAL RESOURCES 5.11.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the 2014 MND The project site is mapped Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3) by the California Geological Survey, meaning that it is in an area of undetermined mineral resource significance. The project site and surroundings are built out with urban uses. The City’s General Plan does not designate the project site as a mining site. The 2014 MND determined that development of the 2014 Approved Project would not cause a loss of availability of known mineral resources valuable to the region, and no impact would occur.




Page 92 PlaceWorks






New Information


Effects




a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?

x

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?

x

Comments: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region

and the residents of the state?

No Impact. The project site is not in an area mapped by the California Geological Survey as containing known significant mineral resources; and the site and surroundings are built out with urban land uses and are thus unavailable for mining. No impact would occur.

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 The City of San Juan Capistrano General Plan does not designate the project site as a mining site. No impact would occur.

5.11.3 2014 MND Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures related to mineral resources were outlined in the 2014 MND, and no mitigation measures are required.

5.12 NOISE 5.12.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the 2014 MND

Traffic Noise: The 2014 Approved Project found that project-related traffic would not cause substantial noise increases along study area roadways, and that no significant impact would occur because cumulative traffic noise increases due to the 2014 Approved Project would range from -0.6 to 2.7 dBA. These changes would be less than the 3 dBA threshold for noise increases.



July 2016 Page 93

Nontransportation Noise: Except for events at HTC Park, no major sources of stationary noise were identified during site visits. The 2014 MND found no substantial sources of stationary noise adjacent to or in the vicinity of the project site.

Interior Noise: The areas exposed to exterior noise levels exceeding 65 dBA CNEL would have the potential to exceed the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level required by the City and State of California. Mitigation measures N-1 through N-4 were found necessary to meet the City and State interior noise level requirements.

Construction Noise: The 2014 MND determined that construction of the 2014 Approved Project would temporarily increase noise levels on the site, and concluded that construction noise impacts would be less than significant with mitigation because contractors would adhere to the City’s construction hours and implement additional sound attenuating measures. Implementation of Mitigation Measures N-7 to N-9 would reduce the noise levels during construction to the nearest receptors. With implementation of Mitigation Measures N-7 to N-9, and because construction activity is temporary and would occur during limited daytime hours allowed by the City’s municipal code, noise from construction at the project site was considered less than significant.

Airport Noise: The 2014 MND found that the project site was not in the vicinity of a public airport.

Construction Vibration: Construction vibration impacts were found to be less than significant with mitigation because Mitigation Measure N-5 would prohibit the use of vibratory rollers and Mitigation Measure N-6 would prohibit the use of hoe rams within 50 feet of the Egan House, which would reduce the potential for a vibration impact at that structure.

Operational Vibration: The 2014 Approved Project was not found to include any long-term vibration sources. Likewise, the 2014 Approved Project would not be exposed to substantial vibration levels from train activities, because it is outside the 200-foot screening distance for vibration.

5.12.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project result in:






New Information


Effects




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?

x



Page 94 PlaceWorks






New Information


Effects




b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

x

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

x

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

x

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?

x

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

x

Noise is defined as unwanted sound and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Based on these known adverse effects of noise, the State of California and the City of San Juan Capistrano have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent disruption of certain human activities. The analysis in this section is based partly on noise modeling, which is included herein as Appendix E.

This noise analysis relies on the findings of previous CEQA documentation, project plans, aerial photos, and a revised traffic study to identify the major sources of noise in the vicinity of the project and to evaluate Project’s impact on nearby uses.

Comments: 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?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The 2014 MND evaluated the effects of non-transportation noise, train noise, and traffic noise on the project site and completed an interior noise analysis for proposed residential and hotel uses. Mitigation measures were adopted in the 2014 MND for interior noise impacts (i.e., N-1 through N-4). However, per the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the assessment of the environment’s impacts on proposed projects (California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369), these



July 2016 Page 95

measures do not apply to the project; it is not the purview of CEQA to evaluate the impact of existing environmental conditions on any given project. For noise, the application of this ruling means that the analysis of noise affecting the project site—regarding land use compatibility issues, including interior noise environments—is not an environmental impact under CEQA. As a result, 2014 MND Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-4 do not apply to the Modification.

It should be noted that the Modification would eliminate residential uses and reduce the number of proposed hotel rooms, resulting in a reduction in vehicle trips and associated noise impacts. Therefore, the Modification would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of impacts, with respect to 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?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Construction activities can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures, equipment used, and proximity to vibration-sensitive uses. With the Modification, the construction schedule would be altered slightly, but would not change the number or type of equipment on site. Operation of construction equipment associated with the Modification would generate vibration that would spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. Ground vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that can damage structures, but can achieve the perceptible ranges in buildings close to a construction site. The nearest receptors in the vicinity of the Modification site are the Egan House, within 25 feet from the project boundary, and the Esslinger Building, approximately 50 feet from the project boundary. The 2014 MND recommended Mitigation Measures N-5 and N-6 to reduce vibration levels at nearby buildings. To eliminate the potential impact to the Egan House, Mitigation Measure N-5 would prohibit the use of vibratory rollers; static compactors would be required to be used instead if needed. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure N-6 would prohibit the use of hoe rams within 50 feet of the Egan House, which would reduce the potential for a vibration impact at that structure. Given the proximity of nearby receptors to the construction site, the mitigation measures for the associated potential vibration impacts, as adopted in the 2014 MND, would still apply to the proposed project, and impacts would remain less than significant.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures N-5 and N-6 presented above, the potential for architectural damage to nearby structures would be less than significant. Because construction conditions will be similar to those outlined in the 2014 MND, these measures would be sufficient to prevent vibration impacts, and no new impact would occur.

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?




Page 96 PlaceWorks

Traffic Noise Long-term operational impacts associated with vehicle trips generated from the Modification would be less than the 2014 Approved Project. The traffic study for the 2014 Approved Project found that cumulative traffic noise increases due to the 2014 Approved Project, ambient growth, and the development of foreseeable projects would range from -0.6 to 2.7 dBA. These changes were less than the 3 dBA threshold for noise increases, and therefore were found to be less than significant.

A traffic study was prepared for the proposed project in 2016. The updated traffic study concluded that daily traffic volumes would decrease as a result of the Modification, with 402 fewer daily two-way trips than 2014 Approved Project projections. This would result in 1,260 daily two-way project trips instead of 1,662. Since traffic noise is a function of traffic volumes, the reduction in daily volumes would result in a reduction in traffic-related noise levels. To determine if a project would cause a significant adverse noise impact, this analysis evaluates operational noise impacts from roadway segments. Project-related traffic noise would be substantial when the ambient noise environment along the roadway segments in the project’s study area under with-project conditions increases by 3 dBA and exceeds 65 dBA CNEL. Changes in the noise environment from project-related traffic were calculated with the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) traffic noise model using existing and future traffic volumes in the project vicinity. Table 7 shows the traffic noise contribution for the 2014 Approved Project compared to the proposed Modification, based on the traffic impact analysis.

Table 7 Traffic Noise Project Contribution

Roadway Segment

CNEL at 50 Feet (dBA) 2014 Approved

Project Modification Modification Contribution

Potential Impact?

Ortega Highway Del Obispo Street and El Camino Real 64.2 63.9 -0.3 No

Ortega Highway I-5 SB Ramps and Del Obispo Street 69.1 68.8 -0.3 No

Ortega Highway I-5 SB Ramps and I-5 NB Ramps 73.3 73.1 -0.2 No

Camino Capistrano Ortega Highway and Del Obispo Street 65.1 63.9 -1.2 No

Del Obispo Street Ortega Highway and Camino Capistrano 69.6 70.6 1.0 No

Del Obispo Street Camino Capistrano and Paseo Adelanto 71.8 71.4 -0.4 No

Del Obispo Street Paseo Adelanto and Alipaz Street 71.5 71.9 0.4 No

Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineering, 2016.

As shown, CNEL at 50 feet would decrease on most roadway segments under the Modification. Cumulative traffic noise would increase by 1 dBA or less at two segments along Del Obispo Street—from Ortega Highway to Camino Capistrano, and from Paseo Adelanto to Alipaz Street. These increases would be under the thresholds and would not result in a substantial increase in comparison to the 2014 Approved Project. Changes in traffic noise due to the Modification would not result in a substantial noise increase and therefore would not result in significant long-term, traffic-related noise impacts to offsite uses. Therefore, the Modification would not result in significant long-term, traffic-related noise impacts to offsite uses and no



July 2016 Page 97

mitigation is required. No new significant impact would occur, and the Modification would not increase the severity of previously identified impacts.

Non-transportation Noise There are no sensitive uses abutting the project site that would be affected by long-term stationary noise from the proposed project’s hotel, restaurant, and retail uses. The proposed project would include relatively small outdoor dining areas, and typical noises from these uses are patrons dining and ambient music. These areas would be on the corner of Forster Street and Camino Capistrano. Therefore, traffic noise would generally overshadow noise from these dining areas heard by nearby uses. No new impact would occur. The Modification would not increase the severity of previously identified impacts.

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The analysis below addresses impacts from construction equipment noise to the nearest receptors. Noise levels generated during construction are based on the type and amount of equipment operating at the same time. Sensitivity to noise is based on the location of the equipment relative to sensitive receptors, time of day, and the duration of the noise-generating activities. Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction: (1) mobile-source noise from the transport of workers, material deliveries, and debris/soil hauling and (2) stationary-source noise from use of construction equipment.

The nearest receptors in the vicinity of the Modification site are the Egan House, within 25 feet of the project boundary, and the Esslinger Building, approximately 50 feet from the project boundary. Noise generated during construction is based on the type of equipment used, the location of the equipment relative to sensitive receptors, and the timing and duration of the noise-generating activities. Each stage involves the use of different types of construction equipment and therefore has its own distinct noise characteristics. In typical construction projects, the demolition and grading phases generate the highest noise levels since they involve the largest equipment. After grading is complete, subsequent construction phases include foundation work, structure erection, paving, and finishing. These construction phases require less heavy-duty equipment, and they tend to generate lower noise levels than during the grading phase.

Construction equipment can operate in two modes: stationary and mobile. Stationary equipment operates in one location for one or more days at a time, with either a fixed-power operation (such as pumps, generators and compressors) or a variable noise operation (such as pile drivers, rock drills, and pavement breakers). Mobile equipment (such as bulldozers, graders, and loaders) moves around the construction site with power applied in cyclic fashion. Variation in power imposes additional complexity in characterizing the noise source levels from construction equipment. Power variation is accounted for by describing the noise at a reference distance from equipment operating at full power and adjusting it based on the duty cycle of the activity to determine the Leq of the operation. Typical duty cycles and associated noise levels generated by representative pieces of equipment are listed in Table 8.



Page 98 PlaceWorks

Because of the effects of noise attenuation due to distance, the number and type of equipment, and the varying load and power requirements to accomplish tasks at each construction phase, construction activities would result in different noise levels at a given sensitive receptor. Heavy equipment, such as a dozer or a loader, can have maximum, short-duration noise levels in excess of 85 dBA and 80 dBA, respectively, at 50 feet from the equipment, as shown in Table 8. Construction equipment noise would diminish at a rate of at least 6 dB per doubling distance as it propagated to offsite receptor locations. This distance attenuation, coupled with the fact that construction equipment noise is intermittent, means that the average noise levels at offsite, noise-sensitive receptors would be lower than the potential maximum levels because mobile construction equipment would move around the site with different load settings and power requirements.

Table 8 Typical Maximum Construction Equipment Noise Levels Equipment Noise Level (dBA) at 50 ft Typical Duty Cycle (%)

Auger Drill Rig 85 20

Backhoe 80 40

Chain Saw 85 20

Compactor (ground) 80 20

Compressor (air) 80 40

Concrete Mixer Truck 85 40

Concrete Pump 82 20

Crane (mobile or stationary) 85 20

Dozer 85 40

Dump Truck 84 40

Excavator 85 40

Front End Loader 80 40

Generator (25 KVA or less) 70 50

Generator (more than 25 KVA) 82 50

Grader 85 40

In situ Soil Sampling Rig 84 20

Jackhammer 85 20

Paver 85 50

Pneumatic Tools 85 50

Pumps 77 50

Rock Drill 85 20

Scraper 85 40

Tractor 84 40

Vacuum Excavator (vac-truck) 85 40

Vibratory Concrete Mixer 80 20 Source: Thalheimer 2000. dBA: A-weighted decibel; ft = feet; KVA = kilovolt amps.



July 2016 Page 99

Section 8-2.04 of Title 8, Chapter 2 of the City municipal code prohibits construction, repairs, remodeling, or the grading of any real property between the hours of 6:00 PM to 7:00 AM on Monday through Friday and before 8:30 AM or after 4:30 PM on Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday Construction activities—which include the delivery and/or recovery of materials, supplies, or construction equipment—would be conducted within these prescribed hours. Compliance with noise restrictions on construction activities are mandatory and would reduce short-term construction impacts.

The Modification would use a construction schedule and equipment similar to the 2014 Approved Project, with roughly one year of construction and equipment such as loaders, backhoes, excavators, haul trucks, impact hammers, and jackhammers. The amount of soil haul, demolition materials, and workers associated with the Modification would be very similar but less than the 2014 Approved Project. Modification-related construction truck traffic would be comparable to the 2014 Approved Project daily traffic volumes, reducing daily trips from 453 to 100 during demolition, and from 51 to 38 during the soil haul phase. Because the Modification contractors would adhere to the restricted hours and days of construction activities, as identified above, and additional sound attenuating measures, such as mufflers and temporary barriers are implemented to the maximum extent feasible, the short-term construction noise impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, Mitigation Measures N-7 to N-9 would apply to the proposed project, and no new impact would occur.

Although noise from individual truck pass-bys may be noticeable, construction-related truck traffic would not substantially increase average noise levels along roadways. The 2014 MND found that truck trips during building construction would not create a significant increase in noise along area roadways. Additionally, pursuant to Section 8-2.13 of the City’s municipal code, loading and transportation activities for projects involving the transport of a minimum of 50 cubic yards of earthen materials on public roadways either from or to the site is restricted to between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday and between 8:30 AM and 12:30 PM on Saturdays. Because construction hauling would adhere to the San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code, truck noise would not create significant noise impacts at noise-sensitive uses along roadways. No new impacts would occur and the Modification would not increase the severity of previously identified 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 nearest public airport to the project site is John Wayne International Airport, approximately 20 miles northwest of the project site (Airnav.com 2016). The proposed project would not expose people to excessive noise levels from aircraft at this airport. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. There would be no impacts related to aircraft noise. No new impact would occur.

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

No Impact. There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site. The nearest airport is John Wayne Airport, 20 miles to the northwest. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in airstrip-related noise impacts. No new impact would occur.



Page 100 PlaceWorks

5.12.3 2014 MND Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures were taken directly from the 2014 MND. As identified in the analysis above, Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-4 identified in the 2014 MND are not required for the Modification. The following 2014 MND mitigation measures apply:

N-5 During project construction and grading activities, the use of vibratory rollers shall be prohibited. Static compactors shall be used for areas requiring soil compaction. This requirement shall be placed as a note on all grading plans and shall be discussed at the pregrade meeting.

N-6 Hoe rams shall be not be used to break up concrete grade slabs within 50 feet of the Egan House. Less intensive methods such as the use of a jackhammer shall be used. Concrete slabs can be sawed and lifted away to another location where they may be broken up by the hoe ram. This requirement shall be placed as a note on all grading plans and shall be discussed at the pregrade meeting.

N-7 Construction equipment would use properly maintained mufflers, as specified by the manufacturer. All vehicles would be maintained and tuned in good mechanical condition to minimize noise created by faulty or poorly maintained engines and other components.

N-8 To the extent feasible during demolition, site preparation (grading), and building construction, contractors shall locate staging in the northern portions of the site adjacent to the Historic Town Center Park, to provide the greatest distance between construction activities and the nearest receptors adjacent to the project site.

N-9 Notification shall be given to all buildings adjacent to the project site of planned construction activities 30 days prior to commencement of demolition. The notification shall include a brief description of the project, the activities that would occur, and the duration and hours of construction. The notification shall also include the phone number of the construction superintendent. If the superintendent receives a complaint, the superintendent shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the reporting party and the City of San Juan Capistrano Community Development Director.

5.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING 5.13.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the 2014 MND The 2014 MND determined that the development of the 33 villa units would add about 100 residents to the City of San Juan Capistrano. Such population growth would be within regional population projections for the City, and impacts would be less than significant.

The 2014 Approved Project development would not displace housing or residents, and no impact would occur.



July 2016 Page 101







New Information


Effects




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)?

x

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

x

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

x

Comments: 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)?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Modification omits the 33 villa units proposed in the 2014 Approved Project, and thus would have reduced direct impacts on population growth. Employment generation would also be slightly reduced due to 34 fewer hotel rooms. No new impacts or increase in the severity of impacts would occur.

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact. There are no residences onsite, and no impact would occur.

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact. There are no residences onsite, and no impact would occur.

5.13.3 2014 MND Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures related to population and housing were outlined in the 2014 MND, and no mitigation measures are required.



Page 102 PlaceWorks

5.14 PUBLIC SERVICES 5.14.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the 2014 MND Impacts to parks are addressed in Section 5.15, Recreation.

Fire Protection The Orange County Fire Authority provides fire protection to the City of San Juan Capistrano; the nearest fire station to the project site is OCFA Station 7 at 31865 Del Obispo next to the east site boundary. The 2014 Approved Project was expected to create the typical range of fire service calls, such as structure fires, electrical fires, and medical emergencies. The 2014 MND determined that development would not require construction of new or expanded fire stations. Implementation of Mitigation Measure PS-1 would reduce this impact to less than significant.

Police Protection The Orange County Sheriff ’s Department provides police protection to the City of San Juan Capistrano. The 2014 MND determined that project development could cause a slight increase in demand for police protection but would not require construction of new or expanded Sheriff ’s Department facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

Schools The project site is in the Capistrano Unified School District (CUSD). Development of the proposed 33 residential villas was estimated to generate 15 additional K-12 students. The 2014 Approved Project was required to pay development impact fees to the CUSD pursuant to Senate Bill 50 (SB 50; California Government Code Section 65996). SB 50 defines such fees as full and complete mitigation of the impacts of affected developments on the provision of adequate school facilities. The 2014 MND determined that impacts would be less than significant.

Libraries The Orange County Public Library (OCPL) provides library services in San Juan Capistrano through the San Juan Capistrano Library at 31495 El Camino Real. OCPL’s service standards are 0.2 square foot of library space, and 1.3 volumes, per capita. The proposed 33 residential villas were forecast to house about 100 additional residents. The 2014 MND determined that the San Juan Capistrano Library has sufficient space and collections to serve the additional residents as well as the existing City population. Impacts would be less than significant.

5.14.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed 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:



July 2016 Page 103






New Information


Effects




a) Fire protection? x b) Police protection? x c) Schools? x d) Parks? x e) Other public facilities? x

Comments: a) Fire protection?

Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Modification would not cause a substantial increase in demands for fire protection and emergency medical services compared to the 2014 Approved Project, because the overall development intensity of the Modification (102 hotel rooms and about 6,900 square feet of restaurant space) is less than that of the 2014 Approved Project (136 hotel rooms, 33 residential villas, and about 6,300 square feet of restaurant space). As with the 2014 Approved Project, the Modification will require the developer to enter into a Secured Fire Protection Agreement with OCFA (see Mitigation Measure PS-1) to ensure the developer’s pro-rata, fair share contribution. This will ensure that OCFA maintains infrastructure that supports the Modification’s demand upon fire services as a result of the project. OCFA also requires that all traffic signals on public access ways include installation of optical preemption devices to ensure fire protection. No new impacts or increase in the severity of impacts would occur.

b) Police protection?

No Impact. Development of the Modification is not expected to cause an increase in demands for police protection, for the reason stated in Section 5.14.2.a, above. No impact would occur.

c) Schools?

No Impact. The Modification omits the 33 villa units proposed in the Approved Project, and thus would eliminate the additional demand on school services and facilities compared to those of the 2014 Approved Project. No impact would occur.

d) Parks?

No Impact. Demands for parks are generated by the populations within the parks’ service areas. The Modification would have reduced impacts on parks compared to those of the Approved Project, since it would omit the 33 residential villas and the associated population growth. No impact would occur.



Page 104 PlaceWorks

e) Other public facilities?

No Impact. Demands for libraries are generated by the populations within the libraries’ service areas. The Modification would have reduced impacts on libraries compared to those of the Approved Project, as the 33 residential units proposed in the 2014 Approved Project are omitted from the Modification. No impact would occur.

5.14.3 2014 MND Mitigation Measures PS-1 Prior to project approval, the project applicant shall enter into a secured fire protection

agreement with OCFA that will ensure an adequate level of service is maintained for the project.

5.15 RECREATION 5.15.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the 2014 MND The 2014 MND determined that the 33 residential villas included in the 2014 Approved Project would house about 100 residents, thus creating demand for about 0.5 acre of parkland at the City’s standard of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The 2014 MND found that this increase in demand for parks was not expected to cause substantial deterioration of recreation facilities. The 2014 MND determined that the project applicant would be required to pay parkland in-lieu fees, pursuant to Section 9-4.519 of the City’s municipal code, collected for developing new or rehabilitating existing parks and recreational facilities and that impacts would be less than significant.

5.15.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project






New Information


Effects




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?

x

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?

x



July 2016 Page 105

Comments: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other

recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

No Impact. The Modification would omit the residential uses from the project site, resulting in a decrease in residents and associated recreational demand. No impacts would occur.

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 Modification would omit the residential uses from the project site, resulting in a decrease in residents and associated recreational demand. No impacts would occur.

5.15.3 2014 MND Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures related to recreation apply to the Modification.

5.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC 5.16.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the 2014 MND Traffic Impacts The 2014 MND determined that the 2014 Approved Project was forecast to generate about 1,662 daily vehicle trips, with 94 net trips in the AM peak hour and 117 trips in the PM peak hour. With-project traffic conditions were analyzed in two scenarios: Existing plus project (2013) and existing plus project plus cumulative (2016). Baseline traffic conditions for the existing plus project plus cumulative (2016) scenario were estimated using an ambient growth factor of 2 percent per year for three years to account for traffic from regional growth, plus estimated traffic generation and distribution from 17 related projects in the City of San Juan Capistrano. Intersection and roadway segment operations were analyzed in each of the two scenarios, including the operations of six closely-spaced intersections on Del Obispo Street.

Significant traffic impacts were identified at the intersections of:

Camino Capistrano at Forster Street (existing plus project scenario)

Del Obispo Street at Forster Street (PM peak hour; existing plus project plus cumulative scenario)

These intersections were controlled by stop signs on the approaches at Forster; traffic on the major cross-streets does not stop. The 2014 MND included mitigation measure TRAN-1 to require the project applicant to construct or pay fair share fees for the construction of traffic signals at the intersections listed above. Note that OCFA requires through its plan check process that all traffic signals on public access ways include installation of optical preemption devices to ensure fire protection. The 2014 MND determined that



Page 106 PlaceWorks

incorporation of Mitigation Measure TRAN-1 would improve operations to acceptable levels of service and reduce project impacts to less than significant levels.

A significant impact was identified for the segment of Camino Capistrano between Ortega Highway and Forster Street. No significant traffic impacts were identified at the six closely spaced intersections on Del Obispo Street.

The peak parking demand by the 2014 Approved Project, 216 spaces, was forecast to occur in July—the peak month of demand—on a weekday at 9:00 PM. The 2014 Approved Project provided 217 parking spaces, adequate to meet forecast parking demand. Impacts would be less than significant.







New Information


Effects




a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

x

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

x

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?

x

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

x

e) Result in inadequate emergency access? x



July 2016 Page 107






New Information


Effects




f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

x

The analysis in this section is based partly on the following technical study, which is included as Appendix F of this Initial study and referred to in this section as TIA:

Traffic Impact Analysis Report Addendum, Kimpton Hotel Capistrano, San Juan Capistrano, California, Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers, June 24, 2016.

Study Locations After consulting with the City of San Juan Capistrano staff, it was agreed that the TIA would focus on the following nine key intersections, shown in Figure 11:

1. El Camino Real at Ortega Highway

2. Del Obispo Street at Ortega Highway

3. I-5 SB Ramps at Ortega Highway

4. I-5 NB Ramps at Ortega Highway

5. Camino Capistrano at Forster Street

6. Del Obispo Street at Forster Lane

7. Alipaz Street at Del Obispo Street

8. Paseo Adelanto at Del Obispo Street

9. Camino Capistrano at Del Obispo Street

In addition, the traffic analysis evaluated the following seven roadway segments:

1. Ortega Highway, between El Camino Real and Del Obispo Street

2. Ortega Highway, between Del Obispo Street and I-5 SB Ramps

3. Ortega Highway, between I-5 SB Ramps and I-5 NB Ramps

4. Camino Capistrano, between Ortega Highway and Del Obispo Street

5. Del Obispo Street, between Ortega Highway and Camino Capistrano

6. Del Obispo Street, between Alipaz Street and Paseo Adelanto



Page 108 PlaceWorks

7. Del Obispo Street, between Paseo Adelanto and Camino Capistrano

Methodology The 2014 MND provided a discussion of the City’s methodology to calculate impacts to intersections and roadway segments in Section 3.16.2, Methodology, of the 2014 MND (refer also to Tables 19 to 22). This information is summarized below.

In conformance with the City of San Juan Capistrano requirements, existing AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for the study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Methodology for signalized intersections. The ICU technique is intended for signalized intersection analysis and estimates the volume to capacity (V/C) relationship for an intersection based on the individual V/C ratios for key conflicting traffic movements.

Additionally, AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for the study intersections were evaluated using the methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (HCM 2010). Level of service in the HCM method is defined in terms of control delay, which is a measure of the increase in travel time due to traffic signal control, driver discomfort, and fuel consumption.

The ICU and delay values translate to a level of service (LOS) estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. Six qualitative categories of level of service, from A to F, have been defined along with the corresponding ICU and delay value ranges. LOS A represents good conditions with little or no congestion or delay, and LOS F represents poor conditions where severe congestion occurs. The levels of service corresponding tables are presented in Tables 3-1 to 3-3 of the TIA.

Daily operating conditions for the key study roadway segments were analyzed using the V/C ratio, in conformance with the City of San Juan Capistrano requirements. The volume is based on the 24-hour traffic volumes, and the capacity is based on the City’s classification of each roadway. The six qualitative categories of LOS have been defined along with the corresponding V/C value range and are shown in Table 3-4 of the TIA.

City of San Juan Capistrano LOS Criteria

According to City of San Juan Capistrano criteria, LOS “D” is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the morning and evening peak commute hours at all City intersections. LOS “E” is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the morning and evening peak commute hours at all City-designated “Hot Spot” intersections. All study intersections are Hot Spots where LOS E is acceptable, except for (1) El Camino Real at Ortega Highway and (5) Camino Capistrano at Forster Street, where LOS D is acceptable.

Existing Conditions Peak-period intersection turning movement volumes at the existing key study intersections and daily traffic volumes at the key roadway segments were collected over a two-day period (Tuesday and Wednesday) in May 2016; the average of the two days was used for this analysis per the requirements of City staff.

PlaceWorks

0

Scale (Feet)

400

Base Map Source: Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, 2016

Figure 11 - Study Area and Location of Analyzed Intersections




Page 110 PlaceWorks




July 2016 Page 111

Based on the ICU method analysis for signalized intersections, all signalized intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS during both AM and PM peak hours. The ICU method does not apply to unsignalized intersections (see Table 3-6 of the TIA, Appendix F herein).

Based on the HCM method of analysis, all intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS during both AM and PM peak hours, except the unsignalized intersection of Camino Capistrano at Forster Street (see Table 3-7 of the TIA). This intersection currently operates at deficient LOS E in the PM peak hour.

All roadway segments currently operate at acceptable LOS, based on the 24-hour traffic volumes and current roadway geometry (see Table 3-8 of the TIA).

Comments: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for

the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The 2014 Approved Project resulted in the generation of 1,662 daily trips, 94 trips in the AM peak hour, and 117 trips in the PM peak hour on a typical weekday.

The Modification would allow the development of a 102-room hotel and 6,937-square-foot restaurant, resulting in 1,260 daily trips (half arriving and half departing), 58 in the AM peak hour, and 82 in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday.

Table 9 summarizes the trip generation comparison between the 2014 Approved Project and the Modification. The Modification would result in a decrease of 402 daily trips, 36 in the AM peak hour, and 35 in the PM peak hour.



Page 112 PlaceWorks

Table 9 Trip Generation Estimates

ITE Land Use Code / Project Description Daily 2-

Way AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Trip Generation Factors: 310: Hotel (TE/Room) 8.17 59% 41% 0.53 51% 49% 0.60

931: Quality Restaurant (TE/TSF) 89.95 90% 10% 0.81 67% 33% 7.49

Project Trip Generation Forecast: Hotel (102 Rooms) 833 32 22 54 31 30 61

Internal Capture Trip Reduction -36 0 0 0 -1 -2 -3

Hotel Total 797 32 22 54 30 28 58

Quality Restaurant (6,751 SF) 607 5 0 5 34 17 51

Internal Capture Trip Reduction -36 0 0 0 -2 -1 -3

Subtotal 571 5 0 5 32 16 48

Mode Shift Adjustment -57 -1 0 -1 -3 -2 -5

Subtotal 514 4 0 4 29 14 43

Pass-By Reduction -51 0 0 0 -13 -6 -19

Quality Restaurant Total 463 4 0 4 16 8 24

Total Project Trip Generation Forecast (A) 1,260 36 22 58 46 36 82

2014 Approved Project Total Trip Generation (B) 1,662 49 45 94 68 49 117

Net Difference in Trip Generation – Proposed Project versus 2014 Approved Project (C) = (A) – (B)

-402 -13 -23 -36 -22 -13 -35

Source: LLG 2016.

The directional trip distribution patterns have been assigned to the adjacent street system based on location of site access points in relation to the surrounding street system, the site's proximity to major traffic carriers and regional access routes, physical characteristics of the circulation system such as lane channelization and presence of traffic signals that affect travel patterns, presence of traffic congestion in the surrounding vicinity, existing traffic volumes, and input from City staff.

Significance Criteria The significance of the potential impacts of the project at each key intersection and roadway segment was evaluated using the City’s LOS standards and significant transportation impact criteria as follows:

Intersections – ICU Method

Per the City of San Juan Capistrano criteria, LOS D is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the AM and PM peak hour for all non–Hot Spot intersections. Hot Spot intersections, per City criteria, are to maintain an LOS E as the minimum acceptable condition during the AM and PM peak hours.



July 2016 Page 113

Per the City’s guidelines, a project’s impact (direct impact) on the existing street system is considered significant if the project’s ICU increase is 0.010 or greater, and the resulting existing plus project condition is LOS E or LOS F. For Hot Spot intersections, a project’s impact (direct impact) on the existing street system is considered significant if the project’s ICU increase is 0.010 or greater, and the resulting existing plus project traffic condition is LOS F.

Intersections – HCM Method

Per the City’s guidelines, a project’s impact (direct impact) on the existing street system is considered significant if the project’s delay increase is 1.0 second or greater, and the resulting Existing plus project traffic condition is LOS E or F. For Hot Spot intersections, a project’s impact (direct impact) on the existing street system is considered significant if the project’s HCM increase is 1.0 second or greater, and the resulting existing plus project traffic condition is LOS F.

For those intersections evaluated using the Synchro software (HCM method of analysis), the delay thresholds are increased to 2.0 second per vehicles, except at Hot Spot intersections.

Roadway Segments

Per the City of San Juan Capistrano criteria LOS D is the minimum link performance goal for major, primary, secondary, and limited-secondary arterials, and LOS C for local residential arterials within the City. It has also established LOS E as the minimum link performance goal for Hot Spot locations in the City.

Per the City’s guidelines, a project’s impact (direct impact) on the existing street system (major, primary, secondary or limited secondary arterials) is considered significant if the project’s V/C ratio increase is 0.010 or greater and the resulting existing plus project traffic condition is LOS E or F. A project’s impact (direct impact) on the existing street system (local residential arterials) is considered “significant” if the project’s V/C ratio increase is 0.010 or greater, and the resulting existing plus project traffic condition is LOS D, E, or F. For Hot Spot roadway segments, a project’s impact (direct impact) on the existing street system is considered significant if the project’s ICU increase is 0.010 or greater, and the resulting existing plus project traffic condition is LOS F.

Existing Plus Project The relative impact of the added traffic volumes generated by the project was evaluated based on analysis of future operating conditions at the key study intersections and key roadway segments with the proposed project. The existing plus project traffic conditions have been generated based upon existing conditions with addition of the estimated project traffic.

Intersection Analyses

Table 10 summarizes the near-term peak hour level of service results at the key study intersections based on the ICU method of analysis. This method does not apply to unsignalized intersections, which are El Camino Real at Ortega Highway and Camino Capistrano at Forster Street. This table shows the increase in ICU value due to the added peak hour project trips and indicates whether the traffic associated with the project would



Page 114 PlaceWorks

have a project and/or cumulative significant impact based on the LOS standards and the significance impact criteria.

Table 10 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis – ICU Method

Key Intersection

Minimum Acceptable

LOS Time Period

Existing Traffic Conditions

Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions Significant Impact

ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU

Increase Project Impact

1. El Camino Real at Ortega Highway D

AM 0.459 A 0.476 A 0.017 No PM 0.404 A 0.428 A 0.024 No

2. Del Obispo Street at Ortega Highway E AM 0.500 A 0.504 A 0.004 No

PM 0.455 A 0.462 A 0.007 No 3. I-5 SB Ramps at

Ortega Highway E AM 0.656 B 0.662 B 0.006 No PM 0.673 B 0.677 B 0.004 No

4. I-5 NB Ramps at Ortega Highway E

AM 0.811 D 0.815 D 0.004 No PM 0.684 B 0.689 B 0.005 No

5. Camino Capistrano at Forster Street

D AM -- -- -- -- -- --

PM -- -- -- -- -- --

6. Del Obispo Street at Forster Lane E AM -- -- -- -- -- --

PM -- -- -- -- -- -- 7. Alipaz Street at

Del Obispo Street E AM 0.461 A 0.462 A 0.001 No PM 0.407 A 0.409 A 0.002 No

8. Paseo Adelanto at Del Obispo Street E

AM 0.512 A 0.513 A 0.001 No PM 0.508 A 0.509 A 0.001 No

9. Camino Capistrano at Del Obispo Street

E AM 0.674 B 0.676 B 0.002 No

PM 0.678 B 0.681 B 0.003 No

Source: LLG 2016. Note: The ICU method only apply for signalized intersections, intersections 1 and 5 are unsignalized.

Table 11 summarizes the near-term peak hour level of service results at the key study intersections based on the HCM method of analysis. Review of Table 11 indicates that the intersection of Camino Capistrano at Forster Street is currently operating at an unacceptable LOS based on the City’s LOS criteria. The remaining study intersections are currently operating at an acceptable level of service.

With the addition of project traffic, the intersection of Camino Capistrano at Forster Street is expected to operate at an unacceptable LOS based on the City’s LOS criteria for the existing plus project traffic conditions. The proposed project would have a direct project impact at that intersection. Without mitigation, there would be a significant impact at the intersection of Camino Capistrano at Forster Street.



July 2016 Page 115

Table 11 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis, HCM Method of Analysis

Key Intersection

Minimum Acceptable

LOS Time

Period

Existing Traffic Conditions

Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions Significant Impact

Delay (s/v) LOS Delay (s/v) LOS Delay Increase Project Impact

1. El Camino Real at Ortega Highway D

AM 34.6 C 37.4 D 2.8 No PM 6.0 A 6.1 A 0.1 No

2. Del Obispo Street at Ortega Highway E

AM 14.9 B 15.1 B 0.2 No PM 13.5 B 13.8 B 0.3 No

3. I-5 SB Ramps at Ortega Highway E

AM 26.8 C 27.0 C 0.2 No PM 26.6 C 26.7 C 0.1 No

4. I-5 NB Ramps at Ortega Highway E

AM 46.1 D 46.5 D 0.4 No PM 28.3 C 28.8 C 0.5 No

5. Camino Capistrano at Forster Street D

AM 26.4 D 27.0 D 0.6 No PM 44.4 E 50.5 F 6.1 Yes

6. Del Obispo Street at Forster Lane E

AM 27.8 D 30.0 D 2.2 No PM 40.2 E 48.7 E 8.5 No

7. Alipaz Street at Del Obispo Street E

AM 19.2 B 19.2 B 0.0 No PM 18.0 B 18.0 B 0.0 No

8. Paseo Adelanto at Del Obispo Street E

AM 13.5 B 13.5 B 0.0 No PM 19.9 B 19.9 B 0.0 No

9. Camino Capistrano at Del Obispo Street E

AM 29.9 C 30.0 C 0.1 No PM 33.1 C 33.2 C 0.1 No

Source: LLG 2016.

Operations Impact Summary An analysis was performed based on the Synchro Operations Method to simulate traffic conditions at study intersections along Ortega Highway and Del Obispo. This analysis is explained in detail in section 9.1 of the TIA (Appendix F). The proposed project would not cumulatively impact any of the study intersections. All intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable service levels during the AM and PM peak hours for all scenarios based on the Synchro Operations Method.

Intersection Signal Warrants

The level of service analyses at the key unsignalized impacted study intersections that are recommended to be signalized are supplemented with an assessment of the need for signalization of the intersections. This assessment is made on the basis of signal warrant criteria adopted by Caltrans. The signal warrant procedure is discussed in detail in section 11 of the TIA (Appendix F). The results of the traffic signal warrant analysis for the existing plus project traffic conditions indicate that the intersection of Camino Capistrano at Forester Street meets warrants criteria for the installation of a traffic signal. The decision to install a traffic signal should not be based purely on the warrants alone. Instead, the installation of a signal should be considered



Page 116 PlaceWorks

and further analysis performed when one or more of the warrants are satisfied. Additionally, engineering judgment is exercised on a case-by-case basis to evaluate the effect a traffic signal will have on certain types of accidents and traffic conditions at the subject intersection as well as at adjacent intersections.

Roadway Segments Analysis

All roadway segments in the study area would continue to operate at acceptable LOS ranging from A to D with the project (see roadway segment analysis in Section 8.4 of the TIA). Project-related traffic would not cause any roadway segment to operate at unacceptable LOS, and impacts would be less than significant.

Based on the TIA, traffic from the proposed project would result in a significant impact at the intersection of Camino Capistrano at Forester Street. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAN-1 from the 2014 MND, which would require the installation of a traffic signal at this location, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

The proposed project does not have significant new or substantially worsened impacts at study area intersections. The changes proposed by the proposed project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of impacts, with respect to study area intersections. Thus, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted.

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The goal of the Orange County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) is to ensure that certain key intersections within the CMP Highway System are operating at acceptable levels. The performance criteria for CMP facilities considers LOS E an acceptable level of service. There are two intersection locations in the vicinity of the project that are monitored as part of the CMP: the I-5 northbound and southbound ramps at Ortega Highway. These intersections were evaluated in the analysis above, and it was determined that the project would not significantly impact these intersections. Impacts are less than significant.

With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the proposed project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of impacts, with respect to CMP facilities.

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 Modification would not change air traffic patterns, or change the location of buildings which would result in a substantial safety risk. The nearest airport to the project site, John Wayne Airport, is approximately 20 miles northeast of the project site. The project includes restaurant and hotel uses that would not result in a substantial increase in air traffic or a change in air traffic patterns. Additionally, the project site is well outside of airport safety zones. No impacts are anticipated and no new or increased impact would occur.



July 2016 Page 117

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 provides adequate onsite circulation. The design of the entry/exit points of the project driveways are adequate for expected traffic volumes, and project traffic is not anticipated to cause significant queuing/stacking on project driveways. Curb-return radii are adequate for passenger cars, service/delivery trucks, trash trucks, and fire trucks. Motorists entering and exiting the project site from these driveways would be able to do so comfortably, safely, and without undue congestion. Figures 12-1, 12-2, and 12-3 of the TIA (Appendix F) present the turning movements for a passenger car, a small truck (SU-30), and a fire truck, respectively, to circulate throughout the project site. Potential impacts related to design feature hazards are less than significant. No new or substantially increased impact would occur.

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

No Impact. The project is required to comply with the Orange County Fire Authority’s “Guidelines for Fire Authority Emergency Access (Gates and Barriers),” and “Guidelines for the Fire Apparatus Access Roads and Fire Lane Requirements.” As stated above, fire trucks would have adequate curb-return radii to access and circulate through the project site. The Modification would not block fire lanes or other roadways used for emergency access to the mall or the surrounding community during construction or operation. No new or substantially increased impact would occur.

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

No Impact. The HTCMP advocates for a balanced transportation system in downtown San Juan Capistrano that accommodates multiple travel modes. It encourages pedestrian connectivity, bicycle use, and transit ridership in the area. The proposed project is consistent with goals in the Mobility Plan of the HTCMP. In particular, the proposed project “improves connections between different Town Center destinations” by providing a pedestrian connection along Forster Street between Del Obispo and Camino Capistrano. This new connection would provide a new route for pedestrians and bicyclists to traverse the neighborhood.

Furthermore, the proposed project would not conflict with access to nearby transit facilities discussed in the HTCMP, which include bus stops serving OCTA Routes 91 and 191, and the San Juan Capistrano Amtrak/Metrolink station. The proposed project would not conflict with policies, plan, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, and it would not decrease the performance or safety of existing transportation facilities. No impact would occur.

The Modification would therefore not decrease the safety or performance of pedestrian or bicycle facilities or public transit services, and no new or substantially increased impact would occur.

5.16.3 2014 MND Mitigation Measures Under the Modification, one intersection impact was eliminated compared to the 2014 Approved Project, Del Obispo Street at Forster Street. Mitigation Measure TRAN-1 would be incorporated into the proposed project as modified below:



Page 118 PlaceWorks

TRAN-1 In accordance with the traffic signal warrant analysis in Section 12 of the Traffic Impact Analysis Report for the San Juan Hotel & Villas (Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, January 2014), prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall be required to construct or pay fair share fees for the construction of the following improvements:

Camino Capistrano at Forster Street: Install a traffic signal and design for twothree-phase operation. Restripe the westbound approach on Forster Street to provide a separate left-turn lane and separate right-turn lane. Parking on the north side of Forster Street, between Camino Capistrano and El Camino Real is recommended to be restricted in conjunction with this restriping improvement. Further, given the proximity of the surface lot access on the north and the location of Project Driveway 1 on the south, it is recommended that “Keep Clear” pavement markings be installed on Forster Street for westbound traffic so that these access points are kept free and clear of vehicles.

Del Obispo Street at Forster Street: Install a traffic signal and design for five-phase operation with protected left-turn phasing on Del Obispo Street and permissive left-turn phasing on Forster Street.

5.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 5.17.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the 2014 MND Water The City of San Juan Capistrano Utilities Department currently provides water service to the project site. City water supplies consist of imported water, local groundwater, and recycled water. The 2014 MND determined that the proposed project was estimated to use about 6.9 million gallons of water annually. The City forecast that it would have adequate water to meet project water demands, and impacts were less than significant.

Wastewater Wastewater generated and collected in San Juan Capistrano is conveyed to the South Orange County Wastewater Authority’s J. B. Latham Regional Treatment Plant in the City of Dana Point, which has a capacity of 13 million gallons per day (mgd). The 2014 MND determined that the Latham Treatment Plant has sufficient residual capacity to treat project-generated wastewater, and impacts were less than significant.

Storm Drainage The northwest quadrant of the project site is subject to occasional localized flooding due to inadequate storm drainage infrastructure in the area. The 2014 Approved Project involved improvements to the onsite stormwater drainage system, including construction of an infiltration trench and pond, the use of pervious pavers and pavement, and an extension of the public storm drain. Thus, the 2014 MND determined that the 2014 Approved Project would have some favorable impact regarding storm drainage.



July 2016 Page 119

Solid Waste The majority of the solid waste collected in San Juan Capistrano is transported to the Prima Deshecha Landfill approximately three miles to the northeast. The Prima Deshecha Landfill has 87.4 million tons remaining capacity and an estimated closing date of 2067. The 2014 Approved Project was estimated to generate about 987 pounds of solid waste daily. The 2014 MND determined that there is adequate landfill capacity in the region for project-generated solid waste, and impacts would be less than significant.







New Information


Effects




a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

x

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

x

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?

x

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

x

e) Result in a determination by the waste water 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?

x

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

x

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

x



Page 120 PlaceWorks

Comments: a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control

Board?

No Impact. The Modification would comply with treatment requirements in the municipal stormwater permit issued by the San Diego Regional Water Resources Control Board, as explained above in Section 5.9.2.a. No new impact would occur.

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Water Treatment The overall development intensity of the Modification is less than that of the 2014 Approved Project; thus, water demand by the Modification would be reduced. The estimated residential water demand of 6.9 million gallons per year (31,920 gallons per day) for the 2014 Approved Project would be eliminated. Modification development would not require construction of new or expanded water treatment facilities, and no new impact would occur.

Wastewater Treatment Compared to the 2014 Approved Project, the Modification would result in the reduction of 34 hotel rooms, elimination of 33 residential villas, and a 636-square-foot increase in restaurant use. Therefore, wastewater generation would be reduced. Modification development would not require construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, and no impact would occur.

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?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. As with the 2014 Approved Project, the Modification would result in a reduction of impervious surfaces, from 90 percent under existing conditions to 81 percent under developed conditions. Therefore, the Modification would not generate an increase in runoff or require the construction or expansion of offsite storm drainage facilities other than the extension of the public storm drain proposed as part of the Modification. No new impact would occur.

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Water demand by the Modification is expected to be less than that of the 2014 Approved Project (see Section 5.17.2.b, above). Development of the Modification would not require new or expanded water supplies, and no impact would occur.



July 2016 Page 121

e) Result in a determination by the waste water 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. Wastewater generation by the Modification would be lower than that of the 2014 Approved Project (see Section 5.17.2.b, above). The project would not require construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, and no impact would occur.

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The 2014 MND determined that the 2014 Approved Project’s solid waste generation could be accommodated by receiving landfills. The Modification would eliminate the solid waste generation of the residential units of 404 pounds per day, reducing overall solid waste generation. Therefore, no new impacts are expected to occur.

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

No Impact. Less Than Significant Impact. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The Modification would comply with federal, state and local laws and regulations governing solid waste disposal, including the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 and the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 or AB 939 (California Public Resources Code §§ 40000 et seq.). AB 939 requires all local governments to develop source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting programs to reduce tonnage of solid waste going to landfills. Cities must divert at least 50 percent of their solid waste generation into recycling.

AB 1327, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 (California Public Resources Code Sections 42900 et seq.) required the California Integrated Waste Management Board to develop a model ordinance requiring adequate areas for the collection and loading of recyclable materials in development projects. Local agencies were then required to adopt and enforce either the model ordinance or an ordinance of their own by September 1, 1993. Space for recyclable material storage is required by Section 9-3.537(c)(1) of the San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code, in conformance with AB 1327. The Modification would reduce the amount of solid waste generation overall and meet the requirements of federal, state, and local laws.

5.17.3 2014 MND Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures related to utilities and service systems were identified in the 2014 MND, and no mitigation measures are required.



Page 122 PlaceWorks

5.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE






New Information


Effects




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 drop 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 the major periods of California history or prehistory?

x

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)

x

c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

x

d) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?

x

Comments: 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 drop 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 the major periods of California history or prehistory?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. As discussed in Section 5.4 of this Initial Study, the project site and surrounding area are highly urbanized and feature no natural habitat for fish or wildlife species. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 from the 2014 MND would reduce potential impacts to migratory or resident native birds. The Modification would not threaten to



July 2016 Page 123

eliminate a plant or animal community or otherwise adversely affect rare and endangered species. Consistent with the findings of the 2014 MND, impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Potential impacts to cultural resources are discussed in Section 5.5 of this Initial Study. Although the project site is adjacent to two historically important buildings (the Egan House and Esslinger Building) and may contain subsurface remnants of Forster’s Casa Grande, these cultural resources would not be adversely affected, demolished, or physically altered by development of the Modification. Discovery of archeological resources would be mitigated by Mitigation Measure CUL-1, which requires that excavation and construction on the project site be performed pursuant to a Monitoring and Unanticipated Discovery Plan, which will dictate preservation and documentation procedures for subsurface cultural resources. Implementation of these measures ensures that the proposed project would not result in the elimination of important examples of California history or prehistory. Consistent with the findings of the 2014 MND, impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Modification’s aesthetic, geologic, and hydrologic impacts would be limited to the project site and would not be exacerbated by other development projects in downtown or elsewhere in San Juan Capistrano. The 2014 MND determined that the 2014 Approved Project in combination with cumulative projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts, with the exception of one intersection impact. As discussed in Section 5.16 of this Addendum, the Modification would have a cumulative significantly impact at one intersection: Del Obispo at Forster Street. However, it was determined that implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAN-1 would reduce this impact to less than significant. The Modification would result in a reduced intensity development and eliminate residential uses. Therefore, as demonstrated throughout this Addendum, the Modification would reduce cumulative impacts compared to the 2014 Approved Project. All applicable 2014 MND mitigation measures would apply to the Modification. The project is consistent with the findings of the 2014 MND, no new impacts would occur, and there would not be an increase in the severity of impacts.

c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. As discussed throughout this Addendum, implementation of the Modification would not result in any new significant impacts. Many of the impacts that affect the health of human beings, such as air quality and noise, would be reduced compared to the 2014 Approved Project. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4 and N-1 through N-4 would not be needed with the proposed project. Impacts related to hazards, hazardous materials, and water quality, which also affect human health, were determined to be less than significant



Page 124 PlaceWorks

without mitigation. Therefore, the Modification would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings; impacts would be less than significant with applicable 2014 MND mitigation measures incorporated.

d) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?

Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR The Modification would reduce both short-term and long-term environmental impacts as compared to the 2014 Approved Project as demonstrated throughout this Addendum. All applicable mitigation measures from the 2014 MND have been incorporated into this Modification and Addendum reducing all potential environmental impacts to less than significant. The project would not achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage or detriment of long-term environmental goals.

July 2016 Page 125

6. List of Preparers LEAD AGENCY (CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO) Development Services Department Joel Rojas, Development Services Director

Mathew Evans, Planner

David Contreras, Senior Planner

Public Works Department George Alvarez, City Traffic Engineer

PLACEWORKS Nicole Morse, Esq., Associate Principal

Nicole Vermilion, Associate Principal, Air Quality and GHG Services

Fernando Sotelo, PE, PTP, Senior Associate

Stephanie Chen, EIT, Scientist, Air Quality/GHG, Transportation & Noise

Alexis Whitaker, Planner, Air Quality/GHG & Noise

Michael Milroy, Associate

Ryan Potter, AICP, Associate

Cary Nakama, Graphic Artist

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS Richard E. Barretto, P.E., Principal

Zawwar Saiyed, P.E., Senior Transportation Engineer

Angela Besa, Transportation Engineer I


6. List of Preparers

Page 126 PlaceWorks


July 2016 Page 127

7. References BridgeNet International. 2012, August 10 .Exterior Noise Analysis for Oakbrook Village.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2016, January 21. Sustainable Communities. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htm.

———. 2015, December. Area Designations Maps/State and National. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/ adm.htm.

———. 2014b, May 15. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework, Pursuant to AB 32, The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm.

———. 2008, October. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change.

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2004. Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program, Agricultural Preserves 2004, Williamson Act Parcels, Orange County, California. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Orange_WA_03_04.pdf.

———. 2011. Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program, Orange County Important Farmland 2010. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/ora10.pdf.

———. 1994. Generalized Mineral Land Classification of Orange County, California: Aggregate Resources Only, Division of Mines and Geology.

———. 2009, March 15. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Dana Point Quadrangle/San Juan Capistrano Quadrangle. http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/tsunamimaps.htm.

———. 2001, December 21. Seismic Hazard Zone Map, Dana Point Quadrangle/San Juan Capistrano Quadrangle. http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm.

———. 2010. 2010 Fault Activity Map of California. http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/FAM/faultactivitymap.html.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2016, July 5. SWIS Facility/Site Search. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/directory/Search.aspx.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2007. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways.

CivilScapes Engineering. 2015, October 5. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), Kimpton Hotel, 31872, 31878, 31882 Camino Capistrano, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675.


7. References

Page 128 PlaceWorks

C&V Consulting, Inc. 2012, August. Preliminary Hydrology Study: Oakbrook Village.

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2016, July 5. EnviroStor. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/

Geotechnologies, Inc. 2016, March 9. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Hotel Development, 31878 Camino Capistrano, San Juan Capistrano, California.

HDR Engineering. 2012, August. Oakbrook Village Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). 2003, July 16. Water Resources Master Plan.

Laguna Hills, City of. June, 2009a. City of Laguna Hills General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by AECOM (formerly EDAW).

———. 2009b, July 14. City of Laguna Hills General Plan.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2013, February. Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan.

———. 2010, September 28. Greenhouse Gases (GHG) CEQA Significance Thresholds Working Group Meeting 15. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-main-presentation.pdf.

———. 2005, May. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/documents-support-material/planning-guidance/guidance-document.

———. 2005, Carbon Monoxide (CO) Concentrations. http://aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/CO/CO.html

———. 1993. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016, April. The 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS): A Plan for Mobility, Accessibility, Sustainability, and a High Quality of Life. http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS.pdf.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2016, July 5. GeoTracker. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.

Urban Crossroads. 2012, October 3. Oakbrook Village Plaza Focused Construction Air Quality Analysis.


7. References

July 2016 Page 129

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2016, July 5. EnviroMapper for EnviroFacts. http://www.epa.gov/emefdata/em4ef.home

———. 2009, December. EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment. Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/08D11A451131BCA585257685005BF252


7. References

Page 130 PlaceWorks



Appendix

July 2016

Appendix A View Simulation Analysis


Appendix

PlaceWorks



Appendix

July 2016

Appendix B Air Quality and GHG Modeling Data


Appendix

PlaceWorks



Appendix

July 2016

Appendix C Geotechnical Report


Appendix

PlaceWorks



Appendix

July 2016

Appendix D Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan


Appendix

PlaceWorks



Appendix

July 2016

Appendix E Noise Modeling Data


Appendix

PlaceWorks

This page intentionally left blank


Appendix

July 2016

Appendix F Traffic Impact Analysis


Appendix

PlaceWorks


Attachment 6 – Appendices

Appendices to Addendum to Initial Study are can be found under the following link:

https://www.sanjuancapistrano.org/Index.aspx?page=1603

Addendum - Granicus

Documents

Transcript of Addendum - Granicus