3.1 LAND USE Existing Environmental Setting Certified 2008 EIR

Transcription

1 3.1 LAND USE Existing Environmental Setting Please see Section 4.1 of the certified 2008 EIR for a summary of the existing environmental setting for Land Use. The subject property from the certified 2008 EIR encompassed approximately gross acres consisting of three parcels, including one that is owned by the City. With the exception of the pump house that exists on the City-owned parcel and the bicycle trail that extends through the project site from the terminus of Paseo Tirador, the site is unimproved and supports only grassland and some scattered introduced vegetation along the I-5 freeway corridor. The main guiding documents regulating land use around the project site include the City s General Plan and Zoning Code, and the Ortega Planned Community CDP This Land Use section contains a complete analysis of the project s compliance with the applicable land use policies and regulations from the City s General Plan and Zoning Code, and the Ortega Planned Community CDP. The project site s General Plan land use designation is Planned Community and the site is classified as Planned Community (PC) on the Official Zoning Map (refer to Figures 3.1, General Plan Land Uses and Figure 3.2, Zoning Designations). All uses and structures permitted within the City subject to the approval of a CDP and consistent with the General Plan shall be permitted in the PC District. The site is also subject to the provisions of the Ortega Planned Community CDP. The project site is situated within Planning Sectors B-1 (Industrial Park) (refer to Figures 3.3, Ortega Planned Community Comprehensive Development Plan Planning Sectors). Permitted uses under B-1 include professional service uses, as well as support and commercial services that support permitted uses. Conditionally permitted uses in Planning Area B-1 include small-scale restaurants and commercial banking institutions, sandwich shops, health clubs, and sports medical clinics and offices Certified 2008 EIR Please refer to Section 4.1 of the certified 2008 EIR for analysis of potential effects of the VBC Project on Land Use. The certified 2008 EIR concluded that the following impacts would be less than significant related to land use and require no mitigation. Substantial Use Incompatibility. The certified 2008 EIR did not identify any significant impacts pertaining to land use. The surrounding areas are developed with the Capistrano Business Center and Casa de Amma, a senior housing project to the north and northeast. The Ortega Equestrian Center exists northeast of the site. The I-5 Freeway and San Juan Creek are located to the west and south, respectively. In addition, the proposed two-story structures would have been similar both in use and intensity of development as the existing Capistrano Business Center. The VBC Project was found to be consistent with the General Plan policies and land uses 1.0 General Open Space and 4.0 Industrial Park and the intensity of development described in the Ortega Planned Community CDP for Planning Sectors C and B. In addition, implementation of Standard Condition would have ensured that all development proposed for the VBC Project was reviewed for consistency with applicable provisions of the Ortega Planned Community/CDP 78-01, San Juan Capistrano General 3-2

2 FEET SOURCE: Bing Maps (2014); City of San Juan Capistrano (2014) I:\JCA1601\GIS\GPLU.mxd (4/15/2016) LEGEND Project Location General Plan Land Use LU 1.0 GOS - General Open Space LU 1.1 OSR - Open Space Recreation LU 1.3 CP - Community Park LU 1.4 SP - Specialty Park LU 2.2 MLD - Medium Low Density LU 2.3 MD - Medium Density LU 2.4 MHD - Medium High Density LU 2.6 VHD - Very High Density LU 3.0 NC - Neighborhood Commercial LU 3.1 GC - General Commercial LU 4.0 IP - Industrial Park LU 4.4 O/RP - Office/Research Park LU 5.0 P&I - Public & Institutional LU 5.1 EPS - Existing Public Schools LU 5.3 ACF - Assisted Care Facilities LU 9.6 PC - Planned Community FIGURE Hour Fitness San Juan Capistrano General Plan Land Uses

3 This page intentionally left blank 3-4

4 FEET SOURCE: Bing Maps (2014); City of San Juan Capistrano (2014) I:\JCA1601\GIS\Zoning.mxd (4/15/2016) LEGEND Project Location Zoning PRD - Planned Residential Development District CP - Community Park District OSR - Open Space Recreation District GOS - General Open Space OC - Office Commercial District GC - General Commercial District TC** - Town Center District TCE** - Town Center Edge District P&I - Public & Institutional Disctrict PC - Planned Community District SP/PP(78-01) - Specific Plan/Precise Plan District FIGURE Hour Fitness San Juan Capistrano Zoning Designations

5 This page intentionally left blank 3-6

6 LEGEND Project Location FIGURE 3.3 Planning Sector FEET SOURCE: Bing Maps (2014); City of San Juan Capistrano (2002) I:\JCA1601\GIS\PlanningSector.mxd (4/14/2016) 24 Hour Fitness San Juan Capistrano Ortega Planned Community Comprehensive Development Plan Planning Sectors

7 This page intentionally left blank 3-8

8 DRAFT ADDENDUM Plan, California Building Code, Noise Ordinance, Uniform Fire Code, and other applicable codes and ordinances prior to issuance of building permits. Therefore, project implementation would not have resulted in any significant land use conflict and would have been compatible with the intensity of development and character in the project area. No significant impacts were anticipated, and no mitigation measures were required. Physically Divide an Established Community. The certified 2008 EIR also found that implementation of the VBC Project would not physically divide an established community. The project was designed to avoid conflicts with the adjacent senior housing and industrial (i.e., Capistrano Business Center) areas surrounding the site. Project-related traffic would have been directed to arterial roadways to avoid conflicts with residential development. Therefore, project implementation would not have physically divided an established community. No significant impacts were anticipated, and no mitigation measures were required. Conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. The VBC Project site is located adjacent to San Juan Creek and is also located within the Southern Subregion of the Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). Although the VBC Project is located within an area regulated by the Orange County NCCP/HCP, the Southern Subregion is not identified as an area containing sensitive species or target species. However, the Orange County NCCP/HCP does note that the Southern Subregion is an important area that serves as a biological corridor linking the Coastal Subarea (which is targeted for conservation due to the presence of several sensitive species) to the Southern Subregion. Species identified as being potentially within this corridor include the gnatcatcher, coyotes, and foxes (among others), which would use the creeks and adjacent lands as movement corridors. While the VBC Project site is located within the Southern Subregion of the Orange County NCCP/HCP, the VBC Project was determined to result in less than significant impacts to sensitive biological species with mitigation incorporated. Furthermore, the VBC Project would not have adversely impacted adjacent San Juan Creek, which could potentially serve as a movement corridor for biological species identified in the Orange County NCCP/HCP. Therefore, implementation of the VBC Project was determined to not adversely affect such a plan, sensitive habitat, and/or resources. No significant impacts were anticipated as a result of project implementation, and no mitigation was required Analysis of Project Changes The proposed project is substantially smaller in scale than the VBC Project approved by the City Council in May The subject property from the certified 2008 EIR encompassed approximately gross acres on three parcels, including one that is owned by the City. The proposed project will only encompass 2.65 acres on one parcel, resulting in fewer acres being developed. In addition, as noted earlier following the approval of the VBC Project EIR, both the General Plan Land Use designations and CDP of the Ortega Planned Community planning sector designations, were updated. Therefore, due to the decrease in project size and the designation changes, the project site is no longer subject to the 4.0-Industrial Park 1.0-General Open Space land use designation or the P:\RSC0601\Addendum.doc «04/13/06» 3-9

9 Planning Sectors B (Industrial Park) C (Open Space and Recreation) provisions no longer apply due to the location of the proposed project on the site. While the proposed project is located within a Planned Community as noted above, all uses and structures permitted within the City subject to the approval of a CDP and consistent with the General Plan shall be permitted in the PC District. The proposed project is located within CDP Planning Sector B-1, which has land use provisions that classify Health Club as a conditionally permitted use, requiring City review and approval of a CUP application. CUPs are required when a use is conditionally permitted within a specific zoning district. CUP applications are generally reviewed to determine whether the proposed use can operate at a given location without harming its neighbors or the surrounding community. With approval of a CUP application, the proposed project would be consistent with land use regulations prescribed in the Ortega Planned Community CDP. Furthermore, the focus of the Ortega Planned Community CDP s design guidelines is to assure the proposed project embraces an authentic, historic architectural style that would be compatible with the City s design character and architectural heritage. The proposed architectural design incorporates the various elements of Spanish revival design, including smooth stucco-finished walls, low- pitched clay tile roofs, cast concrete elements, and arched arcades and deep-set windows, as depicted previously in Figure 2.4, Conceptual Architectural Details. Because the proposed project complies with the Planning Sector B-1 land use standards and design guidelines, and is also subject to City approval of a CUP, the proposed project is considered consistent with the CDP. Therefore, project implementation would not result in any significant land use conflict and would be compatible with the intensity of development and character in the project area. No significant impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. Implementation of the proposed project would not physically divide an established community. The project site is surrounded by development and the I-5 freeway and would not bisect or divide any existing communities. The proposed project would be located on a currently undeveloped site and is intended to replace an existing 24 Hour Fitness facility currently located in the adjacent Capistrano Business Center. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the division of an established community, and no mitigation measures are required. In addition, the proposed project requires a CUP, which is reviewed to determine whether the proposed use can operate at a given location without harming its neighbors or the surrounding community. Therefore, approval of the requested CUP would ensure that the proposed project would not conflict with the surrounding designated or existing land uses. No significant impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. Similar to the VBC Project site, the proposed project site is located within the Southern Subregion of the Orange County NCCP/HCP. However, the project site is significantly smaller than the VBC Project site, and would, therefore, result in a less intense development on the site than proposed under the VBC Project. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to sensitive biological species than implementation of the VBC Project. Furthermore, the proposed project would not interfere with the adjacent San Juan Creek, which could potentially serve as a movement corridor for biological species identified in the Orange County NCCP/HCP. Therefore, project implementation would have no impacts related to potential conflicts with such plans. No mitigation measures are required. 3-10

10 DRAFT ADDENDUM In consideration of all of the above, the proposed project does not require any major changes to the certified 2008 EIR and would not result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts or require new or substantially different mitigation measures. Cumulative Impacts. The certified 2008 EIR concluded that the VBC Project, as analyzed, would have a less than significant cumulative impact on land use. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the proposed project would result in more substantial or new significant cumulative impacts related to Land Use compared to what was identified in the certified 2008 EIR. Therefore, in consideration of all of the above, the proposed project does not require any major changes to the certified 2008 EIR and would not result in any new cumulatively significant environmental impacts Findings Related to Land Use No New Significant Effects Requiring Major EIR Revisions. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the proposed project would require a major change to the certified 2008 EIR. The proposed project would not result in new significant environmental impacts to Land Use, nor is there a substantial increase in the severity of impacts described in the certified 2008 EIR. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions. There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances pertaining to Land Use that would require major changes to the certified 2008 EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than the Certified 2008 EIR. This Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the 2008 EIR was certified, indicating that a new significant effect not reported in that document may occur. Based on the information and analyses above, there is no substantial new information indicating that there would be a new significant impact to Land Use requiring major revisions to the certified 2008 EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in Previous EIR. There are no alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that would substantially reduce one or more significant impacts pertaining to Land Use identified and considered in the certified 2008 EIR Standard Conditions The following Standard Condition pertaining to the land use is applicable to the proposed project and has been updated to reflect the name of the current project. SC All development proposed for the 24 Hour Fitness project shall be reviewed for consistency with applicable provisions of the Ortega Planned Community/ Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) 78-01, San Juan Capistrano General Plan, P:\RSC0601\Addendum.doc «04/13/06» 3-11

11 California Building Code, Noise Ordinance, Uniform Fire Code, and other applicable codes and ordinances prior to issuance of building permits Mitigation Measures The certified 2008 EIR did not contain any mitigation measures related to land use. In light of the proposed project, the certified 2008 EIR was reviewed to determine whether or not changes to the project would require any mitigation measures. Based on the analysis and information above, there is no evidence that project modifications require any changes to the conclusions in the certified 2008 EIR or addition of mitigation measures. There would be no significant adverse impacts to Land Use with the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. 3-12

12 DRAFT ADDENDUM 3.2 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Existing Environmental Setting Please refer to Section 4.2 of the certified 2008 EIR for a summary of the existing environmental setting related to Transportation and Circulation. The traffic analysis in that section is based primarily on the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Darnell & Associates, Inc. (dated June 2005 and revised August 2007) and the Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIA) (March 2016) (provided in Appendix A) prepared by Linscott Law and Greenspan, Engineers (LLG). The principal network of streets serving the project site includes San Juan Creek Road, La Novia Avenue, and Calle Arroyo via Rancho Viejo Road provides site access. Regional access to the site is provided by Interstate 5 (I-5) to the west and State Route 74 (SR-74) to the north Certified 2008 EIR Please refer to Section 4.2 of the certified 2008 EIR for an analysis of the potential effects of the VBC Project related to Transportation and Circulation. The certified 2008 EIR concluded that the following impacts would be less than significant related to transportation and circulation with implementation of mitigation measures. Short-Term Construction Impacts. The certified 2008 EIR identified significant short-term traffic impacts due to project-related construction trips attributable to the VBC Project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM was required to reduce impacts resulting from the use of heavy trucks hauling construction equipment and materials to and from the site. With implementation of MM 4.2-1, temporary construction-related traffic impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Long-Term Operational and Cumulative Impacts. The certified 2008 EIR identified potentially significant level of service (LOS) impacts at several intersections and roadway segments, directly and cumulatively, as a result of project-related traffic. However, where impacts were identified to occur, mitigation measures, which include intersection/roadway improvements and/or the contribution of fair share fees, were prescribed as listed below in Table 3.A, Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Implementation of the identified mitigation measures would have reduced potentially significant cumulative and direct impacts at the identified intersections and roadways to a less than significant level. In addition, the VBC Project would have continued to accommodate an existing bicycle/pedestrian trail, although it would have been realigned in order to accommodate the VBC Project. Therefore, project implementation would not have conflicted with any applicable or adopted plans, ordinances, policies, or programs regarding the performance of the circulation system. P:\RSC0601\Addendum.doc «04/13/06» 3-13

13 Table 3.A: Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures Ortega Highway/I-5 Southbound Ramp Junipero Serra Road/Camino Capistrano Junipero Serra Road/Rancho Viejo Road Ortega Highway/Rancho Viejo Road Ortega Highway/I-5 Southbound Ramp Ortega Highway/1-5 Northbound Ramp Junipero Serra Road/Camino Capistrano Junipero Serra Road/Rancho Viejo Road La Novia Avenue/Calle Arroyo Ortega Highway from Ortega Highway/I-5 Northbound Ramp to Rancho Viejo Road Rancho Viejo Road from Junipero Serra Road to Golf Club Drive Juniper Serra Road from Ortega Highway/I-5 Northbound Ramp to Rancho Viejo Road Project Impacts Intersection Impacts MM 4.2-3: Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the project Applicant shall construct a second southbound left-turn lane. The cumulative improvements are included in the payment of Capistrano Circulation Fee Program (CCFP) Fees for the Ortega Highway/I-5 interchange improvement. MM 4.2-5: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the project Applicant shall construct an exclusive northbound right-turn lane. MM 4.2-6a: Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the project Applicant shall construct an additional left-turn lane (for a total of two left-turns and a shared through/right) to mitigate the direct impact. Cumulative Impacts Intersection Impacts MM 4.2-2: Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the project Applicant shall be required to pay a fair share fee for the provision of an additional northbound through lane and an additional southbound through lane at the Ortega Highway/Rancho Viejo Road intersection. MM 4.2-3: Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the project Applicant shall construct a second southbound left-turn lane. The cumulative improvements are included in the payment of Capistrano CCFP Fees for the Ortega Highway/I-5 interchange improvement. MM 4.2-4: Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the project Applicant shall pay CCFP Fees. The cumulative improvements are included in the Ortega Highway/1-5 interchange improvement.[city to confirm the status of the ongoing improvements at this interchange] MM 4.2-5: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the project Applicant shall construct an exclusive northbound right-turn lane. MM 4.2-6b: Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the project Applicant shall pay a fair share fee for the construction of an exclusive eastbound right-turn and dual northbound left-turn lanes to mitigate the cumulative impact. MM 4.2-7: Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the project Applicant shall pay CCFP Fees for the construction of a second northbound through lane. Impacts to Roadway Segments MM 4.2-8: Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the project Applicant shall pay CCFP Fees for the ultimate improvements to this roadway segment, which include a six-lane configuration and are included in the Ortega Highway/1-5 interchange improvements. MM 4.2-9: Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the project Applicant shall construct improvements to this roadway segment to four-lane secondary standards prescribed in the San Juan Capistrano Circulation Element. This improvement will also satisfy the cumulative impact mitigation. MM : Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the project Applicant shall pay fair share fees for the construction of this roadway segment to four-lane secondary standards as prescribed in the San Juan Capistrano Circulation Element. 3-14

14 DRAFT ADDENDUM Table 3.A: Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures Parking Deficit Parking Deficit Parking Impacts MM a: Prior to issuance of the building permit for the proposed project, the Applicant shall prepare a Parking Management Plan pursuant to Section The Parking Management Plan shall be submitted to the City Traffic Engineer for review and approval and shall incorporate provisions encouraging the use of public transportation facilities or otherwise include features that reduce the growth of total vehicle miles traveled. MM b: Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the Applicant shall redesign the project to comply with the City s parking code, which requires three parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. The VBC Project required an exception (or variance) for parking. The Applicant had a separate parking analysis Ventanas Parking Study'' prepared by Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., (AFA) dated June 22, 2007 (Revised October 4, 2007). Based on Section of the San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code, the VBC Project was required to provide 709 parking spaces on site to accommodate the proposed industrial park based on the requirement of 3 parking spaces/1,000 square feet of floor area. The proposed site plan reflected a total of 669 on-site parking spaces, and would have resulted in a deficit of 40 spaces. In the event the parking exception was approved, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM a, requiring a Parking Management Plan, was required. Alternatively, in the event the parking exception was not approved, Mitigation Measure MM b, requiring compliance with the existing parking code, was required. These measures would have ensured that the VBC Project met the City s parking requirements and that impacts were less than significant. Air Traffic Patterns. The certified 2008 EIR did not identify any significant impacts pertaining to air traffic patterns. The VBC Project site is located approximately 3 miles southwest of John Wayne Airport. The VBC Project would have included development of 236,000 square feet of industrial/office floor area and would not have resulted in any changes to air traffic patterns. Therefore, project implementation would not have resulted in any significant impacts related to air traffic impacts, and no mitigation measures were required. Emergency Access. The certified 2008 EIR also found that implementation of the VBC Project would not affect the adequate emergency access. Access to the site is adequate to accommodate project-related traffic as well as provide emergency access. Therefore, project implementation would have not resulted in any significant impacts that result in inadequate emergency access, and no mitigation measures were required Analysis of Project Changes While generally similar in nature, the proposed project is substantially smaller in scale than the VBC Project described in the certified 2008 EIR. The site access for the proposed project will be provided P:\RSC0601\Addendum.doc «04/13/06» 3-15

15 via one driveway located along the Calle Arroyo cul-de-sac instead of by three proposed entrance driveways along the south side of Calle Arroyo as previously proposed by the VBC Project. While the VBC Project would have resulted in the realignment of an existing bicycle/pedestrian trail, due to its location, the proposed project would not impact any existing bicycle/pedestrian trail. Although the proposed project will have a shorter construction period than the VBC Project, there is still a potential to result in temporary construction traffic impacts from project-related construction trips. Similar to the VBC Project, in order to reduce temporary traffic impacts associated with construction traffic, development of a Traffic Control Plan and Construction Management Plan would still be required for the proposed project. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-1, construction traffic impacts to the local circulation system would be reduced to a less than significant level. This impact was disclosed in the certified 2008 EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any new or more significant construction traffic impacts compared to those identified in the certified 2008 EIR. The trip generation and distribution used to evaluate the VBC Project in the certified 2008 EIR was based on an increase of 1,936 trips per day over the existing condition, including 234 trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 235 trips occurring during the p.m. peak hour. According to the Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIA) prepared by LLG (March 2016) (Appendix A), the proposed project would result in 1,251 daily trips, with 54 trips occurring in the a.m. peak hour and 132 trips occurring in the p.m. peak hour. Therefore, the proposed project s trip generation falls within that which was evaluated in the certified 2008 EIR and does not exceed the VBC s trip budget for the Project site as established by 239,607 SF of office-industrial park floor area. In addition, while the VBC Project would have directly impacted three intersections, the proposed project would not result in significant direct impacts to any intersections. While the proposed project would not result in any project-related impacts to roadway segments in the study area, Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-9, which requires improvements at the roadway segment from Rancho Viejo Road from Juniper Serra Road to Golf Club Drive, remains applicable to the project as such improvements have not yet been implemented. Furthermore, pursuant to the requirements of the City s Capistrano Circulation Fee Program (CCFP), the proposed project is required to pay this fee based on the current fee structure of the City of San Juan Capistrano. The precise fee will be determined by the City upon issuance of the proposed project s building permits. No significant impacts related to traffic would occur as the scale of the project is substantially reduced from that analyzed in the 2008 EIR, and no new mitigation measures are required. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the proposed project would result in more substantial or new significant impacts related to traffic congestion compared to what was identified in the certified 2008 EIR. The Revised Parking Demand Analysis for 24 Hour Fitness (Parking Study) prepared by LLG (June 29, 2016) employed the following two methods to estimate the peak parking demands for the proposed project: (1) application of City code requirements and (2) application of the parking demand survey results at four health clubs similar to the proposed project. Direct application of the City s parking code to the 24 Hour Fitness Project results in a code-parking requirement of 253 parking spaces for the proposed health club. With a proposed parking supply of 198 parking spaces, there is a resulting code deficiency of 55 spaces. 3-16

16 DRAFT ADDENDUM The second methodology of an observed parking demand study analyzed the parking demand at the existing 25,000 sf health club located at Calle Arroyo directly north of the project site, as well as three other existing 24 Hour Fitness health clubs located at: McIntyre Street, Laguna Hills (18,000 sf); 100 Avenida de la Pata, San Clemente (45,000 sf); and 8697 Irvine Center Drive, Irvine (39,000 sf). The greatest observed ratio was 4.72 spaces per 1,000 sf at the Laguna Hills facility, followed by 4.51 for San Clemente, 4.04 for San Juan Capistrano, and 2.72 for Irvine. All ratios derived from the observed parking analysis were less than the City Code ratio of 6.67 spaces per 1,000 sf for health clubs. The proposed project s supply of 198 spaces corresponds to a ratio of 5.21 spaces per 1,000 sf for the project, which would be approximately 10 percent greater than the peak ratio of 4.72 spaces per 1,000 sf at the Laguna Hills facility (the highest observed parking ratio). This 10 percent difference would serve as a parking buffer that would allow for flexibility in the daily variation in parking demand. Based on these findings, the Parking Study concluded that a ratio of 4.72 spaces per 1,000 sf would be applicable to the proposed project. Using this ration, the proposed project would require 179 spaces to serve the 38,000 sf facility. Comparing this requirement to the proposed supply of 198 spaces, the proposed project would result in a surplus of 19 spaces. Therefore, based on observed parking ratios at similar facilities, the parking is considered adequate to support the proposed project s peak demand. Based on the City s parking code, both the VBC Project and the proposed project had a deficit of 40 and 55 spaces, respectively. Similar to the VBC Project, the proposed project includes a variance request to allow for 198 parking spaces rather than 253 parking spaces, as required by Section (g)(8), Parking of Title 9, Land Use Code. In compliance with Mitigation Measures MM a, a Parking Management Plan has been prepared for the project (see Appendix A). Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM a has been complied with, is no longer applicable to the proposed project, and will be removed from the conditions of approval. As described in the Parking Study for the project and as discussed further above, the proposed project would include sufficient parking onsite, despite resulting in a parking deficit according to the City s Municipal Code. Because the Parking Study demonstrated that the proposed project would include adequate onsite parking, Mitigation Measure MM b (which required a redesign of the project to meet the City s parking code) is no longer applicable to the proposed project, and will be removed from the conditions of approval. These impacts were disclosed in the certified 2008 EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any new or more significant parking impacts compared to those identified in the certified 2008 EIR. In consideration of all of the above, the proposed project does not require any major changes to the certified 2008 EIR and would not result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts or require new or substantially different mitigation measures. Cumulative Impacts. The certified 2008 EIR concluded that the VBC Project, as analyzed, would have potentially have a significant cumulative impact on the transportation system and would require mitigation. According to the Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared for the proposed project, no intersections would be cumulatively impacted. While no cumulative impacts related to traffic would occur as the scale of the project is reduced and no new mitigation measures are required, the project would be required to adhere to the provisions outlined in Mitigation Measure MM 4.2-7, which requires payment of CCFP fees to fund the construction of a second northbound through lane at La Novia Avenue/Calle Arroyo. Compliance with this measure is required to ensure compliance P:\RSC0601\Addendum.doc «04/13/06» 3-17

17 with mitigation prescribed in the VBC EIR. Therefore, in consideration of all of the above, the proposed project does not require any major changes to the certified 2008 EIR and would not result in any new significant cumulative environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of cumulative impacts or require new or substantially different mitigation measures Findings Related to Traffic and Circulation No New Significant Effects Requiring Major EIR Revisions. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the proposed project would require a major change to the certified 2008 EIR. The proposed project would not result in new significant environmental impacts to Traffic and Circulation, nor is there a substantial increase in the severity of impacts described in the certified 2008 EIR. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions. There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances pertaining to Traffic and Circulation that would require major changes to the certified 2008 EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than the Certified 2008 EIR. This Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the 2008 EIR was certified, indicating that a new significant effect not reported in that document may occur. Based on the information and analyses above, there is no substantial new information indicating that there would be a new significant impact to Traffic and Circulation requiring major revisions to the certified 2008 EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in Previous EIR. There are no alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that would substantially reduce one or more significant impacts pertaining to Traffic and Circulation identified and considered in the certified 2008 EIR Standard Conditions No standard conditions are required Mitigation Measures In light of the proposed project, the certified 2008 EIR was reviewed to determine whether or not changes to the project would affect the mitigation measures contained therein. Based on the analysis and information above, no changes to the mitigation measures found in the certified 2008 EIR are required. Mitigation measures related to Traffic and Circulation that would be applicable to both the previously approved VBC Project and the proposed project are provided below. In addition, those mitigation measures for the VBC Project that are no longer applicable to the proposed project are also summarized with a brief explanation as to why they are no longer applicable. 3-18

18 DRAFT ADDENDUM The following mitigation measures are incorporated to mitigate potentially significant traffic and circulation impacts of the proposed project. MM Prior to issuance of the building permit for each phase of development, a Traffic Control Plan and Construction Management Plan shall be prepared and implemented during the construction phase for each improved phase. The Traffic Control Plan shall address traffic control for any street closure, detour, or other disruption to traffic circulation. The plan shall also provide for adequate traffic controls and/or detours to allow existing City of San Juan Capistrano (City) roads that require improvements to remain open to traffic at all times, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The Traffic Control Plan shall show all lane closures, restrictions, tapers and otherdisruptions of normal traffic flow, including pedestrian and vehicular detours, as well as all existing and temporary striping, pavement markings, pavement legends, striping removals, and temporary barricades. The Traffic Control Plan shall include provision for advance notification signs for posting periods. MM MM Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the project Applicant shall pay CCFP Fees for the construction of a second northbound through lane. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the project Applicant shall construct improvements to this roadway segment (Rancho Viejo Road from Juniper Serra to Golf Club) to four-lane secondary standards prescribed in the San Juan Capistrano Circulation Element. This improvement will also satisfy the cumulative impact mitigation. The VBC Project would have increased trip generation and distribution resulting in significant impacts at several intersections and roadways. As part of the VBC Project, traffic improvements and payment of the Capistrano Circulation Fee Program (CCFP) Fees would have been required to mitigate these impacts. Improvements and requirements outlined in Mitigation Measures MM through MM , as identified in the 2008 EIR, have since been implemented. Therefore, these mitigation measures are no longer applicable to the proposed project. The proposed project would increase trip generation and distribution; however, the traffic increases would not result in significant impacts. As the proposed project would not generate significant impacts at the intersections and roadways identified in the certified 2008 EIR, no new mitigation measures would be required to mitigation project impacts. Furthermore, because improvements required in Mitigation Measures MM through have been implemented, these measures would no longer be required. P:\RSC0601\Addendum.doc «04/13/06» 3-19

19 3.3 AIR QUALITY Existing Environmental Setting Please refer to Section 4.3 of the certified 2008 EIR for a summary of the existing environmental setting for Air Quality. The air quality analysis in this section is based primarily on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Memorandum, prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) and dated April 2016 (provided in Appendix B) and the Ventanas Offices Focused Air Quality Analysis, City of San Juan Capistrano, CA, prepared by Synectecology in September The project site is located within the City of San Juan Capistrano, which is part of the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). However, the SCAQMD reports to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and all emissions are also governed by the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) as well as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Topographical features that affect the transport and diffusion of pollutants in the project area include the mountain ranges to the northeast that prevent the transport of pollutants. Air quality in the SCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of coastal Southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions Certified 2008 EIR The certified 2008 EIR concluded that the following air quality impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. Construction Impacts. The VBC EIR determined that air quality impacts would have occurred during construction of the VBC Project from soil disturbance, equipment exhaust, and emission of reactive organic compounds during site paving and painting of the structures. The VBC Project as analyzed in the certified 2008 EIR would have resulted in ROG emissions exceeding the SCAQMD threshold of 75 pounds per day from the coatings applied to the structures. Implementation of standard conditions (SC through SC 4.3-4) and mitigation measures (MM 4.3-1a through MM 4.3-1c) would have limited the amount of emissions released during construction and reduced shortterm construction air quality impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, with implementation of the identified mitigation measures, the VBC Project would not have conflicted or obstructed the implementation of an air quality plan or have violated an air quality standard. The certified 2008 EIR concluded that the following air quality impacts would be less than significant and required no mitigation. Operational Emissions. The VBC Project would have resulted in the generation of operational emissions resulting from the operation of automobiles; however, project-related emissions would not have exceeded SCAQMD significance thresholds. In addition to vehicle trips, the land uses would produce emissions from on-site sources. Although all emissions would have been within their daily threshold values, the VBC Project would have implemented Standard Condition (adherence to 3-20

20 DRAFT ADDENDUM Title 24 energy-efficient design requirements and the Uniform Building Code) to ensure a less than significant impact. Therefore, project implementation would not have resulted in long-term operational air quality impacts or contribute to significant adverse cumulative air quality impacts, and no mitigation measures were required. Impacts to Sensitive Receptors. The certified 2008 EIR did not identify any significant impacts pertaining to sensitive receptors. CO would have been the criteria pollutant produced in the greatest quantities and local emissions would have been within the air quality standards. Therefore, project implementation would not have exposed sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. No significant impacts were anticipated, and no mitigation measures were required. Objectionable Odors. Project construction would have involved the use of heavy equipment creating exhaust pollutants from on-site earth movement and from equipment bringing concrete and other building materials to the site. Additionally, some odor would have been produced from the application of asphalt, paints, and coatings. The certified 2008 EIR determined any exposure of the general public to the identified common odors would have been for a short duration and less than significant. Therefore, project implementation would not have resulted in objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. No significant impacts were anticipated, and no mitigation measures were required Analysis of Project Changes Construction Emissions. The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis (Appendix B) prepared for the project determined that the proposed project would result in fewer air quality emissions during construction as compared to the previously approved VBC Project. As shown in Table 3.B, the peak daily construction emissions for the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for construction emissions. In addition, as indicated, these emissions would not exceed the short-term construction emissions as reported in the certified 2008 EIR for the VBC Project. To analyze construction emissions with respect to SCAQMD daily emissions thresholds, the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis also analyzed construction emissions with respect to localized significance thresholds (LSTs). LSTs represent the maximum emissions of a project site that are no expected to result in an exceedance of the national or State ambient air quality standards. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the project s Source Receptor Area (SRA) and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. For this project, the appropriate SRA for the LST is the Capistrano Valley area (Area 21). To avoid the need for every air quality analysis to perform air dispersion modeling, the SCAQMD performed air dispersion modeling for a range of construction sites less than or equal to 5 acres (ac) in size and created look-up tables that correlate pollutant emissions rates with project size to screen out projects that are unlikely to generate enough emissions to result in a locally significant concentration of any criteria pollutant. The project site is approximately 2.65 acres. P:\RSC0601\Addendum.doc «04/13/06» 3-21

21 Table 3.B: Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions Total Regional Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day) Fugitive PM 10 Exhaust PM 10 Fugitive PM 2.5 Exhaust PM 2.5 Construction Phase VOC NO X CO SO 2 Phase 1a-Site Preparation Phase 1b-Grading Phases 2 and 3- Utility/Infrastructure Improvements and Building Construction Phase 3b- Architectural Coating Phase 3c-Paving Peak Daily SCAQMD Thresholds Significant Emissions? No No No No No No 2008 EIR Emissions Emissions Increase? No No No No No No Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, LSA Associates, Inc. (April 2016) (Appendix B). Note: These construction phases are listed differently than in the Project Description to conform to the limitations of the CalEEMod model. All planned construction phases are included in this analysis EIR emissions from Table The maximum daily emissions rates for each pollutant for the entire construction process are listed here. CO = carbon monoxide EIR= Environmental Impact Report lbs/day = pounds per day NO x = nitrogen oxides PM 2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM 10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District SO x = sulfur oxides VOC = volatile organic compounds Sensitive receptors include residences, schools, hospitals, and similar uses that are sensitive to adverse air quality. The closest sensitive land uses are the Seasons Senior Apartments, located approximately 1,075 feet (ft) northeast of the project site. Therefore, the following LST emissions thresholds would apply during project construction and operations. Construction LST emission thresholds for a 2.65-acre site at 1,075 ft: 205 pounds per day (lbs/day) of nitrogen oxides (NO X ) 5,617 lbs/day of CO 90 lbs/day of PM lbs/day of PM

22 DRAFT ADDENDUM Operational LST emission thresholds for a 2.65-acre site at 1,075 ft: 205 pounds per day (lbs/day) of nitrogen oxides (NO X ) 5,617 lbs/day of CO 22 lbs/day of PM lbs/day of PM 2.5 Table 3.C shows the construction-related emissions of CO, NO X, PM 10, and PM 2.5 compared to the LSTs, and also shows a comparison to the previous VBC Project emissions. Table 3.C: Construction LST Impacts Emissions Sources NO X CO PM 10 PM 2.5 On-site Emissions (lbs/day) LST Thresholds 205 5, Significant Emissions? No No No No 2008 EIR Emissions Emissions Increase? No No No No Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, LSA Associates, Inc. (April 2016) (Appendix B). SRA: Capistrano Valley, 2.65 acres, 1,075 ft (325-meter) distance EIR emissions from Table CO = carbon monoxide lbs/day = pounds per day LST = local significance threshold NO X = nitrogen oxides PM 2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM 10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size Table 3.C shows that the calculated emissions rates for the proposed on-site construction activities are below the LSTs for CO, NO X, PM 10, and PM 2.5. Table 3.C also indicates that the proposed project s peak daily emissions would be lower than the emissions as reported in the certified 2008 EIR for the VBC Project. As described above in the Summary of Project Changes (Section 2.5), the proposed project when compared to the VBC Project would have 10 fewer structures to paint and a shorter construction period. Similar to the discussion in the certified 2008 EIR, short-term air quality impacts for the proposed project would be associated with construction activities, from soil disturbance, equipment exhaust, and emission of reactive organic compounds during site paving and painting of the structures Implementation of the same standard conditions (SC through SC 4.3-4) and mitigation measures (MM 4.3-1a through MM 4.3-1c) ) related to short-term construction air quality would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. This impact was disclosed in the certified 2008 EIR. Therefore, as described further above and as shown in Tables 3.3 and 3.4, proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to construction air quality impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause any short-term localized air quality impacts, and no mitigation is required. P:\RSC0601\Addendum.doc «04/13/06» 3-23

23 Operational Emissions. Long-term air emission impacts are associated with any change in permanent use of the project site by on-site stationary and off-site mobile sources that substantially increase emissions. The stationary-source emissions would come from many sources, including the use of consumer products, landscape equipment, general energy, and solid waste. Mobile source emissions would result from vehicle trips associated with the proposed project. The traffic study (Revised Traffic Impact Analysis Report 24 Hour Fitness, Appendix B) for the proposed project forecasts that the project would generate 1,251 daily trips. Using the default emission factors included in CalEEMod (Version ), emissions associated with project operations at opening year were calculated and are included in Table 3.D. Table 3.D also includes the daily operational emissions for the VBC Project from the certified 2008 EIR and indicates that none of the proposed project s peak daily emissions would exceed those emissions. Table 3.D: Opening Year Regional Operational Emissions Pollutant Emissions, lbs/day VOC NO X CO SO X PM 10 PM 2.5 Source Area Energy Mobile Total Project Emissions SCAQMD Thresholds Significant? No No No No No No 2008 EIR Emissions Emissions Increase? No No No No No No Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, LSA Associates, Inc. (April 2016) (Appendix B) EIR emissions from Table CO = carbon monoxide lbs/day = pounds per day NO x = nitrogen oxides PM 2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM 10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District SO x = sulfur oxides VOC = volatile organic compounds Table 3.E shows the calculated emissions for the proposed operational activities (fully described above) compared to the LSTs. Table 3.E shows that the calculated emissions rates for the proposed operation activities are below the LSTs for CO, NO X, PM 10, and PM 2.5. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause any long-term localized air quality impacts, and no mitigation is required. It should be noted that the certified 2008 EIR for the VBC Project did not analyze operational LST impacts. The proposed project is substantially smaller when compared to the VBC Project and would result in 685 fewer trips per day and a reduction in on-site emission sources than what was previously analyzed in the certified 2008 EIR. Therefore, similar to what was determined in the certified 2008 EIR, the proposed project would adhere to Standard Condition (adherence to Title 24 energyefficient design requirements and the Uniform Building Code) and no long-term operational air quality impacts or significant adverse cumulative air quality impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. In addition, similar to what was determined in the certified 2008 EIR.the 3-24

24 DRAFT ADDENDUM Table 3.E: Summary of Operational Emissions, Localized Significance Emission Rates (lbs/day) NO X CO PM 10 PM 2.5 On-site Emissions Localized Significance Threshold 205 5, Exceed Significance? No No No No Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, LSA Associates, Inc. (April 2016) (Appendix B). SRA: Capistrano Valley, 2.65 acres, 1,075 ft (325 meter) distance, onsite traffic 5 percent of total CO = carbon monoxide lbs/day = pounds per day NO X = nitrogen oxide PM 10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size PM 2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or result in objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The proposed project would not result in a new significant impact or more severe impacts related to air quality. Therefore, in consideration of all of the above, the proposed project does not require any major changes to the certified 2008 EIR and would not result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts or require new or substantially different mitigation measures. Cumulative Impacts. The construction of other projects also contributes to the pollutant burden within the Basin, which is identified as a non-attainment area for ozone (1-hour standard) and PM 10 and PM 2.5. The cumulative study area for air quality is the Basin, and air quality conformance is overseen by the SCAQMD. Each project in the Basin is required to comply with SCAQMD rules and regulations. Other projects in the Basin, including those identified on the City s cumulative project list, are required to be consistent with the adopted AQMP. The certified 2008 EIR found that the VBC Project s contribution of construction emissions (primarily fugitive dust) would have been short-term and with implementation of the identified mitigation measures would not exceed any of the SCAQMD thresholds and, impacts would not have been significant on a cumulative basis. In addition, it was determined that localized emissions (i.e., CO hot spot ) would not have exceeded thresholds when project-related traffic was added to future traffic conditions. The City of San Juan Capistrano adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the General Plan Update in 1999, which concluded that mobile source emissions resulting from buildout of the City as well as that occurring within the larger South Coast Air Basin are expected to continue to exceed State and federal standards. The certified 2008 EIR found the VBC Project was consistent with the City's General Plan and would not change the ultimate findings articulated in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project as described in the Summary of Project Changes (Section 2.5) is smaller in scale than the VBC Project, and with implementation of the same mitigation measures, would not result in cumulative impacts related to air quality. As such, there would be no cumulative short- or long-term air quality impact. Therefore, in consideration of all of the above, the proposed project does not require any major changes to the certified 2008 EIR and would not result in any new significant cumulative P:\RSC0601\Addendum.doc «04/13/06» 3-25

25 environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts or require new or substantially different mitigation measures Findings Related to Air Quality No New Significant Effects Requiring Major EIR Revisions. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the proposed project would require a major change to the certified 2008 EIR. The proposed project would not result in new significant environmental impacts to Air Quality, nor is there a substantial increase in the severity of impacts described in the certified 2008 EIR. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions. There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances pertaining to Air Quality that would require major changes to the certified 2008 EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than the Certified 2008 EIR. This Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the 2008 EIR was certified, indicating that a new significant effect not reported in that document may occur. Based on the information and analyses above, there is no substantial new information indicating that there would be a new significant impact to Air Quality requiring major revisions to the certified 2008 EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in Previous EIR. There are no alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that would substantially reduce one or more significant impacts pertaining to Air Quality identified and considered in the certified 2008 EIR Standard Conditions Standard Conditions related to Air Quality that would be applicable to the proposed project are provided below. SC Adherence to South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which sets requirements for dust control associated with grading and construction activities. SC SC SC Adherence to SCAQMD Rules and 431.2, which require the use of low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment. Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 1108, which sets limitations on the reactive organic gas (ROG) content in asphalt. Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 1113, which sets limitations on the ROG content in architectural coatings. 3-26

26 DRAFT ADDENDUM SC Adherence to Title 24 energy-efficient design requirements as well as the provision of window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code Mitigation Measures In light of the proposed project, the certified 2008 EIR was reviewed to determine whether or not changes to the project would affect the mitigation measures contained therein. Based on the analysis and information above, there is no evidence that project modifications require new mitigation measures to address impacts related to Air Quality. Mitigation measures related to Air Quality that would be applicable to both the previously approved VBC Project and the proposed project are provided below. The following mitigation measures are incorporated to mitigate potentially significant Air Quality impacts of the proposed project. MM 4.3-1a All primers and top coats shall average no more than 0.85 pound per gallon (i.e., 102 grams/liter) of volatile organic compounds (VOC). MM 4.3-1b MM 4.3-1c No more than 88 gallons of paint shall be applied on any given day. The construction contractor shall keep an on-site log of daily paint use for City inspection Greenhouse Gas Emissions Global Climate Change (GCC) is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth s atmosphere and oceans along with other significant changes in climate (such as precipitation or wind) that last for an extended time period. The term global climate change is often used interchangeably with the term global warming, but global climate change is preferred to global warming because it helps convey that there are other changes in addition to rising temperatures. At the time the VBC Project EIR was prepared, analysis of project impacts on global climate change (GCC) resulting from emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) was not required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In addition, GHGs were not yet identified as air pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) or the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). Therefore, the VBC EIR did not contain a GHG or climate change section. In order to provide a complete analysis of the proposed project s contribution to GCC, an analysis of GHG emissions is provided in the new Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis (April 2016) (Appendix B) for the proposed project and is provided below. P:\RSC0601\Addendum.doc «04/13/06» 3-27

27 3.3.8 Analysis of Project Impacts Construction and operation of project development would generate GHG emissions, with the majority of energy consumption (and associated generation of GHG emissions) occurring during the project s operation (as opposed to during its construction). Typically, more than 80 percent of the total energy consumption takes place during the use of buildings and less than 20 percent of energy is consumed during construction (UNEP 2007). As of yet, there is no study that quantitatively assesses all of the GHG emissions associated with each phase of the construction and use of an individual development. Overall, the following activities associated with the proposed project could directly or indirectly contribute to the generation of GHG emissions: construction activities; gas, electricity, and water use; solid waste disposal; and motor vehicle use. To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents, SCAQMD convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group (Working Group). Based on the last Working Group meeting (Meeting No. 15) held in September 2010, SCAQMD is proposing to adopt a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency. The applicable tier for this commercial project is Tier 3 (if GHG emissions are less than 3,000 MT CO 2 e/yr, project-level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant). Preliminary guidance from Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and recent letters from the Attorney General indicate that lead agencies should calculate, or estimate, emissions from vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water conveyance and treatment, waste generation, and construction activities. The calculation presented below includes construction emissions in terms of CO 2 e and annual CO 2 e GHG emissions from increased energy consumption, water usage, solid waste disposal, and estimated GHG emissions from vehicular traffic that would result from implementation of the project and compares project-related emissions to the applicable Tier 3 Threshold established by SCAQMD. Construction GHG Emissions. Table 3.F lists the annual CO 2 emissions for each of the planned construction phases. Per SCAQMD guidance, 1 due to the long-term nature of the GHGs in the atmosphere, instead of determining significance of construction emissions alone, the total construction emissions are amortized over 30 years (an estimate of the life of the project) and included in the operations analysis. As illustrated by Table 3.F, construction of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to GHG emissions, and no mitigation is required. Operational GHG Emissions. Table 3.G shows the operational GHG emissions associated with the proposed project. To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG 1 SCAQMD. GHG Meeting 14 Main Presentation, November 19, Website: docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year /ghg-meeting-14/ghg-meeting-14-main-presentation.pdf. 3-28

28 DRAFT ADDENDUM emissions in their CEQA documents, SCAQMD convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group (Working Group). Based on the last Working Group meeting (Meeting No. 15) held in September 2010, SCAQMD is proposing to adopt a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency. The applicable tier for this commercial project is Tier 3 (if GHG emissions are less than 3,000 MT CO2e/yr, project-level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant). As shown in Table 3.G, operation of the proposed project would result in 1,300 MT of CO 2 e per year, 1,700 MT of CO 2 e per year less than the SCAQMD Tier 3 Threshold for commercial projects. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to GHG emissions during project operation, and no mitigation is required. Table 3.F: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Total Regional Pollutant Emissions (MT/yr) Construction Phase CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O CO 2 e Phase 1a-Site Preparation Phase 1b-Grading Phases 2 and 3-Utility/Infrastructure Improvements and Building Construction Phase 3b-Architectural Coating Phase 3c-Paving Total Construction Emissions Amortized over 30 years Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, LSA Associates, Inc. (April 2016) (Appendix B). Note: These construction phases are listed differently than in the Project Description to conform to the limitations of the CalEEMod model. All planned construction phases are included in this analysis. CH 4 = methane CO 2 = carbon dioxide MT/yr = metric tons per year N 2 O = nitrous oxide CO 2 e = carbon dioxide equivalent Table 3.G: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Bio- CO 2 Pollutant Emissions, MT/year NBio- Total CO 2 CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O CO 2 e Source Construction emissions amortized over 30 years Operational Emissions Area Sources 0 <0.01 < Energy Sources Mobile Sources Waste Sources Water Usage Total Project Emissions 45 1,200 1, ,300 SCAQMD Threshold 3,000 Significant? No Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, LSA Associates, Inc. (April 2016) (Appendix B). Note: Numbers in table may not appear to add up correctly due to rounding of all numbers to two significant digits. Bio-CO 2 = biologically generated CO 2 MT = metric tons CH 4 = methane N 2 O = nitrous oxide CO 2 = carbon dioxide NBio-CO 2 = Non-biologically generated CO 2 CO 2 e = carbon dioxide equivalent P:\RSC0601\Addendum.doc «04/13/06» 3-29

29 The GHG emissions reduction goals in Assembly Bill (AB) 32 are scoped to manage total statewide GHG emissions of approximately MMT of CO 2 e per year. As shown in Table 3.8, the proposed project is estimated to produce approximately 1,300 MT of CO 2 e per year, representing approximately MMT of CO 2 e per year. As the SCAQMD GHG thresholds are designed to allow the region to achieve their portion of the statewide AB 32 GHG emissions reduction goals and this project would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD GHG emissions threshold, the proposed project is not considered to result in GHG emission levels that would substantially conflict with implementation of the GHG reduction goals under AB 32 or other State regulations. Consequently, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to potential conflicts with regulations outlined in the CALGreen Code and GHG emissions reduction goals in AB 32. No mitigation is required. Cumulative Impacts. Although the proposed project is expected to emit GHGs, the emission of GHGs by any single project into the atmosphere is not itself necessarily an adverse environmental effect. Rather, it is the increased accumulation of GHGs from more than one project and many sources in the atmosphere that may result in GCC. The resultant consequences of that climate change, could cause adverse environmental effects. A project s GHG emissions typically would be very small in comparison to State or global GHG emissions and, consequently, they would, in isolation, have no significant direct impact on climate change. Due to the complex physical, chemical, and atmospheric mechanisms involved in GCC, it is speculative to identify the specific impact, if any, to GCC from one project s incremental increase in global GHG emissions. As such, a project s GHG emissions and the resulting significance of potential impacts are more properly assessed on a cumulative basis. The project-specific analysis conducted above is essentially already a cumulative analysis, because it takes into consideration statewide GHG reduction targets and demonstrates that the proposed project would be consistent with those targets. The State has mandated a goal of reducing statewide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, even though statewide population and commerce is predicted to continue to expand. In order to achieve this goal, the ARB is in the process of establishing and implementing regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions. However, currently there are no applicable significance thresholds, specific reduction targets, and no approved policy or guidance to assist in determining significance at the cumulative level. Additionally, there is currently no generally accepted methodology to determine whether GHG emissions associated with a specific project represent new emissions or existing, displaced emissions. The California Attorney General s Office has taken an active role in addressing climate change via the State CEQA Guidelines, including, but not limited to, submitting comment letters on draft CEQA documents; filing CEQA lawsuits; and entering into related settlement agreements. Additionally, the Attorney General s Office has created and routinely updates a Fact Sheet listing project design features to reduce GHG emissions. The Attorney General s Office created this Fact Sheet primarily for the benefit of local agencies processing CEQA documents, acknowledging that local agencies 3-30

30 DRAFT ADDENDUM will help to move the State away from business-as-usual and toward a low-carbon future. 1 The Fact Sheet explains that the listed measures can be included as design features of a project, but emphasizes that they should not be considered in isolation, but as part of a larger set of measures that, working together, will reduce GHG emissions and the effects of global warming. The proposed project emphasizes energy efficiency and water conservation and would be consistent with AB 32 s goals for 2020, would not generate GHG emissions that exceed any applicable threshold of significance, and would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. As a result, the proposed project s climate change impacts with regard to GHG emissions would not be considered cumulatively considerable because they would not contribute to GHG emissions that exceed AB 32 s statewide goals. Therefore, in consideration of all of the above, the proposed project does not require any major changes to the certified 2008 EIR and would not result in any new significant cumulative environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts or require new or substantially different mitigation measures Standard Conditions No standard conditions are required Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 1 State of California Attorney General s Office Fact Sheet The California Environmental Quality Act Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level. December. P:\RSC0601\Addendum.doc «04/13/06» 3-31

31 3.4 NOISE Existing Environmental Setting Please refer to Section 4.4 of the certified 2008 EIR for a summary of the existing environmental setting for Noise. The analysis presented in the certified 2008 EIR is based primarily on the Ventanas Offices Focused Noise Analysis, City of San Juan Capistrano, CA (September 2007), prepared by Synectecology and intended to satisfy the requirements for CEQA to evaluate the potential projectrelated noise impacts. The analysis focuses on the potential short- and long-term noise impacts of the VBC Project, and identification of mitigation, as needed. The certified 2008 EIR used the following thresholds to assess the significance of potential noise impacts: For stationary sources, the applicable noise standards include criteria established by local as well as any State regulations applicable to the VBC Project. Mobile-source noise (i.e., vehicle noise) is preempted from local regulation. The City sets a generally acceptable exterior standard of 60 A- weighted decibels (dba) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) for noise intrusion on residential land uses and 70 dba CNEL for noise intrusion on office space. With respect to off-site receptors, an impact is considered significant if the existing noise levels exceed the objectives of the General Plan and the project were to increase this noise level by 3 dba (barely noticeable in an exterior environment); or if the project adds 5 dba (noticeable to most people) and the resultant noise level remains under the criteria of the General Plan. The primary existing noise sources in the project area are transportation-related and are the result of vehicular traffic traveling along the I-5 immediately west of the subject property. Other observed background noise includes noise associated with aircraft, train horns, and church bells Certified 2008 EIR Please see Section 4.4 of the certified 2008 EIR for analyses of the potential effects of the VBC Project regarding Noise. The certified 2008 EIR concluded that the following impacts would be less than significant related to Noise with implementation of mitigation measures. Consistency with Regulatory Controls (On-site Noise Levels). The VBC Project would have been subjected to noise levels in excess of local standards. The VBC Project would result in the introduction of professional offices within 230 feet of the I-5 where noise levels were projected to be approximately 76.7 dba CNEL at the nearest structures. This value was in excess of the 70-dBA noise standard for office use and the impact was considered as potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures ( (MM 4.4-2a through MM 4.4-2e) would have required the VBC Project to utilize building design/materials and to comply with California Uniform Building Code to ensure that any potential impacts related to exposing persons to generation of noise levels in excess of the City s noise standards would have been reduced to a less than significant level. Applicable mitigation measures are listed at the end of this noise section. 3-32

32 DRAFT ADDENDUM Short-Term Construction Noise. Implementation of the VBC Project would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. Short-term noise impacts would have been associated with construction activities, including excavation, site preparation, and the construction of buildings and infrastructure. It was determined that construction-related short-term noise levels would have been higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project area at the present time, but would no longer occur once construction of the project was complete. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1a through MM 4.4-1d would have reduced impacts related to short-term construction noise to a less than significant level. The certified 2008 EIR concluded that the following noise impacts would be less than significant and required no mitigation. Vibration. Caltrans notes that ground borne vibration is typically associated with blasting operations, the use of pile drivers, and large-scale demolition activities, none of which were anticipated for the construction or operation of the project. Therefore, project implementation would not have resulted in potential impacts related to excessive ground borne vibrations, and no mitigation measures were required. Existing Plus Project Noise Levels. The certified 2008 EIR did not identify any significant impacts pertaining to substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels. The primary addition from the project to the ambient noise level would have been the addition of vehicles to the local roadways. The greatest noise increase would have occurred along Rancho Viejo Road where the project-related traffic could have increased noise levels by as much as 0.5 dba CNEL. Other roadways could have increased by as much as 0.1 dba CNEL. These increases were well under the 3 dba threshold where the resultant noise exceeds the criteria of the General Plan and neither increases are audible or significant. Therefore, project implementation would not have resulted in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels, and no mitigation measures were required. Exposure to Airport Noise. The certified 2008 EIR did not identify any significant impacts pertaining to the project being located within the vicinity of a public airport or private airstrip. John Wayne Airport, located in Santa Ana, is the nearest public use airport and is approximately 15.0 miles to the northwest of the project site. The McConville Airstrip, located in Lake Elsinore, is the nearest private use airport and is approximately 14.3 miles to the northeast of the project site. The VBC Project site was determined to be well beyond either airport s 65 dba CNEL noise contour. Therefore, project implementation would not have exposed people residing or working in the project area to excessive airport-related noise. No significant impacts were anticipated, and no mitigation measures were required Analysis of Project Changes As described above in the Summary of Project Changes (Section 2.5), the proposed project would have a shorter construction period when compared to the previously approved VBC Project. Similar to the discussion in the certified 2008 EIR, short-term noise impacts for the proposed project would be associated with construction activities, excavation, site preparation, and the construction of P:\RSC0601\Addendum.doc «04/13/06» 3-33

33 buildings and infrastructure. Construction-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project area at the present time, but would no longer occur once construction of the project was complete. Implementation of the same mitigation measures identified in the certified 2008 EIR (Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1a through MM 4.4-1d) related to shortterm construction noise would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. This impact was disclosed in the certified 2008 EIR. The proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to short-term noise construction impacts. The proposed project will result in the introduction of a health club facility within approximately 125 feet of the I-5. This approximately 105 feet closer than the VBC Project where noise levels were projected to be approximately 76.7 dba CNEL at the nearest structures. This value is in excess of the dba CNEL noise standard for retail uses 1 and the impact is still considered potentially significant for the proposed use. Implementation of the same mitigation measures identified in the certified 2008 EIR (MM 4.4-2a through MM 4.4-2e) related to long-term operation would reduce impacts to below a level of significance. This impact was disclosed in the certified 2008 EIR. The proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to long-term operational noise in excess of the City s noise standards. Similar to the VBC Project, the proposed project would not utilize blasting operations, use pile drivers, or conduct large-scale demolition activities, which are typically associated with groundborne vibration. Therefore, similar to what was determined in the certified 2008 EIR, the proposed project would not result in potential impacts related to excessive groundborne vibration, and no mitigation measures are required. Similar to the VBC Project, the primary addition from the proposed project to the ambient noise would be the addition of vehicles to the local roadways. As discussed in Section 3.2 Transportation and Circulation, the proposed project would have 685 fewer trips per day than the VBC Project. Therefore, similar to what was determined in the certified 2008 EIR, the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels, as the number of trips per day is substantially less than that analyzed for the VBC Project. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Site conditions as they pertain to noise have not changed since the certification of the 2008 EIR. There are no new private or public airports within the vicinity of the proposed project site. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. In consideration of all of the above, the proposed project does not require any major changes to the certified 2008 EIR and would not result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts or require new or substantially different mitigation measures. Cumulative Impacts. Potential cumulative noise impacts are associated with both construction and operation of the proposed project. Construction-related noise would emanate from the site during 1 There are no noise standards for health club uses in the Ortega Planned Community Comprehensive Development Plan. Therefore, noise standards for retail uses have been applied to the proposed project. 3-34

34 DRAFT ADDENDUM construction primarily from stationary sources (e.g., equipment), as well as from mobile sources. However, short-term noise would cease when construction activities are completed. Cumulative longterm noise impacts occur when traffic generated by the proposed project is added to future noise levels resulting from cumulative project traffic, and the incremental increase in traffic exceeds noise standards. Based on a cumulative project list from the City, there are 17 approved projects within 5 miles of the proposed project. Construction of the proposed project has the potential to overlap with construction of one or more related projects. The closest related project is located at the Historic Town Center, approximately 1,000 feet to the northwest of the project site. Because construction noise and vibration are localized and rapidly attenuate, the related projects are too far from the site to contribute to a cumulative noise impact due to construction. Furthermore, cumulative noise impacts during project operation would not occur as a result of increased traffic volumes on local roadways because these related projects would have an incremental increase in traffic volumes on roadway segments near the project site. In addition, because the number of trips per day is substantially less than that analyzed for the VBC Project., Thus cumulative noise impacts are still considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Therefore, in consideration of all of the above, the proposed project does not require any major changes to the certified 2008 EIR and would not result in any new significant cumulative environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts or require new or substantially different mitigation measures Findings Related to Noise No New Significant Effects Requiring Major EIR Revisions. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the proposed project would require a major change to the certified 2008 EIR. The proposed project would not result in new significant environmental impacts to Noise, nor is there a substantial increase in the severity of impacts described in the certified 2008 EIR. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions. There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances pertaining to Noise that would require major changes to the certified 2008 EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than the Certified 2008 EIR. This Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the 2008 EIR was certified, indicating whether a new significant effect not reported in that document may occur. Based on the information and analyses above, there is no substantial new information indicating that there would be a new significant impact to noise requiring major revisions to the certified 2008 EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in Previous EIR. There are no alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that would substantially reduce one or more significant impacts pertaining to Noise identified and considered in the certified 2008 EIR. P:\RSC0601\Addendum.doc «04/13/06» 3-35

35 3.4.5 Standard Conditions The following Standard Condition related to Noise is applicable to the proposed project: SC In accordance with the San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code, construction shall be restricted to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Saturdays. No construction shall occur at any time on Sundays or on federal holidays. These days and hours shall also apply any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to or from the site Mitigation Measures In light of the proposed project, the certified 2008 EIR was reviewed to determine whether or not changes to the project would affect the mitigation measures contained therein. Based on the analysis and information above, no changes to the mitigation measures found in the certified 2008 EIR are required. Mitigation measures related to Noise that would be applicable to the proposed project are provided below. The following mitigation measures are incorporated to mitigate potentially significant Noise impacts of the proposed project: MM 4.4-1a MM 4.4-1b MM 4.4-1c MM 4.4-1d MM 4.4-2a MM 4.4-2b MM 4.4-2c All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned to minimize noise emissions. All equipment shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than originally equipped. The construction contractor shall provide details of the construction schedule, as well as an on-site name and telephone number of a contact person for local residents. Construction shall be subject to any and all provisions set forth by the City of San Juan Capistrano Planning Department. At a minimum all west-facing exterior walls for those structures that are to be constructed along the freeway shall be constructed with batten insulation or of masonry construction. For those same structures, west-facing rooms shall be constructed such that windows do not exceed 30 percent of the wall area and shall have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) rating of 29. These windows are to be well fitting with vinyl (or equivalent) gaskets that form an airtight fitting. Alternatively, these windows are to be sealed shut. All exterior fittings that enter the western-most structures (e.g., electrical conduits, heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) ducts) are to be sealed with caulk such that the fittings are rendered as airtight. Any metal duct-work that is exposed to 3-36

36 DRAFT ADDENDUM the exterior environment shall be enclosed and insulated to avoid noise transference through the ducting. Although the VBC Project would not have included housing (habitable structures), implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.2-4d and 4.4-2e, as identified in the 2008 EIR and included below, were required to reduce interior noise levels for office uses to a less than significant level. The proposed project is not an office use and would not include any habitable structures that would result in significant adverse noise impacts to onsite residents. Therefore, these mitigation measures are not applicable to the proposed project and are no longer required Mitigation Measures No Longer Applicable The following mitigation measures are no longer applicable and will be removed from the conditions of approval. MM 4.4-2d MM 4.4-2e All habitable rooms within 340 feet of the freeway centerline shall include forced air ventilation designed and installed in accordance with the California Uniform Building Code. As an alternative to the above measures, the Applicant may commission a dedicated noise study to determine other applicable means to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 50 dba at any habitable on-site structure as based on the future noise environment predicted in this analysis. P:\RSC0601\Addendum.doc «04/13/06» 3-37

37 3.5 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY Existing Environmental Setting Please refer to Section 4.5 of the certified 2008 EIR for a summary of the existing environmental setting for Public Health and Safety. The information contained in that section is based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) prepared by LandAmerica Assessment Corporation (LAC) in October At the present time, the property is undeveloped with portions having been rough graded. No hazardous materials or wastes are stored or used at the property. Based on a review of historical documents, including maps and aerial photographs dating back to 1938, the only use of the site since that time has been agriculture. As indicated above, the site is currently undeveloped and as described in the certified 2008 EIR has not been utilized for environmentally sensitive purposes (i.e., manufacturing, dry cleaning, and service stations, etc.) Certified 2008 EIR Please see Section 4.5 of the certified 2008 EIR for analyses of the potential effects of the proposed project on Public Health and Safety. The certified 2008 EIR concluded that the following impacts would be less than significant related to public health and safety and required no mitigation. Risks Related to Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials. The construction phase of the VBC Project, which involves the grading, site preparation, and construction of the proposed industrial/professional office uses, would have resulted in the transport of materials and equipment to the site. However, it was determined that the amount of these potentially hazardous materials planned for use during construction was limited and would not pose a significant hazard to the environment. In addition, while it was determined that the risk of exposure to hazardous materials could not be eliminated, if Standard Condition (SC) (requires compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to the transport, storage, use and/or disposal of hazardous materials) were implemented, it would reduce risks to less than significant levels. Therefore, project implementation would not have resulted in significant impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials including reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. No significant impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures were required. Hazardous Impacts to an Existing or Proposed School. There are no existing or proposed schools located within one-quarter mile of the VBC Project site. Therefore, project implementation would not have resulted in potentially hazardous impacts to schools, and no mitigation measures were required. Significant Hazards to the Public or the Environment. Based on the results of the Phase I ESA, it was determined the subject property was not included on any list of hazardous materials sites. Furthermore, there was no evidence of either on-site or off-site environmental conditions that would adversely affect site development. In addition, no historical recognized environmental conditions 3-38

38 DRAFT ADDENDUM were identified in connection with the property. Therefore, project implementation would not have created a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No significant impacts were anticipated, and no mitigation measures were required. Airport-Related Safety Hazards. As previously identified, no public or private airports are in the vicinity of the VBC Project site. Therefore, project implementation would not have exposed people residing or working in the area to significant airport-related safety hazards, and no mitigation measures were required. Interference with an Adopted Emergency Plan. The project site is not designated for emergency use within the City s Emergency Preparedness Plan. Development of the subject property as proposed would not have adversely affected either the evacuation routes or the adopted emergency preparedness planning programs from being implemented by the City. Therefore, project implementation would not have physically interfered with the City's emergency planning program. No significant impacts were anticipated, and no mitigation measures were required Analysis of Project Changes Similar to the VBC Project, the proposed project would implement SC (a standard condition that requires compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to the transport, storage, use and/or disposal of hazardous materials) during construction; therefore, impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials including reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions would be reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a new significant impact or more severe impacts related to public health and safety. Site conditions related to public health and safety have not changed since the adoption of the certified 2008 EIR. There are no new or proposed schools and/or private or public airports within the vicinity of the project site. In addition, the project site is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites or designated for emergency use with the City s Emergency Preparedness Plan. No significant impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. Risks related to wildland fires were not discussed in the certified 2008 EIR. However, the CAL FIRE City Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) Maps for San Juan Capistrano do not indicate that the project site is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. 1 No significant impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. In consideration of all of the above, the proposed project does not require any major changes to the certified 2008 EIR and would not result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts or require new or substantially different mitigation measures. 1 CAL FIRE. CITY FHSZ MAPS. October, Website: _prevention/fhsz maps_ orange (accessed April 18, 2016). P:\RSC0601\Addendum.doc «04/13/06» 3-39

39 Cumulative Impacts. The project site is not characterized by any hazardous conditions that would pose a significant health threat to future development of the subject property. Furthermore, any use of hazardous materials (e.g., chemicals and cleaners, etc.) would be utilized, stored, and disposed of in compliance with all applicable local, State, and federal regulations. No cumulative impacts related to public health and safety would occur as the scale of the project is substantially reduced from that analyzed in the 2008 EIR, and no mitigation measures are required. Therefore, in consideration of all of the above, the proposed project does not require any major changes to the certified 2008 EIR and would not result in any new significant cumulative environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of cumulative impacts or require new or substantially different mitigation measures Findings Related to Public Health and Safety No New Significant Effects Requiring Major EIR Revisions. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the proposed project would require a major change to the certified 2008 EIR. The proposed project would not result in new significant environmental impacts to Public Health and Safety, nor is there a substantial increase in the severity of impacts described in the certified 2008 EIR. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions. There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances pertaining to Public Health and Safety that would require major changes to the certified 2008 EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than the Certified 2008 EIR. This Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the 2008 EIR was certified, indicating that a new significant effect not reported in that document may occur. Based on the information and analyses above, there is no substantial new information indicating that there would be a new significant impact to Public Health and Safety requiring major revisions to the certified 2008 EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in Previous EIR. There are no alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that would substantially reduce one or more significant impacts pertaining to Public Health and Safety identified in and considered by the certified 2008 EIR Standard Conditions The following Standard Condition related to Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials is applicable to the proposed project: 3-40

40 DRAFT ADDENDUM SC The City of San Juan Capistrano will require all plans for proposed uses within the project area to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to the transport, storage, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials on the site Mitigation Measures The certified 2008 EIR did not contain any mitigation measures related to public health and safety. In light of the proposed project, the certified 2008 EIR was reviewed to determine whether or not changes to the project would require any mitigation measures. Based on the analysis and information above, there is no evidence that project modifications require any changes to the conclusions in the certified 2008 EIR or addition of mitigation measures. There would be no significant adverse impacts to Public Health and Safety with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. P:\RSC0601\Addendum.doc «04/13/06» 3-41

41 3.6 DRAINAGE AND HYDROLOGY Existing Environmental Setting Please refer to Section 4.6 of the certified 2008 EIR for a summary of the existing environmental setting for Drainage and Hydrology based on documents reviewed and incorporated in the analysis including the Preliminary Hydrology Analysis for Ventanas Business Center, City of San Juan Capistrano, County of Orange (October 11, 2007), prepared by Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. (H&A). In addition, a Request for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) for the San Juan Creek Ventanas Business Center, City of San Juan Capistrano, County of Orange (June 2007) and a Draft Water Quality Management Plan for Ventanas Business Center, City of San Juan Capistrano, County of Orange (WQMP) was prepared by H&A. In addition to these documents, information contained in the Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan and the Hydrology/Hydromodification Analysis (both reports dated April 19, 2016) prepared by H&A for the proposed 24 Hour Fitness project was utilized as the basis for the analysis of potential impacts on the hydrologic conditions that characterize the site and area in which the project site is located. The existing project site is divided into three primary drainage areas: Northern, Western, and Southeastern. The Northern area consists of 0.59 acres and drains in an easterly direction to the Calle Arroyo cul-de-sac. Runoff is then conveyed as gutter flow easterly to a catch basin prior to discharging to the San Juan Creek. The Western area consists of 0.58 acres with runoff draining westerly to the edge of the property and then southerly offsite via an existing swale. Runoff is then conveyed along the San Juan Creek Bike Trail prior to discharging to the San Juan Creek. The Southeastern area consists of 1.42 acres and drains easterly offsite to a natural drainage area located southeast of the site. Runoff is then conveyed to an existing catch basin located on Paseo Tirador prior to discharging to the San Juan Creek. At the present time, the property is undeveloped with portions having been rough graded. Areas of the site that border the 1-5 freeway are characterized by some vegetation. San Juan Creek is located south and east of the proposed project site. Although considerable development has occurred near San Juan Creek over the years, the reach of San Juan Creek located in proximity to the subject property is not improved. Short reaches of the creek upstream of the 1-5 freeway are improved with riprap or soil cement improvements to protect adjacent development from flooding. The City of San Juan Capistrano has implemented and maintains a storm drainage collection and conveyance system that is supplemented by regional flood control facilities that are owned and maintained by the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD). Both San Juan Creek and Trabuco Creek are the existing OCFCD flood control facilities that collect and convey surface runoff and associated flows, which are discharged into the Pacific Ocean, approximately 2.5 miles south of the subject property. The project site is located in an area with minimal flood hazards, and no portions of the project site are located within the 100-year flood area, as delineated on Figure 3.4, Flood Zones Certified 2008 EIR Please see Section 4.6 of the certified 2008 EIR for analyses of the potential effects of the VBC Project on Hydrology and Water Quality. Project impacts to drainage and hydrology were evaluated based on the VBC Project s adherence to local, State, and federal standards; proposed land use; site design; and proposed best management practices (BMPs) for control of surface runoff and reduction of pollutants in runoff. 3-42

42 DRAFT ADDENDUM The certified 2008 EIR concluded that the following drainage and hydrology impacts would be less than significant and required no mitigation. Water Quality. The certified 2008 EIR found that site grading and construction activities that would have occurred as a result of implementation of the VBC Project could have resulted in short- term increases in silt and sediment transport as well as hydrocarbon-based pollutants to downstream locations. However, it was determined that implementation of standard conditions (SC through SC 4.6-4) which would have required preparation of a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and compliance with applicable building code requirements, would have ensured that the construction-related impacts resulting from site grading would have minimized the amount of silt and sediment that was transported to downstream locations. Furthermore, these potential impacts would have been avoided or reduced through the implementation of appropriate BMPs as prescribed in the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan and the identified standard conditions. Therefore, project implementation would not have had a significant effect on water quality as a result of silt and sediment transport, and no mitigation measures were required. Implementation of the VBC Project would have resulted in an increase in concentration of urban pollutants in storm runoff, while the amount of sediment in runoff would have likely decreased. The covering of previously exposed earth surfaces would have reduced the level of soil erosion and sediment transport from the project site. The expected storm water and urban runoff pollutants expected to be associated with a commercial/industrial development included trash and debris, oil and grease, pathogens (i.e., bacteria and viruses), metals, nutrients, pesticides, organic compounds, sediments, and oxygen-demanding substances. Implementation of BMPs and the storm drainage/flood control facilities proposed in the vicinity of the VBC Project would have reduced potential pollutants that enter the surface flows as a result of project implementation to the "maximum extent practicable," as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Therefore, project implementation would not have resulted in significant water quality impacts. No significant impacts were anticipated and no mitigation measures were required. Hydrology and Drainage. The certified 2008 EIR determined that only a small area of the site was covered with impervious surfaces (i.e., the location of the existing pump house on the City-owned parcel and the bicycle trail that extends through the site). However, with the development of the VBC Project, a substantial area within the limits of the site, would have been covered by buildings, parking lots, and other impervious surfaces. Although the hydrology analysis conducted for the VBC Project revealed that there would have been an increase in total flow, impacts to the existing storm drainage systems and San Juan Creek would have been minimized by the implementation of two underground "flow-by" detention systems, which would have ensured that post-development peak surface flows would have been reduced to pre-development flow rates. Therefore, it was determined that project implementation would not have resulted in significant hydrology or drainage impacts. No significant impacts were anticipated and no mitigation measures were required. P:\RSC0601\Addendum.doc «04/13/06» 3-43

43 This page intentionally left blank 3-44

44 LEGEND FIGURE FEET SOURCE: Bing Maps (2014); FEMA (2016) I:\JCA1601\GIS\Floodplain.mxd (4/15/2016) Project Location FEMA FIRM and Flood Hazard Area X: 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard X: Area with Minimal Flood Hazard AE: 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard AE: Regulatory Floodway 24 Hour Fitness San Juan Capistrano Flood Zones

45 This page intentionally left blank 3-46

46 DRAFT ADDENDUM 100-Year Flood Plain. The VBC Project site was located within Flood Hazard Area X (Area with Minimal Chance of Flood) and Flood Hazard Area AE (1 percent Annual Chance of Flooding). However, the preparers of the hydrologic analysis (Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc.) requested that the FEMA floodplain maps be revised in a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) request. This request was made because the hydraulic analysis indicated that project implementation would have resulted in less than significant impacts on the water elevations for the portion of the site within the 100-year floodplain (Flood Hazard Area AE). FEMA responded to this request and approved the revision under the condition that the VBC Project was implemented as described and analyzed in the hydraulic analysis. Furthermore, the VBC EIR concluded that the Project would not have been at risk of inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow (see Section 3.9, Geology and Soils). Therefore, project implementation would not have resulted in inundation or significant flooding impacts. No significant impacts were anticipated and no mitigation measures were required Analysis of Project Changes While generally similar in nature, the proposed project is substantially smaller in scale, encompassing less acreage than the VBC Project approved by the City Council in May The proposed project will also include parking; however, the amount proposed is a decrease from approximately 669 parking spaces for the VBC Project to 198 parking spots for the proposed project (a difference of 471 spaces). The VBC Project would have resulted in the realignment of an existing bicycle/pedestrian trail; the proposed project would not impact any existing bicycle/pedestrian trail. The VBC Project also included stormwater drainage, water quality management, landscaping, trash enclosure structures, flood protection, park/open space, and related improvements. The proposed project would also have similar utility, infrastructure, and site improvements, except for those related to park/open space. As described further below, the project would include landscaping in planters and islands to be located throughout the site. The reduction in project intensity and the modification of onsite landscaping proposed as part of the project as compared to the VBC project would result in changes related to the project s hydrology and water quality impacts. The project changes with respect to these impacts are discussed in further detail below. Post-Project Runoff. Following project implementation, runoff conveyance will differ slightly from pre-project conditions. Runoff from the site would be reduced from three to two primary drainage areas on the eastern and western portions of the site. Runoff from the western portion of the site would be conveyed westerly to a proposed gutter. Runoff from the gutter would then be conveyed to a catch basin to be located in the western-central portion of the project, and would ultimately be conveyed in the main storm drain system north and east of the site prior to discharging into the existing Horno Creek Channel. Runoff originating on the eastern portion of the site would be conveyed as a sheet flow to a gutter located on the eastern portion of the site. Runoff would then be conveyed northerly to a catch basin prior to discharging to the project s storm drain system and conveyed easterly to the Horno Creek Channel. Best Management Practices. In order to minimize potential impacts associated with runoff originating from the project site following project implementation, to satisfy the project s requirement P:\RSC0601\Addendum.doc «04/13/06» 3-47

47 for Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs, to reduce hydromodification impacts, and to address the project impacts related to storm water pollutants of concern, the project would include two subsurface detention vaults that would discharge through biofiltration BMPs located within the eastern and western parking lot area. In addition to including two subsurface detention vaults, the project would also incorporate several site design BMPs to further reduce impacts to water quality and downstream hydrologic conditions. Specifically, the project would include landscaping areas via planters and islands to increase infiltration, and all areas disturbed during project construction activities would be paved or landscaped with native and/or drought-tolerant plant species with a deep root system to reduce impacts related to runoff and erosion. In addition to site design BMPs, the project will incorporate several non-structural BMPs to reduce impacts to water quality and downstream hydrologic conditions. For example, the project would include activity restrictions that would require the proper handling and disposal of wastes, and the proper handling and use of maintenance equipment by all users, employees, and contractors of the facility. The project would also incorporate management programs to ensure that all common areas within the project site are maintained to reduce impacts associated with fertilizer and pesticide usage. The project Applicant would also be required to ensure weekly trash pickup and daily inspections of trash receptacles occur to maintain control of potential onsite sources of litter. Additionally, an employee training program would be established to inform and train employees engaged in maintenance, landscaping, and waste disposal activities. The project would also be required to regularly inspect all drainage facilities on the site and would be required to conduct street sweeping on an annual basis. Onsite storm drains would also include a message and/or graphical icons prohibiting the dumping of improper materials into the storm drain and trash storage areas would be designed to prevent contact with rain (via a covered roof) and storm water run-on. Landscaped areas would include an irrigation system designed to reduce overspray on hardscape areas. Implementation of these BMPs, as well as the proposed project s storm drain system (which includes two hydromodification detention systems and an overflow drainage pipe), would serve to reduce impacts to hydrology and water quality. In addition to the project-specific BMPs listed above, implementation of the standard conditions (SC through SC 4.6-4) and the BMPs identified in the certified 2008 EIR for the VBC Project remain applicable and would serve to further reduce potential impacts associated with water quality to a less than significant level. Therefore, project implementation would not result in significant hydrology or drainage, or significant water quality impacts. No significant impacts are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. Therefore, as determined in the certified 2008 EIR, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant flooding impacts, or place structures or housing in a 100-year flood hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. In consideration of all of the above, the proposed project does not require any major changes to the certified 2008 EIR and would not result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts or require new or substantially different mitigation measures. 3-48

48 DRAFT ADDENDUM Cumulative Impacts. Past projects in the project vicinity reflect a continuation of the existing urban/suburban pattern of development, which has resulted in extensive modifications to watercourses in the area and increases in impervious area and pollutant loads. Each project must comply with NPDES permitting requirements and the respective municipal code and include BMPs to prevent degradation of water quality as well as adverse drainage and flooding impacts. Although there are currently no impervious surfaces at the proposed project site impacts to the existing storm drainage systems and San Juan Creek would be minimized by the implementation of two hydromodification detention systems and the BMPs described further above. Therefore, the project s contribution to cumulative hydrology impacts is not considered significant. Future projects that would discharge into the San Juan Creek are also required to be evaluated for potential downstream water quality impacts. Because the proposed project would not significantly affect peak storm flows and would use existing storm drainage systems and implement storm drainage/flood control facilities and BMPs, it would not cumulatively contribute to significant water quality impacts. Therefore, in consideration of all of the above, the proposed project does not require any major changes to the certified 2008 EIR and would not result in any new significant cumulative environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of cumulative impacts or require new or substantially different mitigation measures Findings Related to Hydrology and Water Quality No New Significant Effects Requiring Major EIR Revisions. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the proposed project would require a major change to the certified 2008 EIR. The proposed project would not result in new significant environmental impacts to Drainage and Hydrology, nor is there a substantial increase in the severity of impacts described in the certified 2008 EIR. No Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions. There is no information in the record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances pertaining to Drainage and Hydrology that would require major changes to the certified 2008 EIR. No New Information Showing Greater Significant Effects than the Certified 2008 EIR. This Addendum has analyzed all available relevant information to determine whether there is new information that was not available at the time the 2008 EIR was certified, indicating that a new significant effect not reported in that document may occur. Based on the information and analyses above, there is no substantial new information indicating that there would be a new significant impact to drainage and hydrology requiring major revisions to the certified 2008 EIR. No New Information Showing Ability to Reduce Significant Effects in Previous EIR. There are no alternatives to the project or additional mitigation measures that would substantially reduce one or P:\RSC0601\Addendum.doc «04/13/06» 3-49

49 more significant impacts pertaining to Drainage and Hydrology identified and considered in the certified 2008 EIR. The following Standard Conditions related to Drainage and Hydrology would be applicable to the proposed project. SC SC SC SC Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project Applicant shall be required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the appropriate fees to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for coverage of such future projects under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit prior to initiation of construction activity at a future site. As required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared and will establish best management practices (BMPs) in order to reduce sedimentation and erosion. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project Applicant shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the project and submit the WQMP to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for approval. The WQMP shall specifically identify BMPs that would be used to control predictable pollutant runoff, including flow/volume-based measures to treat the first flush. The WQMP shall identify at a minimum the routine structural and non-structural measures specified in the Countywide NPDES Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), which details implementation of the BMPs whenever they are applicable to a project, the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities, and shall reference the locations of structural BMPs. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project Applicant shall prepare a SWPPP and submit that plan to the City of San Juan Capistrano for approval. The SWPPP will establish BMPs in order to reduce sedimentation and erosion. Future site grading and construction shall comply with the drainage controls imposed by the applicable building code requirements prescribed by the City of San Juan Capistrano Mitigation Measures The certified 2008 EIR did not contain any mitigation measures related to drainage and hydrology. In light of the proposed project, the certified 2008 EIR was reviewed to determine whether or not changes to the project would require any mitigation measures. Based on the analysis and information above, there is no evidence that project modifications require any changes to the conclusions in the certified 2008 EIR or addition of mitigation measures. There would be no significant adverse impacts to Drainage and Hydrology with the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. 3-50

50 DRAFT ADDENDUM 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Existing Environmental Setting Please see Section 4.7 of the certified 2008 EIR for a summary of the existing environmental setting for Biological Resources. A biological resources assessment of the VBC property was undertaken by Glenn Lukos Associates (GLA) in October Habitat assessments were also conducted to determine potential impacts to special-status species and resources, including those for the arroyo toad (Bufo californicus) (Cadre Environmental) and the steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (San Marino Environmental), and a jurisdictional delineation was conducted by Vandermost Consulting Services, Inc. (VCS) in January The findings and recommendations of the biological resources assessment, related habitat assessments, and the jurisdictional delineation and confirmation letter from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife are summarized in Section 4.7 of the certified 2008 EIR. The project site is located within the Southern Subregion of the Orange County NCCP/HCP. At the present time, the property is undeveloped with portions having been rough graded. The project site consists of disturbed habitat with no existing trees, as depicted in Figure 3.5, Vegetation. San Juan Creek is also located south of the project site, which could potentially serve as a movement corridor for biological species identified in the Orange County NCCP/HCP. Areas to south and east of the project site were mapped within the study area of the previous VBC Project, and are characterized by eight habitat cover types including arroyo willow forest, disturbed, developed, mule fat scrub, ornamental, perennial stream, ruderal and unvegetated wash Certified 2008 EIR Please refer to Section 4.7 of the certified 2008 EIR for analysis of potential impacts related to Biological Resources. The certified 2008 EIR concluded that the following biological impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. Impacts to Wildlife. Construction of the VBC Project would have had the potential to result in significant indirect impacts to several species including the least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). Impacts would have resulted from an increase in noise levels due to the use of construction equipment. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-1a through MM 4.7-1c were identified to reduce potential indirect impacts from noise during project construction to a less than significant level. Project lighting also would have had the potential to indirectly impact to Least Bell s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). Implementation of MM would ensure that lighting for the project would not have exceeded the minimum City standard for lighting and would have provided shielding to direct light away from San Juan Creek, thereby reducing potential indirect impacts to a less than significant level. P:\RSC0601\Addendum.doc «04/13/06» 3-51

51 This page intentionally left blank 3-52

52 FEET LEGEND Project Location Vegetation Type Arroyo Willow Forest (7.6) Disturbed (16.2) Developed (15.4) SOURCE: Bing Maps (2014); Glenn Lukos Associates (2016) I:\JCA1601\GIS\Vegetation.mxd (4/19/2016) Mulefat Scrub (7.3) Ornamental (15.5) Perennial Stream (13.1) Ruderal (4.6) Unvegetated Wash (13.3) FIGURE Hour Fitness San Juan Capistrano Vegetation