ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE PLAZA BANDERAS HOTEL FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT City of San Juan Capistrano, California

Transcription

1 ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE PLAZA BANDERAS HOTEL FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT City of San Juan Capistrano, California 1. PROJECT: 2. LEAD AGENCY: City of San Juan Capistrano 3. CONTACT PERSON & PHONE: David Contreras, Senior Planner; Project Manager (949) PROJECT LOCATION: The project site encompasses 3.62 acres at the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Ortega Highway within the San Juan Capistrano downtown area. 5. APPLICANT: South Coast Investors II, LLC 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial. Per the Development Agreement, the project site is subject to the use regulations and standards of Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) (Plaza Banderas Hotel & Mixed Use Development). 7. ZONING: Town Center (TC). Per the Development Agreement, the project site is subject to the use regulations and standards of Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) (Plaza Banderas Hotel & Mixed Use Development). 8. CEQA COMPLIANCE: The City of San Juan Capistrano (City) is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 1 for the Mission Inn San Juan Capistrano project filed by the project applicant, South Coast Investors II, LLC. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) 15164, this document is Addendum No. 1 to the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Plaza Banderas Hotel Project (SCH No ) previously certified by the City of San Juan Capistrano for the project. The purpose of Addendum No. 1 to the Plaza Banderas FEIR is to consider whether new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects would be associated with the proposed changes reflected in the project modifications. On October 5, 2010, the San Juan Capistrano City Council certified the FEIR for the project as described in Section 3.0 of the FEIR, Project Description (Original Project), and granted a number of project approvals, which were all part of the Original Project evaluated in the FEIR. On October 19, 2010, City Council approved the ordinance on second reading establishing the Plaza Banderas Hotel Comprehensive Development Plan consisting of the development plan concept, land use provisions, and development standards. On June 30, 2011, the City Council approved the first reading and introduced an ordinance approving and adopting a Development Agreement for the Plaza Banderas Hotel project. At their July 5, 2011 meeting, the City Council approved the second reading and approved the ordinance adopting the Development Agreement. 1 California Public Resources Code et seq. Addendum No. 1 to the Plaza Banderas Final EIR SCH No City of San Juan Capistrano, CA July

2 On December 2, 2015, the project applicant (South Coast Investors II, LLC) filed the application for an Architectural Control (AC) Modification for a revised project (Revised Project). The proposed AC Modification (AC ) would supersede AC _ for the Plaza Banderas Hotel project approved in The AC Modification requires review of the modified site plan and architectural design of the structures, site amenities and landscape. In addition to the AC Modification, the application is also requesting approval of a Grading Plan Modification, which requires review of modified building pad elevations and new subterranean parking. The changes under the proposed Revised Project as compared to the Original Project (Approved Project Plaza Banderas Hotel Project) 2 are described in Section 12 of this Addendum. The potential environmental effects associated with the project changes proposed under the Revised Project are identified and described in the (refer to Appendix A) prepared for the Revised Project and summarized in Section 15 of this Addendum. Guidelines Section 15164(a) provides that: The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. This Addendum documents the City s determination that the Revised Project does not require preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR, and that preparation and adoption of Addendum No. 1 to the FEIR complies with Guidelines As the Lead Agency, the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) will consider the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed modifications in determining whether or not to approve these modifications to the previously approved Project (or Original Project). 9. DECISION NOT TO PREPARE A SUBSEQUENT EIR: Sections and of the Guidelines provide the following guidance for the preparation of subsequent or supplemental EIRs: Section Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted shows any of the following: 2The Original Project was approved by the San Juan Capistrano City Council in October The Approved Plaza Banderas Hotel Project, which was approved by the City Council in 2011, reflects small increases or decreases in the floor areas of each of the buildings as reflected in Table 1. Addendum No. 1 to the Plaza Banderas Final EIR SCH No City of San Juan Capistrano, CA July

3 (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Section Supplement to an EIR: (a) A lead or responsible agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if: (1) Any of the conditions described in Section would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and (2) Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. (b) The supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. (c) A supplement to an EIR shall be given the same kind of notice and public review as is given to a draft EIR under Section (d) A supplement to an EIR may be circulated by itself without recirculating the previous draft or final EIR. (e) When the agency decided whether to approve the project, the decision making body shall consider the previous EIR as revised by the supplemental EIR. A finding under Section shall be made for each significant effect shown in the previous EIR as revised. The potential environmental effects associated with the Revised Project have been analyzed in terms of Guidelines As described in Appendix A () to this Addendum, neither the changes in the Revised Project, nor any changes in the circumstances under which the Revised Project would be undertaken, would result in any new significant environmental impacts not considered in the FEIR or cause a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts previously identified in the FEIR. See Guidelines 15162(a)(1) (2). In addition, there is no new information of substantial importance that suggests there would be any significant new or more severe impacts. See Guidelines 15162(a)(3)(A) (B). This analysis has not identified any mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible that would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but were rejected by the project sponsor; or mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the FEIR, that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the project sponsor declines to adopt. See Guidelines 15162(a)(3)(C) (D). Based on the analysis in this Addendum and the analysis presented in the (Appendix A) and supporting Technical Reports prepared to analyze the Revised Project, none of the circumstances that would require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR are present, and the City has therefore prepared an Addendum under Guidelines 15164(a). Addendum No. 1 to the Plaza Banderas Final EIR SCH No City of San Juan Capistrano, CA July

4 10. USE OF AN ADDENDUM: This Addendum No. 1, along with the Plaza Banderas FEIR and the analysis included in the (Appendix A) prepared to analyze the Revised Project, has been prepared for consideration by the City and its decision making body as the Lead Agency prior to taking any action to approve the Revised Project proposed by South Coast Investors II, LLC. The Addendum may also be used by other agencies serving as Responsible Agencies under CEQA that may consider the grant of permits or approvals for the Revised Project. The Revised Project s overall development is essentially equivalent to or less than what was evaluated in the Certified FEIR for the Approved Project. The proposed modifications include the elimination of the retail/office building, a reduction in the floor area of the restaurant, and changes in the architectural character and treatment of the buildings. These modifications would not entail substantial changes to the Approved Plaza Banderas Project. Specifically: A) The proposed modifications would not require major revisions to the FEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. B) There have not been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Approved Project was undertaken which require major revisions of the previous FEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. C) There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous FEIR was certified. 11. PROJECT BACKGROUND/APPROVED PLAZA BANDERAS HOTEL PROJECT (ORIGINAL PROJECT): At their October 5, 2010 meeting, the San Juan Capistrano City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), approved a General Plan Amendment and various discretionary applications, and introduced an ordinance for adoption of a Comprehensive Development Plan for the proposed Plaza Banderas Hotel project, a 124 room hotel project with a freestanding 5,747 gross square foot (GSF) restaurant building and 6,680 GSF free standing retail/office building with 6,509 GSF of commercial space and 1,971 GSF of office space. At that time, the City Council also granted a variance to the hotel parking standard to allow 0.8 parking spaces per guest room whereas the City's code requires 1.0 space per guest room. That variance reduced the amount of on site parking required for the hotel by 25 parking spaces. At their subsequent meeting on October 19, 2010, City Council approved the ordinance on second reading establishing the Plaza Banderas Hotel Comprehensive Development Plan consisting of the development plan concept, land use provisions, and development standards. On June 30, 2011, the City Council approved the first reading and introduced an ordinance approving and adopting a Development Agreement for the Plaza Banderas Hotel project. At their July 5, 2011 meeting, the City Council approved the second reading and approved the ordinance adopting the Development Agreement. 12. PROPOSED INN AT THE MISSION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO PROJECT (REVISED PROJECT): South Coast Investors II, LLC is requesting City approval of an Architectural Control Modification (AC Modification) application to enable the upgrade of the previously approved 124 room 3 star service hotel project to a 124 room 4 star luxury boutique hotel. 3 The three story hotel includes 97,131 square feet, including a 5,711 square foot basement. The proposed project modifications are necessitated by market conditions and hotel classification requirements to upgrade to a 4 star hotel, which has larger room sizes. In addition to the hotel, the applicant is proposing restaurant that encompasses 4,834 square feet. The restaurant use is proposed to replace the retail/office use in the 2 story building. The Conceptual Site 3With the construction of three other local select service properties, the market for this classification has changed since the project was approved in Addendum No. 1 to the Plaza Banderas Final EIR SCH No City of San Juan Capistrano, CA July

5 Plan is illustrated on Exhibit 3. The 1 story restaurant building approved in 2010 has been eliminated. A comparison of the project described in the FEIR, the 2010 approved Plaza Banderas Project and the proposed is summarized in Table 1. Table 1 Comparison of the Original Project and Revised Project Characteristics EIR Project Description (2010) Approved Plaza Banderas Project (2011) Proposed Revised Project Difference in Revised Project (Revised 2011) Site Area Project Site 3.1 Acres 3.1 Acres 3.18 Acres 0.08 Quit Claimed Right of Way per Development Agreement Acre 0.44 Acre Total Site Area 3.1 Acres 3.1 Acres 3.62 Acres 0.52 Total Site Square Feet 135, , ,687 22,651 Building Coverage (Square Feet) Total First Floor Footprint 44,981 47,907 42,561 5,346 Percent Site Coverage 33.3% 35.5% 27.0% 8.5% Floor Area Ratio Floor Area Hotel (Square Feet) Basement 0 0 5,711 5,711 First Floor 32,725 35,345 38,944 3,599 Second Floor 24,524 24,142 27,547 3,405 Third Floor 17,724 16,363 24,929 8,566 Total Hotel Floor Area 74,973 76,353 97,131 20,778 Number of Rooms Floor Area Retail and Office (Square Feet) First Floor 6,509 6, ,467 Second Floor 1,971 3, ,702 Total Retail/Office Floor Area 8,480 10, ,169 Restaurant Building (Square Feet) First Floor 5,747 6,095 3,617 2,478 Second Floor 0 0 1,217 1,217 Total Restaurant Floor Area 5,747 6,095 4,834 1,261 Total Building Floor Area (GSF) 89,200 92, ,965 9,348 Total Above Grade Floor Area (GSF) 89,200 92,617 96,254 3,637 1 The Plaza Banderas Project was processed under a stated acreage of 3.1 acres; however, the approved site plan, in conjunction with the approved Development Agreement, included the 0.44 are excess right of way, which has been deeded back to the property. SOURCE: City of San Juan Capistrano Addendum No. 1 to the Plaza Banderas Final EIR SCH No City of San Juan Capistrano, CA July

6 As indicated in Table 1, the proposed AC Modification would revise the approved project as follows: A reduction in building site coverage from 47,907 gross square feet (GSF) to 42,261 GSF (reduction of 5,346 GSF, primarily by eliminating the previously approved retail/office building and utilizing subterranean spaces for back of house functions). Elimination of the retail/office building (10,169 GSF), which creates a view corridor between the Mission and the hotel. A reduction in the restaurant space from 6,095 GSF to 4,834 GSF, resulting in a reduction of 1,261 GSF. Increase in room size and conversion of eight rooms to suites as required to obtain a 4 star rating, but no increase in the number of hotel rooms. Parking master plan creates the opportunity for a total of 273 parking stalls through additional submittal, which includes 40 additional stalls created by the valet configuration and 27 tandem stalls. An addition of a plaza/gathering space along the El Camino Real frontage creating a stronger orientation to the Mission. An increased building setback from El Camino Real of 80 feet. An increase in landscaped space at the corner of El Camino Real and Ortega Highway. An overall reduction in development impacts by adding basement floor area and subterranean parking, which significantly reduce truck traffic required by the Approved Project to raise the grade of the site. An enhanced hotel courtyard area that will serve as an entry statement into our historic downtown Parking As discussed in the Plaza Banderas FEIR, the City s Parking Code required 239 parking spaces for the Original Project (approved Plaza Banderas Hotel Project). However, a parking study that was prepared for the Original Project and included in the FEIR concluded that the 185 parking spaces proposed for the Original Project would be adequate to accommodate the project. As a result, the Original Project was conditioned to provide 185 parking spaces and is included in the approved Plaza Banderas Comprehensive Development Plan. The Revised Project, which eliminated the retail/office building and has reduced the size of the restaurant, is proposing 176 parking spaces, including 109 surface parking spaces and 67 basement parking spaces for a total of 176 parking spaces. In addition, up to 97 parking spaces are also available in the immediate project area, including 14 on street parking spaces on the south side of Spring Street adjacent to the project site, 27 tandem parking stalls added in the basement, and 40 additional valet configured parking spaces. Based on the traffic analysis conducted for the proposed Revised Project, the provision of 176 on site parking spaces, which when considered with the potential additional parking spaces that would be available in the project area, are adequate to accommodate the proposed project. Addendum No. 1 to the Plaza Banderas Final EIR SCH No City of San Juan Capistrano, CA July

7 Project Phasing The proposed Architectural Control (AC) modification is considered a minor revision subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. The AC modification is not a major revision because no changes are being made to the conditions of approval, no expansion is proposed (instead uses have been eliminated and the project size has been reduced), no intensification of use is proposed (instead the use is less intense), and no structures are being relocated (instead structures are being removed or reduced). Following City approval of the AC modification, site development would generally consist of two distinct phases: (1) Precise Grading and site preparation and (2) building and construction. If the City approves the AC modifications by 2016, construction of the project could be completed as early as Project Objectives Implementation of the proposed project will achieve the following intended specific objectives, which have been identified by the City of San Juan Capistrano and by the project applicant. will enhance downtown San Juan Capistrano and create an aesthetically welcoming gateway to the City s town center. has been designed to complement Mission San Juan Capistrano, not compete with it, by reflecting the historic character of the Mission and the City. will provide needed services to residents and visitors to San Juan Capistrano, including hotel and dining opportunities. is intended to serve as a landmark feature within the City that will be visible from the San Diego Freeway (I 5). will increase the City s tax base generating revenue for the City through increased bed and property taxes. has been designed to promote business activity in downtown San Juan Capistrano with additional pedestrian traffic generated by the hotel and restaurant uses. Discretionary Approvals Project implementation will necessitate Planning Commission approval of the following discretionary actions: Architectural Control and a Grading Plan Modification. Architectural Control The review of the modified site plan and architectural design of the structures, site amenities and landscape. Grading Plan Modification The review of modified building pad elevations and new subterranean parking. Addendum No. 1 to the Plaza Banderas Final EIR SCH No City of San Juan Capistrano, CA July

8 13. CONSULTATION: A. City of San Juan Capistrano David Contreras, Senior Planner Joel Rojas, Development Services Director George Alvarez, Contract City Engineer/Traffic Engineer Maryam Ramsey, Associate Engineer B. Applicant Daniel Friess, Principal, South Coast Investors II, LLC C. Documents & resources: San Juan Capistrano General Plan; Adopted December 14, Land Use Community Design Element Safety Element Conservation and Open Space Element Noise Element Cultural Resources Element San Juan Capistrano General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report; SCH No (Certified December 1999). San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code; Section Plaza Banderas Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP 10 01). Plaza Banderas Final Environmental Impact Report; Certified October 2010 (SCH No ). Tree Removal Permit No ; Issued February 4, Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers, LLC; Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum Report, Mission Hotel; June 8, Giroux & Associates; Air Quality and GHG Impact Analysis, Mission Inn; June Giroux & Associates; Noise Assessment Mission Inn; June 2016 GMU Geotechnical, Inc.; Geotechnical Investigation Report, Mission Inn San Juan Capistrano; August 10, Hunsaker & Associates Irvine; Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, Mission Inn; April 19, 2016 (Revised) Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc.; Private Fire Protection System Analysis for the Mission Inn Project; October 12, Addendum No. 1 to the Plaza Banderas Final EIR SCH No City of San Juan Capistrano, CA July

9 Federal Emergency Management Agency; Letter of Map Revision Determination Document; July 30, Plaza Banderas Comprehensive Development Plan 10 01; June 2016 (Revised). TetraTech; Analysis of San Juan Capistrano Sewer System to Accommodate Proposed Mission Inn Hotel Development Flows; January 29, Malcolm Pirnie/Arcadis; 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (Final Draft); June LEAD AND RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: A. City of San Juan Capistrano Planning Division B. County of Orange Orange County Sheriff Department Orange County Fire Authority 15. REVIEW OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES: This section summarizes the analysis presented in the and several technical studies that were prepared to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the (Revised Project). As concluded in the, implementation of the Revised Project would not result in any significant impacts not previously analyzed nor would the Revised Project exacerbate previously identified potentially significant impacts. The initial study has been appended to Addendum No. 1 to the Plaza Banderas FEIR and provides substantial evidence to demonstrate that the Revised Project would not be expected to result in new or more severe environmental impacts than those which were assessed in the Plaza Banderas Hotel FEIR. Aesthetics The project site is devoid of important aesthetic amenities. The Revised Project would not result in new or more substantial impacts to aesthetic resources than those which were previously identified for the Original Project. As with the Original Project, the proposed Revised Project would require similar grading and development that alter the existing aesthetic and scenic character of the site and area. Construction staging areas, storage of equipment and supplies, and related activities occurring on the site during construction will contribute to a generally disturbed condition, which may be perceived as a potential visual impact. However, MM 1 1 from the FEIR would be carried forward and imposed on the Revised Project. MM 1 1 prescribes screening of staging and equipment storage areas to minimize the temporary visual impacts associated with construction activities. As illustrated in the visual simulations prepared for the Revised Project (refer to the ), the character of the site will be transformed into one that is developed. The architectural character of the Revised Project is compatible with the character of the existing development along El Camino Real as well as the San Juan Elementary School. The architectural character of the proposed hotel as well as the building materials, textures, and landscaping integrated into the project design are consistent with the character articulated in the Plaza Banderas Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP). Thus, the potential aesthetic impacts of the Revised Project would be less than significant, as they were for the Original Project. Similarly, the design of the proposed Revised Project draws its inspiration from the historic Addendum No. 1 to the Plaza Banderas Final EIR SCH No City of San Juan Capistrano, CA July

10 heritage of San Juan Capistrano and architectural styles reminiscent of Early California Historic architecture from the Mission period. As such, the architectural character and design of the Revised Project is compatible with the character of the area and that desired for the historic downtown area. Additionally, consistent with the Original Project, potential aesthetic impacts associated with the light and glare from the Revised Project would be avoided through the implementation of the standard conditions imposed by the City of San Juan Capistrano that require the preparation of a photometric plan to assure compliance with the City s lighting standards. Conclusion: Modifications to the site plan, architecture and related project features include improvements that create greater compatibility between the Revised Project, the Mission San Juan Capistrano, and downtown character. The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any new significant adverse aesthetic effects not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project and would not cause any significant aesthetic effects previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. Agriculture and Forestry Resources The Revised Project would not result in new or more substantial impacts to agriculture and forestry resources than those which were previously identified for the Original Project. Like the Original Project, the Revised Project would not convert Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, conflict with or convert existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. Additionally, neither the Original Project nor the Revised Project would conflict with zoning or result in the loss or conversion of forest land. As with the Original Project, the Revised Project would not result in impacts associated with agriculture and forestry resources. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion: The project site does not support prime agricultural soils and is not identified as a forestry resource. The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant new agriculture or forestry resources effect not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project and would not cause any significant agriculture or forestry resources effects previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. Air Quality The Revised Project would not result in new or more substantial impacts to air quality than those which were previously identified for the Original Project. Like the Original Project, the Revised Project would result in less than significant impacts related to air quality. With the elimination of the retail/office use and the reduction in the floor area of the restaurant, the Revised Project would result in less long term air pollutant emissions when compared to the Original Project. Both the Original and Revised Project entail similar construction and operation scopes that would result in short term emissions associated with dust, exhaust, equipment, vehicles, and comparable sources during construction; long term, operational pollutant emissions are largely associated with traffic during operation. Although implementation of the Original Project was found to exceed the VOC threshold during construction, the Revised Project would not exceed the established threshold based on current SCAQMD methodology for quantifying pollutant emissions. 4 The pollutant emissions generated during both construction and in the long term (i.e., operation) of the Revised Project, would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds and, 4Air quality impacts analyzed in the Original Project utilized the EMFAC2007 methodology, which was required at the time of the preparation of the Plaza Banderas EIR. The methodology currently prescribed by the SCAQMD and that used for to assess the Modified Project is the CalEEMod Addendum No. 1 to the Plaza Banderas Final EIR SCH No City of San Juan Capistrano, CA July

11 furthermore, would not require the implementation of mitigation measures. The Original Project required the use of low VOC producing paints (FEIR MM 3 1) in order to reduce impacts associated with the application of architectural coatings. However, because the Revised Project would have less than significant VOC emissions, no mitigation is required. Nonetheless, the Revised Project would also be required to comply with MM 3 1 in order to minimize VOC emissions resulting from project implementation. The air quality analysis conducted for the Revised Project also evaluated the project s emissions based on Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs), which represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor (e.g., San Juan Elementary School). The analysis determined that emissions meet the LST for construction thresholds without dust suppression but would be reduced well below thresholds after dust suppression mitigation (i.e., watering three times daily). As with total construction activity emissions, the reduction in project scope and the subsequent buildout using a newer, cleaner equipment fleet results in a noticeable reduction in LST impacts. With the exception of watering, which is required by the SCAQMD Rule 403 (refer to SC 3 2), potential impacts are less than significant; no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion: The Revised Project eliminated the retail/office use and also reduced the floor area of the restaurant use. The project changes associated with the Revised Project result in the reduction in air pollutant emissions. As a result, implementation of the Revised Project would not result in any significant new effect on air quality not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project and would not cause any significant effects on air quality previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. Biological Resources The project site has been further altered as a result of site preparation permitted with the approval of the Original Project. As a result, the trees that existed in 2010 have been removed during the site preparation. Removal of the trees occurred in compliance with the measures prescribed in the FEIR intended to avoid impacts to nesting avian species. No other important biological habitat and/or species are known to exist on the subject property. Implementation of both the Original Project and the Revised Project would result in the removal of the same disturbed and other non native vegetation. Therefore, implementation of the Revised Project would not result in any potentially significant impacts and, specifically, no new or more substantial impacts to biological resources than those which were previously identified in the FEIR for the Original Project. As with the Original Project, the Revised Project would result in less than significant impacts. Because the ornamental trees that existed on the site at the time the FEIR for the Original Project was prepared have been eliminated, the project site has less likelihood to support nesting birds during nesting season. No significant biological resources, including wetlands, waters of the United States or State, wildlife corridors, and/or sensitive species exist on the site; no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion: Trees that existed on the site have been removed and the site does not support any sensitive habitat and/or species. The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant new effect on biological resources not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project and would not cause any significant effects on biological resources previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. Addendum No. 1 to the Plaza Banderas Final EIR SCH No City of San Juan Capistrano, CA July

12 Cultural Resources Archaeological Resources As indicated in the Plaza Banderas FEIR, implementation the Original Project would result in grading the site to a depth of approximately three feet, which could result in a potentially significant direct project impact to historic and/or prehistoric resources. As a result, several mitigation measures were prescribed to ensure that potentially significant impact would be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. Implementation of the Revised Project would result in similar grading and, thus, the same potential impacts to cultural/historic resources. Therefore, the same mitigation measures would also be necessary to avoid or mitigate the potential impacts. No new or more significant impacts would be anticipated and no new mitigation measures are required. Paleontological Resources Similar to the Original Project, if a significant paleontological resource is identified within the boundaries of the development site, ground disturbance could result in the loss of paleontological resources, including scientifically important fossil remains, associated geologic data, fossil sites, and fossiliferous rocks, by disturbing fossil bearing and potentially fossiliferous rocks. Although construction would be a short term activity, the loss of some fossil remains and the fossil bearing rocks would be a permanent adverse environmental impact. In order to ensure that potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources do not occur, mitigation measures were previously prescribed in the Plaza Banderas FEIR (MM 5 2a and MM 5 2b), which would also be required of the Revised Project to ensure that such impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation measures are required. Historical Resources Implementation of the Revised Project would have the same potential effects on the existing historic resources as previously identified in the FEIR for the Original Project. Although some improvements are proposed to Spring Street along the northern property boundary, the improvements are minor and would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic street. The improvements are consistent with the character of a historic street and meet the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. As a result, no significant impacts to Spring Street would occur. With the exception of an ingress/egress that is proposed on El Camino Real north of Ortega Highway, no significant improvements are proposed for El Camino Real that would adversely affect the historic integrity of that roadway. Although project implementation would dramatically change the character of the site, the Inn at the Mission San Juan Capistrano project has been designed to eliminate the one story restaurant structure previously approved for the Original Project and the proposed Spanish/Mission style architectural character of the proposed hotel and restaurant is consistent and compatible with the character of the area, including with Mission San Juan Capistrano. The proposed character of the Revised Project would neither conflict with nor compromise the historic integrity of the historic downtown area, including Mission San Juan Capistrano. As a result, potential impacts to historic resources would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. Conclusion: Grading and site development as proposed for the Revised Project are similar as approved for the Original Project and would affect virtually the same areas of the site and potential cultural resources. The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant new adverse effects on cultural resources not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project and would not cause any significant impacts to cultural resources previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. Addendum No. 1 to the Plaza Banderas Final EIR SCH No City of San Juan Capistrano, CA July

13 Geology and Soils Geotechnical and soils conditions on the site have not changed. As reflected in the FEIR for the Original Project, the site is subject to seismic activity on one or more of the active regional faults. In order to avoid potentially significant impacts associated with seismic shaking on the site, the Revised Project must comply with the CBC for the types of structures proposed. In addition, the project will also comply with the City s excavation and grading ordinance. Mitigation prescribed in the FEIR (FEIR MM 6 2) includes adherence to specific minimum design parameters for structural design to ensure that damage to the structures is minimized. The Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric Mean (MCEG) PHGA as was estimated to be 0.5g, and a site specific Magnitude Scaled PHGA for an earthquake magnitude (Mw) of 7.5 was determined to be 0.43g, which is the basis of the evaluation of secondary seismic hazards. Consistent with the analysis presented in the FEIR for the Original Project, the proposed structures in the Revised Project will be designed to comply with the design parameters prescribed in the CBC and other applicable regulations and/or measures recommended in the geotechnical investigation that are intended to minimize seismic related groundshaking impacts to a less than significant level. As indicated in the FEIR for the Original Project and confirmed in the updated geotechnical report, the site is subject to potential liquefaction; however, mitigation measures are prescribed in the geotechnical report that would reduce potential liquefaction effects to less than significant. Based on the liquefaction analysis conducted for the Revised Project, liquefaction induced lateral spreading is considered to be unlikely at the site due to the lack of a free face or significant sloping ground. Although seismic settlement at the ground surface is anticipated to be minor, site preparation and building construction as prescribed in the CBC and recommended in the geotechnical investigation will adequately address potential liquefaction and reduce potential liquefaction impacts to a less than significant level. With the exception of proposed retaining walls on the northern and southeastern boundaries of the site, no significant slopes are present within or immediately adjacent to the site. Although the Caltrans I 5/Ortega Highway interchange project created a manufactured slope along the southeast portion of the site, slope stability will not affect the proposed grading and improvements. No significant impacts will occur as a result of the Revised Project. Like the Original Project, the Revised Project would also result in potential erosion during the grading and construction phase. Exposure of the soils while grading and excavation activities are underway can be adequately addressed through the provision of appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be included in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that must be prepared for the proposed project. Adherence to the City s grading ordinance and implementation of the BMPs prescribed in the SWPPP that will be prepared for the project. As a result, short term impacts would be less than significant. The site will be ultimately improved following grading in order to avoid significant soil erosion and/or loss of topsoil. The applicant has prepared a Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that includes Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address erosion, consistent with the City codes and ordinances and with the approval of all agencies with jurisdiction (e.g., County of Orange, Regional Water Quality Control Board, etc.) Therefore, potential impacts are anticipated to be less than significant with the implementation of the BMPs prescribed in the WQMP. Conclusion: The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant new adverse effects on geology and soils not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project and would not cause any significant impacts to geology and soils previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. Addendum No. 1 to the Plaza Banderas Final EIR SCH No City of San Juan Capistrano, CA July

14 Greenhouse Gas The FEIR for the Original Project estimated construction related GHG emissions using the URBEMIS2007 computer model. Based on that analysis, the construction activities associated with the Original Project would generate 435 metric tons (MTs) and constitute a small fraction of total project related emissions when considering the longevity of operation emissions associated with the project. GHG impacts for the Revised Project were estimated using the CalEEMod model currently required by the SCAQMD. Based on the GHG analysis conducted for the Revised Project, GHG emissions are estimated to be less than estimated for the Original Project. Construction related GHG emissions resulting from the Revised Project are estimated to be 12 MT, with a 30 year amortized estimate of 21.2 MT. Therefore, construction related GHG emissions are less than significant; no mitigation measures are required. Long term (operational) emissions estimated for the Original Project, also based on the EMFAC2007 model, were calculated to be 3,125 MT. The GHG emissions for the Revised Project, utilizing the CalEEMod methodology were estimated to be 2,757 MT, or approximately 12 percent lower when compared to the Original Project and less than the 3,000 MT threshold recommended by the SCAQMD. The reduction in GHG emissions is related to the reduction in development intensity (i.e., elimination of the retail/office building and a reduction in the site of the proposed restaurant). As a result, implementation of the Revised Project would result in less GHG emissions than the Original Project. Although the Revised Project would not exceed the significance threshold, the State has identified several programs that will reduce GHG emissions, including the implementation of Green Building Standards in accordance with the California Building Code, the reduction in water use resulting from water conservation measures, the use of low carbon fuels for automobiles, and additional fuel efficiency standard for automobiles. Implementation of the Revised Project will result in less GHG emissions. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion: The project changes, including the reduction in development intensity, associated with the Revised Project would result in less GHG emissions when compared to the Original Project. As a result, the Revised Project would not result in any significant new adverse effects on greenhouse gas not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project and would not cause any significant impacts to greenhouse gas previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The subject property is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites. Further, there is no evidence of either on site or off site environmental conditions that would adversely affect site development. A gasoline service station formerly existed on the subject site, which was closed in 1998 and demolished, followed by remedial action necessary to remove an underground storage tank (UST). The site was properly remediated for leaking underground storage tanks associated with the ARCO gasoline station that occupied a portion of the site. The Orange County Health Care Agency (Public Health Division of Environmental Health) issued a Remedial Action Completion Certification letter on May 12, 1999, which confirmed that no further action related to the UST release is required. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Analysis of the Original Project in the FEIR concluded that the site does not pose a potential health risk to the uses approved by the City, including the hotel and restaurant. Furthermore, the Original Project would not pose a potential health hazard to the surrounding uses, including San Juan Elementary School. As previously indicated, the Revised Project includes the 124 room hotel and a restaurant; however, the retail/office building in the Original Project has been eliminated and the floor area of the restaurant use has been reduced. Potential impacts associated with the Revised Project are virtually the same as previously Addendum No. 1 to the Plaza Banderas Final EIR SCH No City of San Juan Capistrano, CA July

15 identified in the FEIR for the Original Project. Development of the site as now proposed in the Revised Project would not result in potentially significant impacts to San Juan Elementary School, which is located on Spring Street, north of the subject property. The proposed hotel and restaurant are not associated with the release of toxic air contaminants (TACs). Vehicle emissions, primarily associated with the use of heavy trucks for such things as deliveries and refuse collection, also release minor amounts of diesel particulate, a known carcinogen. However, as noted in the CalEEMod model, use of these trucks (medium heavy duty and heavy heavy duty) during site occupation (e.g., refuse collection and deliveries) is limited and these emissions are distributed over a vast area due to vehicle travel. As such, vehicle travel is not typically associated with prolonged exposure to toxic emissions. Similar to other hotel restaurant developments, hazardous materials, including paints, solvents, pesticides, fertilizers and other materials would likely be stored on site and utilized in the daily operations and/or maintenance of the property (e.g., landscape and building/structural maintenance, etc.). However, these materials, which would not exceed permitted regulatory quantities, would be transported to and from the site by truck and stored on the premises in accordance with current regulatory requirements. The materials transported to and from the site are those the use of which is permitted for the uses proposed. The proposed uses must comply with all applicable regulatory requirements pertaining to the transport, use, storage and disposal of and hazardous materials. As a result, potential impacts of the proposed project are anticipated to be less than significant. With the exception of routine building and landscape maintenance, the uses included in both the Original Project and Revised Project are not those that typically use and store hazardous materials and chemicals on the premises. While the risk of exposure to household hazardous materials cannot be eliminated, measures can be implemented to maintain risks to acceptable levels. Several federal, state and local regulatory agencies oversee hazardous materials handling and management. Project implementation requires compliance with the San Juan Capistrano General Plan and the Plaza Banderas Comprehensive Development Plan, which prohibit uses that use or manufacture significant quantities of or generate significant hazardous or toxic emissions. In addition, oversight by the appropriate agencies and compliance with applicable regulations are considered adequate to offset any potentially significant environmental effects related to the use of hazardous materials that could result in an accidental release. Conclusion: The conditions related to potential hazards and hazardous materials have not changed. Furthermore, the Revised Project proposes a reduction in the overall development intensity. As a result, the project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant new adverse effects on hazards and hazardous materials not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project and would not cause any significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. Hydrology and Water Quality Prior to the approval of the Original Project in 2010, a portion of the subject property was located within the 100 year floodplain of El Horno Creek as delineated on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No C0443J (December 3, 2009). However, an on site Conditional Letter of Map Revision Fill (CLOMR Fill) for the Plaza Banderas Project was filed and accepted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which determined that a revision to the flood hazards depicted in the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report and/or National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) map is warranted. 5 The Letter of Map Revision Determination Document issued by FEMA revises the effective NFIP map to reflect the updated information. 5Federal Emergency Management Agency, Letter of Map Revision Determination Document, July 30, Addendum No. 1 to the Plaza Banderas Final EIR SCH No City of San Juan Capistrano, CA July

16 The Original Project was designed to decrease the amount of surface runoff generated on the site. Therefore, potential impacts to the existing storm drainage systems and El Horno Creek (L05) were minimized by the implementation of the Original Project design and, specifically, through the stormwater detention system that has been incorporated into the Original Project, which would ensure that post development peak surface flows will be reduced to below pre development flow rates. The incorporation of BMPs prescribed in the WQMP would reduce 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. As a result, no significant water quality impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Furthermore, all of the structures proposed in the Original Project were located outside of the 100 year floodplain of El Horno Creek as delineated on the current FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map. The Conceptual Grading Plan for the Revised Project reveals that the project has been designed to drain to the east. All of the proposed structures are located outside the limits of the 100 year flood plain/inundation area. Therefore, project implementation will not result in potentially significant flooding impacts caused by flooding along El Horno Creek. The Revised Project must be designed to ensure that the proposed structures are located above the limits of the 100 year flood elevation. The Revised Project includes the importation of approximately 6,700 cubic yards of earth material. Once the Revised Project is constructed, an as built plan will be submitted to FEMA in order to receive the final LOMR F, which will remove the buildings from the floodplain. No potentially significant flooding impacts would occur as a result of project implementation; no mitigation measures are required. Similar to the Original Project, implementation of the Revised Project will result in an increase in impervious surfaces on the site, the existing and proposed storm drainage system will be adequate to accommodate post development storm flows generation by the 25 year and 100 year storms. This will be accomplished with the inclusion of a hydromodification detention vault under the project site to detain and treat approximately 0.67 cfs of storm flows generated on the site. The WQMP prescribes a variety of site design as well as structural and non structural source controls to ensure that potential pollutants would be minimized. As a result, potential drainage/hydrology and water quality impacts are anticipated to be less than significant; no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion: With the revised floodplain delineation by FEMA, the Revised Project would not encroach into the 100 year floodplain. Post development surface runoff can be accommodated by the existing and proposed drainage facilities. As a result, the project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant new adverse effects on hydrology and water quality not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project and would not cause any significant impacts to hydrology and water quality previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. Land Use and Planning The FEIR for the Original Project included an extensive analysis of the project s consistency with the applicable adopted long range plans and policies, including the San Juan Capistrano General Plan. As concluded in the FEIR, the Original Project was consistent with the long range plans and policies adopted by the City of San Juan Capistrano. Similarly, the Revised Plan, which proposes only minor revisions and the elimination of the retail/office floor area and a reduction in the floor area of the restaurant, is also consistent with the adopted plans. Although minor revisions are proposed to the Comprehensive Development Plan, those changes are minor and include only revisions that make the development less intense that the Original Project. Specifically, the project description in the CDP would be revised to reflect the floor areas proposed for the Revised Project. In addition, the Original Project and related architectural elevations and related exhibits would also be replaced with similar exhibits depicting the Addendum No. 1 to the Plaza Banderas Final EIR SCH No City of San Juan Capistrano, CA July

17 proposed. No substantive changes that would result in potential conflicts with adopted plans and programs would occur. Like the Original Project, the Revised Project would also not conflict with an adopted natural communities conservation plan or other habitat conservation plan and would not result in either direct or indirect impacts on a natural community. As identified and described in the FEIR, the San Juan Capistrano General Plan identifies the City s open space and conservation areas designated within the City. The subject property is devoid of native habitat due to the past use. As a result, it does not encompass any significant natural features and/or habitat that supports sensitive species (i.e., coastal California gnatcatcher). In particular, although the site is located in the vicinity of El Horno Creek, there are no wetlands or jurisdictional waters identified on any portion of the subject property. Thus no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion: The Revised Project is consistent with the long range plans and programs adopted by the City of San Juan Capistrano. The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant new adverse effects on land use and planning not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project and would not cause any significant impacts to land use and planning previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. Mineral Resources Neither the City s General Plan nor the State of California has identified the site or environs as a potential location for mineral resources of State wide, regional, or local significance. No mineral resources are known to exist. Therefore, development of the subject property as proposed by the Revised Project will not result in the loss of any locally important mineral resource recovery site. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. No impacts to mineral resources were identified for the Original Project in the FEIR. The changes reflected in the Revised Project would not result in adverse effects to mineral resources. The construction of the proposed hotel and restaurant would not result in any changes that would adversely affect mineral resources. The Revised Project would not result in new or more substantial impacts to mineral resources than those which were previously identified for the Original Project. Like the Original Project, the Revised Project would not be expected to result in impacts related to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or mineral resource recovery. Conclusion: The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant new adverse effects on mineral resources not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project and would not cause any significant impacts to mineral resources previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. Noise The FEIR for the Original Project concluded that although long range (operational) noise impacts would be less than significant, construction of the Original Project would result in a potentially significant unavoidable adverse noise impact due to the proximity of Original Project to sensitive receptors, including Mission San Juan Capistrano and San Juan Elementary School. As concluded in the FEIR, even with the noise reduction measures, both interior and exterior noise levels would be exceeded. The City s noise ordinance limits are stated in terms of a 30 minute limit with allowable deviations from this 50 th percentile standard. The louder the level becomes, the shorter the time becomes that it is allowed to occur. The standards would apply to site operations as they might impact sensitive uses. The nearest noise sensitive uses include Mission San Juan Capistrano, the adjacent residence to the northwest of the Addendum No. 1 to the Plaza Banderas Final EIR SCH No City of San Juan Capistrano, CA July

18 project site, and San Juan Elementary School. As concluded in the FEIR for the Original Project, construction noise levels will be excessive and will result in interior noise levels in classrooms at San Juan Elementary School and exterior noise levels at the Mission San Juan Capistrano. Although mitigation measures were prescribed for the Original Project, short term noise levels (i.e., during construction) could not be reduced to less than significant levels. Because the Revised Project will require the same or similar construction activities, noise levels are projected to exceed both interior and exterior noise levels prescribed by the City. During most intensive heavy equipment operations, the peak hourly average noise level from several pieces of equipment in simultaneous hourly operation is db Leq at 50 feet from the activity. Even with closed windows at the residence adjacent to the project boundary such levels could interfere with quiet interior residential activity. San Juan Elementary School is also noise sensitive and could experience a temporary construction noise nuisance from heavy equipment. Such noise may be intrusive into indoor learning and outdoor recreational use. The nearest construction activities may occur as close as 60 feet to the school property line. Outdoor activities at the school occur within a sheltered courtyard or on a lightly used outdoor court/field 150 feet away from planned construction plus being blocked by the school buildings itself. The primary noise constraint would be to the interior instructional environment. The existing residence is adjacent to the site along the northwestern property line. The maximal noise levels would occur when construction equipment are operating at their closest boundary. A typical building with single pane windows can reduce noise levels by db with the windows closed. An exterior noise level of 70 db at receptor locations would maintain an acceptable interior noise environment of 45 db with closed windows. In some cases, this noise reduction could be maintained only on a temporary basis, since it requires that windows remain closed at all times assuming homes have air conditioning. Thus, as concluded in the FEIR for the Original Project, a significant noise impact would occur when noise levels remained above the 70 db exterior noise level and 45 db interior noise level speech interference thresholds. Mission San Juan Capistrano is a historical landmark with outdoor touring activities. Excessive levels of noise have the potential to negatively affect speech intelligibility as well contemplation at the site, thereby hindering visitor s enjoyment of the Mission. Assuming normal conversation occurs at a distance of 3 feet, speech intelligibility can still be maintained with a background noise level of 65 db as the upper limit using normal effort in speech. During the grading phase, noise at the Mission could exceed this limit even with attenuation from the substantial Mission perimeter walls. When construction equipment is operating at the western portion of the project site closest to the Mission, speech interference may occur. As a result, construction activities would elevate ambient noise levels during the daytime at the noisesensitive receptors surrounding the proposed project site and potentially disrupt classroom activities and tourist activities at the Mission San Juan Capistrano during construction of the site. Because construction related noise would occur during operating hours of the San Juan Elementary School and Mission San Juan Capistrano and would potentially disrupt classroom activities and the relatively quiet ambient noise environment at the Mission San Juan Capistrano closest to the project site. In addition construction noise levels could interfere with speech intelligibility at the adjacent residence. As concluded for the Original Project in the FEIR, even with the incorporation of mitigation measures, which will be carried forward and implemented with the Revised Project, short term, constructionrelated noise levels associated with the Revised Project would also be significant and unavoidable. However, no new or more severe noise impacts will occur as a result of the Revised Project. Conclusion: Construction activities associated with the Revised Project would be the same or similar to the Original Project, resulting in the same or similar noise levels as the Original Project. As concluded in the FEIR for the Original Project, short term construction noise impacts would be significant and Addendum No. 1 to the Plaza Banderas Final EIR SCH No City of San Juan Capistrano, CA July

19 unavoidable. However, the project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant adverse noise impacts not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project and would not cause any significant impacts to public services previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. Population and Housing Neither the Original Project nor the Revised Project eliminates any residential dwelling units or residents. Therefore, no existing housing or residents would be displaced if the Revised Project is approved and constructed and no significant impacts would occur. Further, project implementation does not include the development of the site for residential or other land uses that would be considered directly growth inducing. Further, all of the existing infrastructure exists in the area and is available to accommodate the proposed industrial/office development. Adequate capacity exists in all of the infrastructure systems that serve the site (e.g., sewer, water, storm drainage, roadways, etc.) and no new or expanded facilities are required to provide service to the development. No significant additional growth would be anticipated to occur as a direct result of the proposed industrial/office development. Therefore, no significant growth inducing impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. The proposed Revised Project would not result in unplanned or unanticipated residential and/or population growth that could cause the need for expanded public services and facilities in the project area and/or the City. Generally, growth inducing projects possess such characteristics as being located in isolated, undeveloped or under developed areas, necessitating the extension of major infrastructure (e.g., sewer and water facilities, roadways, etc.) or those that could encourage the premature or unplanned growth in an area not planned for development (i.e., leapfrog development). The subject property is located within an area of San Juan Capistrano that is developed with a variety of land uses, including commercial and religious/institutional land uses. Implementation of the proposed project will not result in encroachment into designated open space allocated in the existing long range plans adopted by the City of San Juan Capistrano and, furthermore, it would not induce substantial population growth since the project environs is urbanized and designated for development. As indicated above, all essential infrastructure, including sewer and water facilities, storm drainage facilities, electricity and natural gas, and related utilities currently exist, or can be extended to the site without creating the need for unplanned infrastructure expansions. Utility extensions would occur consistent with the City s adopted facility plans. All of the public services and facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed expansion; and, project implementation will not result in significant or unanticipated increases in demands on the infrastructure. Therefore, no significant growth inducing impacts are anticipated. As previously indicated, no residential dwelling units exist on the site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the elimination of any existing residential dwelling units that would necessitate the construction of replacement housing. As a result, project implementation would also not displace any residents in the City. Thus, project implementation would not result in either a loss of existing housing stock or the displacement of existing residents. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion: As identified for the Original Project, the Revised Project would not result in either the elimination of existing housing stock or the displacement of residents. Furthermore, the Revised Project would not result in unplanned growth. The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant adverse effects population and housing not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project and would not cause any significant impacts to population and housing previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. Addendum No. 1 to the Plaza Banderas Final EIR SCH No City of San Juan Capistrano, CA July

20 Public Services Fire Protection As indicated in the Plaza Banderas FEIR, development of the site will result in the intensification of development within the City. The Revised Project reflects the elimination of retail/office floor area and a reduction in the restaurant floor area when compared to the Original Project. As indicated in the Plaza Banderas Final EIR, development of the site would require additional fire stations and equipment over time (i.e., buildout of the city as planned) to ensure adequate emergency response capabilities. In order to continue to provide an adequate level of fire protection service within the City of San Juan Capistrano, the OCFA typically enters into a Secured Fire Protection Agreement with private developers (refer to FEIR MM which will be carried forward for the Revised Project) whose major development projects impact the ability of that agency to provide emergency and fire protection services at the adopted service levels. Although implementation of the Revised Project is consistent with the intensity of development permitted in the San Juan Capistrano General Plan and zoning density allocations, development of the site will increase the demands for (structural) fire protection and paramedic services and, therefore, have a potential adverse effect on the ability of the OCFA to continue to provide an adequate level of service. However, the subject property is not located within a high fire hazard zone and is not, therefore, subject to potentially significant impacts associated with wildland fire hazards. Implementation of the Revised Project would not require the construction of a new fire station. Nonetheless, a developer is required to mitigate the project s incremental impact to fire protection facilities and service by providing a pro rata fair share funding for capital improvements and infrastructure costs. With the payment of the fair share fees in accordance with the Secured Fire Protection Agreement (FEIR MM ), project related emergency response and related impacts on fire protection facilities and service associated with the development of the site as proposed would be reduced to a less than significant level. In addition to the potential impacts identified above related to the existing facilities, equipment and manpower levels that affect response times, project implementation could have a potential adverse effect on effectiveness of the ability of firefighting equipment and personnel to access the site and provide combat fires and related emergencies on the site. Without adequate access, both to the site and to each of the proposed structures, firefighting and related emergency activities could be hampered. In order to ensure that adequate access is provided to the site and proposed structures, the applicant will be required to submit the site plan for review to the Orange County Fire Authority. Mitigation measures were prescribed for site development by the OCFA for the Original Project to ensure that potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. Those same mitigation measures and standard conditions would also imposed on the Revised Project. As a result, potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Conclusion: Although the proposed Revised Project would result in less development intensity on the subject property, the potential impacts to fire protection service provided by the OCFA would be the same as the Original Project. The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant adverse effects on fire protection services not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project and would not cause any significant impacts to fire protection services previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. Addendum No. 1 to the Plaza Banderas Final EIR SCH No City of San Juan Capistrano, CA July

21 Police Protection Construction activities necessary to implement the Revised Project would be the same or similar as the Original Project. As a result, potential impacts to police protection would be the same as well. Without adequate security measures implemented during construction, there is a potential for theft, vandalism, and trespassing during the construction phases. However, the project applicant will be required to ensure that site access is restricted and that adequate security is maintained during the construction period in order to prevent unlawful trespass, vandalism, theft of construction materials and/or equipment, and other property crimes. In addition, road and/or lane closures that may be required during the construction phases could also affect response times by law enforcement agencies. However, with prior notification of construction schedules, lane closures, etc., the Police Services Department will be able to respond in a timely manner to emergency calls in the affected area. Field deputy awareness and by pass routes will be determined for responses to calls in the project area. As a result, response times would be expected to remain constant. The provision of law enforcement services to surrounding land uses will not be significantly impacted during the project construction period. With the implementation of appropriate security measures and the Traffic Control and Construction Management Plan that will be prepared for the project, no significant construction related law enforcement impacts are anticipated to result from project implementation. Implementation of the Revised Project will result in the development of approximately 96,254 square feet of development, including the 124 room hotel and restaurant; however, the retail/office building is included and the restaurant floor area has been reduced in the Revised Project when compared to the Original Project. Nonetheless, like the Original Project, the Revised Project would result in an increased demand for police protection services provided by the City OCSD/Police Services Department. With the types of uses proposed, the OCSD has indicated that thefts due to frauds and break ins are the most frequent crimes with hotel/motel sites; however, higher end hotels tend to have less frequent occurrences of these incidents. Bards within a restaurant could present additional concerns, such as fights and driving under the influence (DUI) within the City, which could require additional calls for police services. Other activities occurring either at the proposed hotel that could result in incidents requiring law enforcement responses include special events, such as weddings and birthdays or VIP visitors that may require some law enforcement effort in the form of protection. The proposed hotel will accommodate visitors to the City of San Juan Capistrano and, in particular, to the City s historic downtown area. As previously noted in the FEIR, concern was expressed about the potential for sexual predators to occupy the hotel. The City s OCSD/Police Service Department indicated that, based on discussions with Dana Point Police Services, that agency did not encounter any threats from suspected molesters staying at the numerous hotels and motels within that City; many of the motels in Dana Point are located within one mile of schools. It is anticipated that uses such as bars, bowling alleys, and recreational centers would likely pose a greater risk; however, none of those uses are proposed, with the possible exception of a bar in the proposed restaurant and/or hotel. The Revised Project would not result in any greater potential for such occurrences that described in the FEIR for the Original Project. In order to minimize the risk to students at the elementary school, defensive space measures have been identified by the OCSD, which may include establishing a physical barrier between the hotel and Spring Street, which would assist in the prevention of hotel guests wandering onto school property, causing concerns for teachers and parents. Lighted parking lots; video surveillance in the lobby, walkways, and parking area; and well lighted perimeters will assist in the prevention of crime. In addition, imposing conditions on bar hours, advance City required band and activity permits, and establishing event population limits may also assist in avoiding potential law enforcement problems that would reduce the potential impacts to law enforcement and police services provided by the OCSD. Addendum No. 1 to the Plaza Banderas Final EIR SCH No City of San Juan Capistrano, CA July

22 Conclusion: Although the proposed Revised Project would result in less development intensity on the subject property, the potential impacts to police protection service provided by the OCSD would be the same as the Original Project. The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant adverse effects on police protection services not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project and would not cause any significant impacts to police protection services previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. Schools As assessed in the FEIR, no development is proposed that would generate new students directly (e.g., residential). Similarly, the Revised Project does not include any student generating uses. Therefore, as identified for the Original Project, implementation of the Revised Project would neither cause an increase in school age students nor result in the need to construct additional school facilities. However, the Revised Project would be subject to developer fees pursuant to SB 50. These fees would be paid prior to issuance of the grading permit. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. However, as indicated in the FEIR and discussed above (refer to Police Protection), the Capistrano Unified School District had previously raised concerns for the safety of the students attending San Juan Elementary School to the north. As indicated in that discussion, the OCSD has recommended several defensive space measures for consideration to address the student safety issues. FEIR MM , which will be carried forward with the Revised Project, includes such measures as incorporating a physical barrier between the hotel site and Spring Street, ensuring that the perimeter of the site is well lighted, minimizing the amount of perimeter landscaping, etc. With the incorporation of such measures and implementation of the mitigation measures prescribed in the FEIR that will be carried forward for the Revised Project, potential student safety impacts would be less than significant. Conclusion: Potential student safety impacts previously identified would be the same as reflected in the FEIR. The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant adverse effects on school services not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project and would not cause any significant impacts to school services previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. Parks Neither the Original Project nor the Revised Project included residential development that would create a demand for parks and/or public recreational facilities. Therefore, similar to the Original Project, the Revised Project would not result in potentially significant impacts to the City s public parks. Conclusion: The Revised Project does not include uses that directly create a demand for public parks/recreation. The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant adverse effects on public parks not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project and would not cause any significant impacts to public parks previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. Other Public Facilities As indicated for parks, due to the nature of the land uses in the Original Project, the FEIR concluded that implementation of the Original Project would not result in a potentially significant impact on library services. Likewise, the Revised Project would also not create a demand for library services based on the non residential nature of the land uses included in the proposed project. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Addendum No. 1 to the Plaza Banderas Final EIR SCH No City of San Juan Capistrano, CA July

23 Conclusion: The Revised Project does not include uses that directly create a demand for public library service. The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant adverse effects on libraries not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project and would not cause any significant impacts to libraries previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. Recreation Implementation of the Revised Project, which proposes the development of a vacant site that is designated for commercial use, includes the construction of a 124 room hotel and a restaurant. The Revised Project has eliminated the retail/office building and also includes a reduced floor area for the restaurant from that approved in the Original Project. No significant potential impacts to recreation/recreational facilities were identified in the FEIR for the Original Project because it did not include residential development. Similarly, no residential development is proposed in the Revised Project that would create a new demand, or increase an existing demand, for recreational facilities. Existing parks in the vicinity of the project site will not be physically altered nor will their total acreage be reduced as a result of project implementation. Further, given the nature of the Revised Project (i.e., non residential), a greater demand for parks and recreation would not occur because the Revised Project would not result in a direct increase in population that would necessitate new or expanded recreational facilities. Therefore, no significant impacts to City wide recreational opportunities are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion: The Revised Project does not include residential development that would create a demand for recreational facilities. Therefore, the project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant adverse effects on recreation not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project and would not cause any significant impacts to recreation previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. Transportation and Traffic The FEIR prepared for the Original Project included the results of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) that evaluated intersection and roadway operational conditions at 21 intersections and 17 roadway segments. The analysis evaluated potential short term (i.e., construction) impacts and long term (i.e., operational) impacts. The analysis of construction related traffic showed that implementation of the Original Project would result in the generation 734 passenger care equivalent (PCE) trips, including 76 a.m. peak hour trips and 76 p.m. peak hour trips. It was determined that the construction related traffic would result in some traffic delays resulting from the use of heavy trucks hauling construction equipment and materials to and from the site, necessitating mitigation. In addition to the construction related traffic impacts, it was determined that the Original Project, which included a retail/office building and a large restaurant with the 124 room hotel, generated 1,586 daily vehicle trips, including 83 a.m. peak hour trips and 101 p.m. peak hour trips. 6 Based on the trip generation and distribution characteristics, the TIA concluded that implementation of the Original Project would result in potentially significant cumulative impacts at the I 5/Ortega Highway northbound and southbound ramps. However, the TIA was conducted prior to the completion of the I 5/Ortega Highway interchange improvements. Mitigation measures were prescribed to reduce the potentially significant traffic impacts to a less than significant level. Since the approval of the Original Project by the City of San Juan Capistrano, the I 5/Ortega Highway interchange improvements were completed. 6The Plaza Banderas Hotel project that was approved by the City would result in a total of 1,425 trips per day. Addendum No. 1 to the Plaza Banderas Final EIR SCH No City of San Juan Capistrano, CA July

24 As previously indicated, the Revised Project does not include the retail/office floor area and includes a smaller restaurant that was included in the Original Project. The TIA prepared to evaluate the Revised Project determined that, based on the reduction in intensity, a total of only 1,318 trips per day, or 268 trips per day less than the Original Project (and 107 less than the Approved Plaza Banderas Hotel project) would occur. Thus, with the improvements that have occurred at the I 5/Ortega Highway interchange, combined with the reduction in daily and peak hour trips generated by the Revised Project, the TIA determined that no significant long term traffic impacts would occur as a result of the Revised Project. All of the intersections analyzed in the TIA prepared for the Revised Project would operate at acceptable levels of service based on the City s criteria. Although the applicant would be required to pay the applicable CCFP fees, as determined by the City of San Juan Capistrano, based on the improvements included in the I 5/Ortega Highway interchange project. 7 Other potential impacts anticipated to occur as a result of the Revised Project are the same as those identified in the FEIR for the Original Project. There is concern from the Capistrano Unified School District (CSUD) and the parents of students at San Juan Elementary School that the proposed Project will create potential issues with traffic and safety. San Juan Elementary School uses the north side of Spring Street (i.e. westbound direction) as a vehicle queuing lane for student drop off and pick up east of the school driveway. It should be noted that traffic generated by the Revised Project will not conflict with the current student drop off and pick up operation, since the Project driveway along Spring Street is not located adjacent to the queuing area. Potential impacts of the Revised Project would be less than significant. Nonetheless, mitigation measures have been included from the FEIR to address traffic safety concerns. The internal circulation of the Revised Project was evaluated in terms of vehicle pedestrian conflicts. Based on the review of the preliminary site plan included in the TIA, the overall layout does not create significant vehicle pedestrian conflict points and the driveway throat lengths are sufficient such that access to parking spaces is not impacted by internal vehicle queuing/stacking. Curb return radii within the Project site have been confirmed and are adequate for passenger cars, service/delivery trucks and trash trucks as well as a tour bus. Project traffic is not anticipated to cause significant queuing/stacking on the Project driveways. The on site circulation is acceptable. The alignment, spacing and throat length of the Project driveways is also adequate noting further that they do now and/or will align to logical connection points on the street system. The circulation around the building is adequate with sufficient sight distance along the drive aisles. The proposed throat lengths at the Project driveways are sufficient for storing potential queuing vehicles. As such, motorists entering and exiting the Project site from these driveways will be able to do so comfortably, safely, and without undue congestion. No significant impacts would occur; no mitigation measures are required. The Revised Project includes a total of 176 parking spaces, compared to the 185 parking spaces required for the Original Project. However, the prior shared parking analysis prepared for the Original Project determined that the peak joint use/shared parking demand is estimated to be 156 parking spaces. The estimated peak parking demand will occur in June, during the late evening hours (10:00 PM) on a weekday. Both the hotel and restaurant parking requirements are near their maximum during this time frame. The weekend peak demand of 152 parking spaces also occurs during the late evening hours (11:00 PM), with the hotel and restaurant parking requirements as the primary contributors. In addition, there are additional parking opportunities available that would increase the total parking. Conclusion: The Existing Plus Project traffic conditions have been analyzed pursuant to CEQA guidelines as well as the City of San Juan Capistrano criteria. This traffic scenario evaluation would 7CCFP fees imposed on the applicant would be allocated to restriping the southbound shared left/through/right turn lane on the I 5 SB Ramps to a shared left/right turn lane; widen and/or restripe Ortega highway to provide an exclusive eastbound right turn lane and a second westbound left turn lane, and modify the existing traffic signal Addendum No. 1 to the Plaza Banderas Final EIR SCH No City of San Juan Capistrano, CA July

25 identify the adverse impacts of the Revised Project on the existing circulation system and the roadway improvements necessary to mitigate the direct traffic impacts of the project. Completion of the I 5/Ortega Highway Interchange improvements in 2015 have resulted in the elimination of the of the significant cumulative impacts identified in the FEIR for the Original Project at the Ortega Highway/I 5 NB Ramps and Ortega Highway/I 5 SB Ramps. The results of the Existing Plus Project traffic evaluation indicate that none of the intersections will have a direct, significant adverse impact if the Revised Project is implemented, based on the ICU and HCM Method of Analysis undertaken to evaluate the project. None of the study roadway segments are directly impacted by the Revised Project, and the results of the LOS calculations for the Existing Plus Project traffic conditions are consistent and identical to the Original Project. The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant new transportation/traffic impacts not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project and would not cause any significant impacts to transportation/traffic previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. Utilities and Service Systems The Revised Project would not result in new or more substantial impacts to utilities and service systems than those which were previously identified for the Original Project. The FEIR concluded that adequate sewer, water, storm drainage and solid waste disposal capacity exists. Like the Original Project, the Revised Project, which eliminated the retail/office building and reduced the floor area of the restaurant, would be expected to result in less demand for utilities based on the reduced development intensity. Thus, the Revised Project would result in less than significant impacts to the existing utility systems serving the project site. Implementation of the Revised Project would not require an increase in wastewater treatment requirements, the construction of new water or wastewater facilities, or result in the construction of new stormwater facilities. The City has sufficient water supplies to serve the Revised Project. Finally, the County of Orange operates and maintains three sanitary landfills that have adequate capacities. Through compliance with Federal, State, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste, the Revised Project would generate reduce waste volumes. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion: The Revised Project includes a reduced intensity of development when compared to the Original Project. Furthermore, the City of San Juan Capistrano and utility providers have adequate capacity to accommodate the demand for utilities. The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant adverse effects on utilities not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project and would not cause any significant impacts to utilities previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. Mandatory Findings of Significance The Revised Project would implement the standard conditions and mitigation measures prescribed in the FEIR and in this Addendum to ensure that potential impacts related to degrading the quality of the environment; substantially reducing the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; causing a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; reducing the number or restricting the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or eliminating important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Cumulatively considerable impacts or environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, would be reduced to or remain below the level of significance. Although the Revised Project would result in a substantial adverse short term impact on human beings as a result of Addendum No. 1 to the Plaza Banderas Final EIR SCH No City of San Juan Capistrano, CA July

26

27 INITIAL STUDY City of San Juan Capistrano LEAD AGENCY: City of San Juan Capistrano Paseo Adelanto San Juan Capistrano, California Contact: Mr. David Contreras, Senior Planner (949) PREPARED BY: Keeton Kreitzer Consulting P. O. Box 3905 Tustin, California Contact: Mr. Keeton K. Kreitzer, Principal (714) July 2016

28

29 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS PURPOSE PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PROJECT BACKGROUND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY BACKGROUND ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AESTHETICS AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES AIR QUALITY BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES CULTURAL RESOURCES GEOLOGY AND SOILS GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY LAND USE AND PLANNING MINERAL RESOURCES NOISE POPULATION AND HOUSING PUBLIC SERVICES RECREATION TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE REFERENCES REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATION LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION Page

30 This page intentionally left blank

31 1.0 INTRODUCTION Following preliminary review of the proposed Project, the City has determined that the Project is subject to the guidelines and regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This examines the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects associated with the Revised Project, as proposed, in order to determine if it would result in new and/or more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the Plaza Banderas Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) as prescribed in Section of the CEQA Guidelines. 1.1 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS Sections and of the Guidelines provide the following guidance for the preparation of subsequent or supplemental EIRs: Section Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Section Supplement to an EIR: (a) A lead or responsible agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if: (1) Any of the conditions described in Section would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and (2) Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. July

32 (b) The supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. A supplement to an EIR shall be given the same kind of notice and public review as is given to a draft EIR under Section (d) A supplement to an EIR may be circulated by itself without recirculating the previous draft or final EIR. (e) When the agency decided whether to approve the project, the decision making body shall consider the previous EIR as revised by the supplemental EIR. A finding under Section shall be made for each significant effect shown in the previous EIR as revised. The potential environmental effects associated with the Revised Project have been analyzed in terms of Guidelines As described in Appendix A () to this Addendum, neither the changes in the Revised Project, nor any changes in the circumstances under which the Revised Project would be undertaken, would result in any new significant environmental impacts not considered in the FEIR or cause a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts previously identified in the FEIR. See Guidelines 15162(a)(1) (2). In addition, there is no new information of substantial importance that suggests there would be any significant new or more severe impacts. See Guidelines 15162(a)(3)(A) (B). This analysis has not identified any mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible that would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but were rejected by the project sponsor; or mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the FEIR, that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the project sponsor declines to adopt. See Guidelines 15162(a)(3)(C) (D). Based on the analysis in this Addendum and the analysis presented in the (Appendix A) and supporting Technical Reports prepared to analyze the Revised Project, none of the circumstances that would require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR are present, and the City has therefore prepared an Addendum under Guidelines 15164(a). Addendum No. 1, along with the Plaza Banderas FEIR and the analysis included in this prepared to analyze the Revised Project, has been prepared for consideration by the City and its decision making body as the Lead Agency prior to taking any action to approve the Revised Project proposed by South Coast Investors II, LLC. The Addendum may also be used by other agencies serving as Responsible Agencies under CEQA that may consider the grant of permits or approvals for the Revised Project. The Revised Project s overall development is essentially equivalent to or less than what was evaluated in the Certified FEIR for the Original Project. The proposed modifications include the elimination of the retail/office building, a reduction in the floor area of the restaurant, and changes in the architectural character and treatment of the buildings. These modifications would not entail substantial changes to the Approved Plaza Banderas Project. Specifically: A) The proposed modifications would not require major revisions to the FEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. B) There have not been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Approved Project was undertaken which require major revisions of the previous FEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. C) There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous FEIR was certified. The environmental documentation, which is ultimately selected by the City of San Juan Capistrano in accordance with CEQA, is intended as an informational document undertaken to provide an environmental basis for subsequent discretionary actions upon the project. The resulting documentation is not, however, a policy document and its approval and/or certification neither presupposes nor mandates any actions on the part of those agencies from whom permits and other discretionary approvals would be required. July

33 The environmental documentation and supporting analysis is subject to a public review period. Because the proposed is considered to be a project "... of statewide, regional, or areawide significance" as prescribed in Section of the State CEQA Guidelines, the review period is determined to be 30 days. During this review, public agency comments on the document relative to environmental issues should be addressed to the City of San Juan Capistrano. Following review of any comments received, the City of San Juan Capistrano will consider these comments as a part of the project s environmental review and include them with the documentation for consideration by the City. 1.2 PURPOSE The purpose of this is to provide the City of San Juan Capistrano (i.e., the Lead Agency ) with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Addendum to the previously certified Plaza Banderas Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) pursuant to Section of the CEQA Guidelines or to prepare a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR pursuant to Section of the CEQA Guidelines. Section of the CEQA Guidelines identifies specific disclosure requirements for inclusion in an Initial Study. Pursuant to those requirements, an shall include: (1) a description of the project, including the location of the project; (2) an identification of the environmental setting; (3) an identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix or other method, provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries; (4) a discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any; (5) an examination of whether the project is consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls; and (6) the name of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the preparation of the. July

34 This page intentionally left blank July

35 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PROJECT LOCATION The Project is located on the site of the former Plaza Banderas Hotel project in the City of San Juan Capistrano in southern Orange County (refer to Exhibit 1). The project site is located within the historic downtown section of San Juan Capistrano. The subject property is composed of a single parcel that encompasses 3.62 acres at the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Ortega Highway within the San Juan Capistrano downtown area. El Horno Creek abuts the subject property along the easterly property boundary; the San Diego Freeway (I 5) is located east of El Horno Creek. The project site and environs are illustrated on Exhibit 2 (Vicinity Map). ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Existing Site Features Topographically, the project site varies from an elevation of approximately 122 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to about 114 feet amsl in the easterly limits of the site. On the southeast side, the property rises sharply from 114 amsl to about 130 feet amsl to the existing elevation of Ortega Highway. Construction of the I 5 Freeway resulted in this steep slope to accommodate the Ortega Highway freeway interchange. The site is vacant and is currently in a grading process. In addition, some underground utilities (i.e., water, gas telephone, etc.) exist within the property. The site formerly supported the Mission Inn Motel, an ARCO service station, and the Walnut Grove Restaurant. The Aerial Photograph (refer to Exhibit 3 3) illustrates the existing land uses as well as that in the areas surrounding the subject property. Surrounding Land Uses Mission San Juan Capistrano is located west of the subject property, across El Camino Real. San Juan Elementary School is located on Spring Street north of the site. As previously indicated, El Horno Creek and the San Diego Freeway abut the site on the east. General Plan and Zoning The property is currently designated General Commercial on the Land Use Element of the San Juan Capistrano General Plan. The General Commercial land use designation provides for a variety of retail, office, and service oriented business activities. The Mission San Juan Capistrano and San Juan Elementary School properties to the west and north, respectively, are designated Public & Institutional and Existing Public Schools. Properties south of Ortega Highway are also designated General Commercial by the Land Use Element. The site is zoned TC ( Town Center ); however, development of the project site is regulated by the Plaza Banderas Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP 10 01) and Development Agreement approved by the City of San Juan Capistrano in San Juan Elementary School and Mission San Juan Capistrano, located north and east of the subject property, are both zoned P&I (Public & Institutional). Properties located south of Ortega Highway are zoned TC, TCE ( Town Center Edge ), CP (Community Park ), and GC ( General Commercial ). July

36 This page left intentionally blank City of San Juan Capistrano July

37 Exhibit 1 Regional Location July

38 This page intentionally left blank July

39 Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map July

40 This page intentionally left blank July

41 2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND On October 5, 2010, the San Juan Capistrano City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), approved a General Plan Amendment and various discretionary applications, and introduced an ordinance for adoption of a Comprehensive Development Plan for the proposed Plaza Banderas Hotel project, a 124 room hotel project with a freestanding 5,747 gross square foot (GSF) restaurant building and 8,480 GSF free standing retail/office building with 6,509 GSF of commercial space and 1,971 GSF of office space. At that time, the City Council also granted a variance to the hotel parking standard to allow 0.8 parking spaces per guest room whereas the City's code requires 1.0 space per guest room. That variance reduced the amount of onsite parking required for the hotel by 25 parking spaces. On October 19, 2010, City Council approved the ordinance on second reading establishing the Plaza Banderas Hotel Comprehensive Development Plan consisting of the development plan concept, land use provisions, and development standards. On June 30, 2011, the City Council approved the first reading and introduced an ordinance approving and adopting a Development Agreement for the Plaza Banderas Hotel project. At their July 5, 2011 meeting, the City Council approved the second reading and approved the ordinance adopting the Development Agreement. The approval of the Plaza Banderas CDP and Development Agreement in 2011 reflected refinements to the Plaza Banderas project, also referred to herein as the Original Project. In addition to the 124 room hotel, the retail/office building was increased in size to 10,169 square feet of floor area (6,467 square feet of retail and 3,702 square feet of office), and a 6,095 square foot restaurant in place of the 5,747 square feet approved in PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Project Description South Coast Investors II, LLC is requesting City approval of an Architectural Control Modification (AC Modification) application to enable the upgrade of the previously approved 124 room 3 star service hotel project to a 124 room 4 star luxury boutique hotel. 1 The three story hotel includes 97,131 square feet, including a 5,711 square foot basement. The proposed project modifications are necessitated by market conditions and hotel classification requirements to upgrade to a 4 star hotel, which has larger room sizes. In addition to the hotel, the applicant is proposing restaurant that encompasses 4,834 square feet. The restaurant use is proposed to replace the retail/office use in the 2 story building. The Conceptual Site Plan is illustrated on Exhibit 3. The 1 story restaurant building approved in 2010 has been eliminated. A comparison of the project described in the FEIR, the 2010 approved Plaza Banderas Project and the Revised Project is summarized in Table With the construction of three other local select service properties, the market for this classification has changed since the project was approved in July

42 This page intentionally left blank July

43 Exhibit 3 Conceptual Site Plan July

44 This page intentionally left blank July

45 Table 2 1 Comparison of the Original Project and Revised Project Characteristics EIR Project Description (2010) Approved Plaza Banderas Project (2011) Proposed Revised Project Difference in Revised Project (Revised 2011) Site Area Project Site 3.1 Acres 3.1 Acres 3.18 Acres 0.08 Quit Claimed Right of Way per Development Agreement Acre 0.44 Acre Total Site Area 3.1 Acres 3.1 Acres 3.62 Acres 0.52 Total Site Square Feet 135, , ,687 22,651 Building Coverage (Square Feet) Total First Floor Footprint 44,981 47,907 42,561 5,346 Percent Site Coverage 33.3% 35.5% 27.0% 8.5% Floor Area Ratio Floor Area Hotel (Square Feet) Basement 0 0 5,711 5,711 First Floor 32,725 35,345 38,944 3,599 Second Floor 24,524 24,142 27,547 3,405 Third Floor 17,724 16,363 24,929 8,566 Total Hotel Floor Area 74,973 76,353 97,131 20,778 Number of Rooms Floor Area Retail and Office (Square Feet) First Floor 6,509 6, ,467 Second Floor 1,971 3, ,702 Total Retail/Office Floor Area 8,480 10, ,169 Restaurant Building (Square Feet) First Floor 5,747 6,095 3,617 2,478 Second Floor 0 0 1,217 1,217 Total Restaurant Floor Area 5,747 6,095 4,834 1,261 Total Building Floor Area (GSF) 89,200 92, ,965 9,348 Total Above Grade Floor Area (GSF) 89,200 92,617 96, The Plaza Banderas Project was processed under a stated acreage of 3.1 acres; however, the approved site plan, in conjunction with the approved Development Agreement, included the 0.44 are excess right of way, which has been deeded back to the property. SOURCE: City of San Juan Capistrano July

46 As indicated in Table 2 1, the proposed AC Modification would revise the Original Project as follows: A reduction in building site coverage from 47,907 gross square feet (GSF) to 42,261 GSF (reduction of 5,346 GSF, primarily by eliminating the previously approved retail/office building and utilizing subterranean spaces for back of house functions. Elimination of the retail/office building (10,169 GSF), which creates a view corridor between the Mission and the hotel. A reduction in the restaurant space from 6,095 GSF to 4,834 GSF, resulting in a reduction of 1,261 GSF. Increase in room size and conversion of eight rooms to suites as required to obtain a 4 star rating, but no increase in the number of hotel rooms. Parking master plan creates the opportunity for a total of 273 parking stalls through additional submittal, which includes 40 additional stalls created by the valet configuration and 27 tandem stalls. An addition of a plaza/gathering space along the El Camino Real frontage creating a stronger orientation to the Mission. An increased building setback from El Camino Real of 80 feet. An increase in landscaped space at the corner of El Camino Real and Ortega Highway. An overall reduction in development impacts by adding basement floor area and subterranean parking, which significantly reduce truck traffic required by the Original Project to raise the grade of the site. An enhanced hotel courtyard area that will serve as an entry statement into our historic downtown Parking As discussed in the Plaza Banderas FEIR, the City s Parking Code required 239 parking spaces for the Original Project (also referred to herein as the Approved Plaza Banderas Project). However, a parking study that was prepared for the Original Project and included in the FEIR concluded that the 185 parking spaces proposed for the Original Project would be adequate to accommodate the project. As a result, the Original Project was conditioned to provide 185 parking spaces and is included in the approved Plaza Banderas Comprehensive Development Plan. The Revised Project, which eliminated the retail/office building and has reduced the size of the restaurant, is proposing 176 parking spaces, including 109 surface parking spaces and 67 basement parking spaces for a total of 176 parking spaces. In addition, up to 97 parking spaces are also available in the immediate project area, including 14 on street parking spaces on the south side of Spring Street adjacent to the project site, 27 tandem parking stalls added in the basement, and 40 additional valet configured parking spaces. Based on the traffic analysis conducted for the Revised Project, the provision of 176 on site parking spaces, which when considered with the potential additional parking spaces that would be available in the project area, are adequate to accommodate the Revised Project. July

47 Project Phasing The proposed Architectural Control (AC) modification is considered a minor revision subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. The AC modification is not a major revision because no changes are being made to the conditions of approval, no expansion is proposed (instead uses have been eliminated and the project size has been reduced), no intensification of use is proposed (instead the use is less intense), and no structures are being relocated (instead structures are being removed or reduced). Following City approval of the AC modification, site development would generally consist of two distinct phases: (1) Precise Grading and site preparation and (2) building and construction. If the City approves the AC modifications by 2016, construction of the project could be completed as early as Project Objectives Implementation of the Revised Project will achieve the following intended specific objectives, which have been identified by the City of San Juan Capistrano and by the project applicant. will enhance downtown San Juan Capistrano and create an aesthetically welcoming gateway to the City s town center. has been designed to complement Mission San Juan Capistrano, not compete with it, by reflecting the historic character of the Mission and the City. will provide needed services to residents and visitors to San Juan Capistrano, including hotel and dining opportunities. is intended to serve as a landmark feature within the City that will be visible from the San Diego Freeway (I 5). will increase the City s tax base generating revenue for the City through increased bed and property taxes. has been designed to promote business activity in downtown San Juan Capistrano with additional pedestrian traffic generated by the hotel and restaurant uses. 2.4 DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS Project implementation will necessitate Planning Commission approval of the following discretionary actions: Architectural Control and a Grading Plan Modification. Architectural Control The review of the modified site plan and architectural design of the structures, site amenities and landscape. Grading Plan Modification The review of modified building pad elevations and new subterranean parking. July

48 This page intentionally left blank July

49 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY 3.1 BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Juan Capistrano Paseo Adelanto San Juan Capistrano, CA Contact Persons and Phone Numbers: Mr. David Contreras, Senior Planner (949) Project Location: The project site is located within the historic downtown section of San Juan Capistrano. The subject property encompasses 3.62 acres at the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Ortega Highway within the San Juan Capistrano downtown area. El Horno Creek abuts the subject property along the easterly property boundary; the San Diego Freeway (I 5) is located east of El Horno Creek. 5. Project Sponsor s Name and Address: Daniel Friess, Principal South Coast Investors II, LLC Camino Capistrano San Juan Capistrano, CA General Plan Designation: General Commercial (GC). Per the 2011 Development Agreement, the project site is subject to the use regulations and standards of Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) 10 01, Plaza Banderas Hotel & Mixed Use Development. 7. Zoning: Town Center (TC). Per the 2011 Development Agreement, the project site is subject to the use regulations and standards of CDP 10 01, Plaza Banderas Hotel & Mixed Use Development. 8. Description of the Project: South Coast Investors II, LLC is requesting City approval of an Architectural Control (AC) modification application to enable the upgrade of the previously approved 124 room 3 star service hotel project to a three story, 124 room 4 star luxury boutique hotel. The three story hotel includes 97,131 square feet, including a 5,711 square foot basement. The proposed project modifications are necessitated by market conditions and hotel classification requirements to upgrade to a 4 star hotel, which has larger room sizes. In addition to the hotel, the applicant is proposing restaurant that encompasses 4,834 square feet. 9. Surrounding Setting and Land Uses: Mission San Juan Capistrano is located west of the subject property, across El Camino Real. San Juan Elementary School is located on Spring Street north of the site. As previously indicated, El Horno Creek and the San Diego Freeway abut the site on the east. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): July

50 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects, Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions, or Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forest Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance 3.3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Section 4 (following) analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Inn at the Mission San Juan Capistrano Project. The issue areas evaluated in this include: Aesthetics Land Use and Planning Agriculture and Forest Resources Mineral Resources Air Quality Noise Biological Resources Population and Housing Cultural Resources Public Services Greenhouse Gas Emissions Recreation Geology and Soils Transportation/Traffic Hazards and Hazardous Materials Utilities and Service Systems Hydrology and Water Quality The environmental analysis in Section 4 is patterned after the Checklist recommended by the CEQA Guidelines, as amended, and used by the City of San Juan Capistrano in its environmental review process. For the preliminary environmental assessment undertaken as part of this s preparation, a determination that there is a potential for significant effects indicates the need to more fully analyze the development s impacts and to identify mitigation. For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Checklist are stated and an answer is provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the. The analysis considers the long term, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the development in the context of information and impacts disclosed in the FEIR. To each question, there are five possible responses: No Impact. Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. July

51 New Information Showing New or Increased Significant Effects. Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions. Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions. July

52 This page intentionally left blank July

53 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The following is a discussion of potential project impacts as identified in the. Explanations are provided for each item. 4.1 AESTHETICS FEIR Analysis of Original Project In the vicinity of the subject property, Ortega Highway, Del Obispo Street, and Camino Capistrano are designated as scenic corridors as well as the I 5 Freeway. In addition, the City lists Spring Street (from El Camino Real to its easterly terminus at the I 5 Freeway) and El Camino Real on its Inventory of Historic and Cultural Landmarks (IHCL); they are designated as City Historic Streets. A single family residence is located at the southeastern corner of El Camino Real and Spring Street (Stroschein House). This residence, which was constructed in 1927, is listed on the IHCL and was also listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in Therefore, several visual simulations were constructed from the view locations identified below to determine if potentially significant visual/aesthetic impacts would occur. View No. 1: El Camino Real across from San Juan Elementary School View No. 2: El Camino Real across from the Playhouse View No. 3: Camino Capistrano and Ortega Highway in front of Pedro s Tacos View No. 4: Inside the Mission San Juan Capistrano grounds View No. 5a: Ortega Highway/I 5 Northbound Freeway On Ramp View No. 5b: Ortega Highway/I 5 Northbound Freeway On Ramp View No. 6: Del Obispo Street from the Chevron Service Station Based on the visual simulations, the analysis concluded that although the structures proposed in the Original Project would clearly dominate the foreground views from the locations, potential visual impacts were determined to be less than significant because the architectural character and landscaping were determined to be compatible with the historic downtown area, including the historic structures in the project area. View from the scenic designated corridors (i.e., Ortega Highway, Del Obispo Street, Camino Capistrano, and the I 5 Freeway), would not be adversely affected by the development of the site as proposed in the Original Project, which was designed to reinforce and enhance the City s downtown character by complementing the scale, proportion, and character of the existing development. The structures reflected a high quality architectural and landscape design that complied with the Architectural Design Guidelines and the San Juan Capistrano Community Design Element. The Original Project was scaled to the historic San Juan Capistrano downtown center and Mission and incorporated design elements (e.g., materials, colors, landscaping, etc.) that were intended to complement the historic elements within the downtown, including the Mission and nearby development. The consistency analysis included in the FEIR determined that the Original Project did not conflict with the design guidelines. As a result, no significant long term visual impacts were identified. Nonetheless, the Plaza Banderas FEIR determined that short term (i.e., construction related) visual impacts would occur as a result of the site preparation and grading that would be necessary to implement the Original Project. The FEIR concluded that while these activities may be unsightly, they are not considered significant impacts because they are temporary in nature and would cease upon completion of the proposed construction program. A mitigation measure was included that required staging areas to be located away from areas most visible to the surrounding development, if feasible. Moreover, once completed, the character of the site and general area will return to normal (i.e., characterized by urban development). In addition, several measures, such as a screen fence six feet high at the property line, could be installed to minimize the potential adverse effects of construction. Appropriate measures have been identified to ensure that such adverse effects would be minimized. July

54 Operational light and glare impacts resulting from implementation of the Original Project are those associated with the introduction of external light sources in the proposed hotel, restaurant, retail/office, parking areas, along streets, around buildings, and for signage and security purposes. These sources would add to the overall light and glare on the project site which, if not properly shielded, could affect nearby properties. However, the CDP includes lighting standards to ensure that potential light and glare is minimized within the area to balance the goals of maintaining the small village, rural atmosphere and providing for the safe movement of vehicles and people in all districts. The lighting proposed for the project is intended to complement the architectural style of the buildings and retain a pedestrian scale while providing illumination of building facades and entrances and to enhance the desired atmosphere of the downtown area. As a result, potential lighting impacts were determined to be less than significant. The FEIR identified the following potentially significant impact that could result from implementation of the Original Project: Impact: Construction staging areas, storage of equipment and supplies, and related activities occurring on the site during construction will contribute to a generally disturbed condition, which may be perceived as a potential visual impact. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increase Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact Analysis of Revised Project 4.1(a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The City s Community Design Element of the General Plan addresses the effect of future development on designated scenic corridors within the City. This Element identifies major travelways, including both vehicular and rail, as... providing the public with a visual image of the quality of life envisioned by the community. As indicated in the Community Design Element, scenic corridors include designated arterials contained in the Circulation Element and the railroad corridor that passes through the City. In the vicinity of the subject property, Ortega Highway, Del Obispo Street, and Camino Capistrano are designated as scenic corridors. In addition, the I 5 Freeway would also be considered by the City as a scenic corridor. The site has been substantially altered by past development, which has been demolished. In addition, the citrus trees and other non native trees and landscaping have been removed from the site, which is virtually devoid of any landscaping. The 3.62 acre property is not July

55 designated as an important visual amenity and does not possess any important aesthetic features. It is anticipated that potential visual impacts may occur as a result of both construction (i.e., short term) and as a result of the development of the site (i.e., long term). These potential effects are identified and described below. Short Term (Construction) Impacts As identified and described for the Original Project, implementation of the Revised Project will result in similar site preparation (e.g., grading and site preparation) and construction activities that could have some short term effects, which would temporarily change the character of the area. However, it is important to note that these potential effects are similar to those identified for the Original Project, which are typical of similar development sites in the City that undergo development and redevelopment. The effects of grading include exposing a portion of the site to landform alteration associated with the use of heavy construction equipment and related activities. Construction staging areas, including earth stockpiling, storage of equipment and supplies, and related activities will contribute to a generally disturbed condition, which may be perceived as a potential visual impact. While these activities may be unsightly during the site preparation and construction phases, they are not considered significant impacts because they are temporary in nature and will cease upon completion of the proposed construction program. Nonetheless, the FEIR included a measure to locate staging areas away from areas most visible to the surrounding development, if feasible. In addition, the FEIR included several measures, such as a screen fence six feet high at the property line, which can be installed to minimize the potential adverse effects of construction. Appropriate measures identified in the FEIR are being carried forward to the Revised Project to ensure that such adverse effects would be minimized. Once completed, the character of the site and general area will return to normal (i.e., characterized by urban development). Long Term (Post Development Impacts) Three visual simulations were prepared from scenic corridors and from public vantage points to evaluate the potential visual and aesthetic impacts anticipated to result from the implementation of the Revised Project. The vantage points were selected because they represent locations from which important public views to the site exist, including view corridors along arterial roadways (i.e., designated scenic corridors) and locations having public access. The selected view simulations provide a representative overview of the potential view impacts that can be anticipated as a result of project implementation. Table 1 1 identifies and describes the locations from which the photographs were taken and visual simulations created. Table 1 1 Key View Points for Visual Simulations View Location 1 View Location View Orientation A El Camino Real across from San Juan Elementary School Southeastern View B El Camino at Cedar Creek Restaurant Northern View C Ortega Highway at the Surplus Parcel North/Northwestern View 1 View locations A and B are the same locations from which visual simulations were prepared for the Original Plaza Banderas Project. View location C is a new location resulting from the I 5/Ortega Interchange improvements. Refer to Exhibit 1 1 (View Simulation Key Map). Refer to Exhibit 1 1 (View Locations) July

56 View A View A is looking toward the site in a southeasterly direction. The Existing View shows the north side of the hotel (i.e., rear) when viewed from El Camino Real west of San Juan Elementary School north of Spring Street. The site is located on the south side of Spring Street. The view of the site is dominated by a sound wall; the site cannot be seen from this vantage point because it is below the existing grade and behind the sound wall. In addition, the Stroschein House and landscaping surrounding that structure are also dominant features in the foreground at the southeastern corner of El Camino Real and Spring Street. In the existing view, the distant eastern hillsides within San Juan Capistrano can also be seen in the background. The visual simulation illustrates the post development character of the site. As shown in Exhibit 1 2, the character of the northern portion of the site will be changed significantly when viewed from this location; however, the postdevelopment view from View A for the project is similar to the postdevelopment Plaza Banderas project. Upon completion of the project, only the northern/rear façade of the Inn at the Mission can be seen. This view is dominated by a large hotel structure that extends across the site in an east/west direction. The proposed restaurant structure cannot be seen from View A at El Camino Real. Although the distant hills that are currently visible from this vantage will be blocked by the proposed hotel, it is important to note that El Camino Real is not designated as a scenic corridor and the eastern hills were also blocked by the Original Project. As is evident in the visual simulation, the character of the site will be transformed into one that is now developed. The architectural character of the proposed is compatible with the character of the existing development that exists along El Camino Real as well as the San Juan Elementary School. The architectural character of the proposed hotel as well as the building materials, textures, and landscaping integrated into the project design are consistent with the character articulated in the Plaza Banderas Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP). As reflected in the CDP, the design of the Revised Project draws its inspiration from the historic heritage of San Juan Capistrano and architectural styles reminiscent of Early California Historic architecture from the Mission period. The main hotel structure is intended to blend with its surroundings and reflect an architectural character that is consistent and compatible with the nearby Mission San Juan Capistrano. The wall colors are intended to be similar to the exposed adobe walls of the Mission structures. The landscaping proposed along Spring Street and El Camino Real provides a visual buffer to soften the view of the proposed structure. As concluded for the Original Project, no important visual amenity or significant aesthetic feature, including Mission San Juan Capistrano, or view would be significantly impacted by the Revised Project. No mitigation measures are required. View B View B (refer to Exhibit 1 3) was taken from the west side of El Camino Real north of Ortega Highway in the vicinity of the Playhouse. The foreground view includes the intersection of El Camino Real and Ortega Highway. The traffic signals at the intersection as well as trees along the southern side of Ortega Highway are in the foreground. As previously indicated for View A, the Existing View shows a sound wall that has been erected around the portions of the project site, including the western property boundary along El Camino Real, which is highly visible from the View B vantage. In addition, a screening fence has also been erected along the southern property boundary and is also highly noticeable from View B. The background view from View B includes very narrow windows of some distant hills within the City. However, similar to View No. A, the site does not represent an important visual amenity. Distant views (i.e., beyond the subject property) reflect development and landscaping to the north; no important ridgelines or significant visual amenities are evident from this location. July

57 City of San Juan Capistrano Inn at the Mission San Juan Capistrano Initial Study Exhibit 1 1 View Simulation Key Map July Initial Study

58 This page intentionally left blank July

59 Exhibit 1 2 View A Visual Simulation July

60 This page intentionally left blank July

61 Exhibit 1 3 View B Visual Simulation July

62 This page intentionally left blank July

63 The visual simulation illustrates the character of the proposed project from El Camino Avenue and Ortega Highway. The proposed restaurant along the Ortega Highway frontage dominates the view from this vantage. The characteristic tile roof and wood shutters complement the existing development in the historic downtown area. As can be seen, the westernmost section of the hotel structure is most evident along the western portion of the site east of El Camino Real north of Ortega Highway. The copper dome of the western wing of the hotel is the dominant feature of that structure. As can be seen, the existing trees will be replaced with the proposed development and additional landscaping that serves to screen and soften the scale of development. The Conceptual Landscape Plan is illustrated in Exhibit 1 4. Implementation of the Revised Project will transform the site to one that is developed with structures that reflect the Early California Historic architectural style (i.e., Mission Period). The character of the proposed structures is intended to complement the character of the existing development in the downtown area, including Mission San Juan Capistrano located to the west. While the proposed development will dramatically change the visual character of the site, it would be similar in scale and intensity of development to the post development view for the Original Project. As with the Original Project, the Revised Project will complement and be compatible with the existing character of the Mission San Juan Capistrano and the downtown area. No significant visual impacts will occur to important or designated visual resources and/or aesthetic amenities because the site has been designed in accordance with the Plaza Banderas CDP. View C View C (refer to Exhibit 1 5) illustrates the proposed Revised Project development when viewed from the area south of Ortega Highway in the vicinity of the surplus parcel associated with the I 5/Ortega Highway interchange improvements (i.e., south of the project site). As illustrated in View C, the proposed hotel will be the dominant feature when viewed from this location. The most identifiable features include the circular elements of the hotel at the eastern end, the dome near the western end and the porte cochere located near the center of the hotel at the Ortega Highway entrance. The restaurant structure can be seen near the westerly limits of the property near El Camino Real. With the improvements that occurred as part of the Caltrans I 5/Ortega Highway interchange project, the removal of the commercial structures resulted in the creation of a remnant parcel that exists south of the project site. Although there are no improvement plans for this parcel, it is shown in the foreground as a landscaped parcel in Exhibit 1 5. The Early California Mission Period architecture, which is complemented by the landscape elements that include California friendly plants are consistent and compatible with the existing development in the historic downtown area as envisioned by both the Plaza Banderas CDP and the Historic Downtown Master Plan adopted by the City of San Juan Capistrano. As a result, project implementation would not result in any potential significant visual or aesthetic impacts; no mitigation measures are required. 4.1(b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. As indicated in the preceding analysis of visual impacts, the site does not support any important visual or aesthetic amenities such as trees or rock outcroppings. The FEIR concluded that potential impacts to trees and rock outcroppings were less than significant. As a result, implementation of the Revised Project would not result in any potential adverse affects to either. However, two historical resources are located adjacent to the subject property, including the Stroschein House located at the northeast corner of the project site (31682 El Camino Real), which was constructed in In addition, the Mission San Juan Capistrano Complex is listed as the first landmark on the City s Inventory of Historic and Cultural Landmarks (IHCL). The Mission property is located immediate west of the site adjacent to El Camino Real. The architectural character of the proposed hotel and restaurant will reflect the Early California Historic Mission Period and will be compatible with the two historic resources through both architectural design and landscape treatment. Potentially significant impacts to these historic resources will be less than significant as previously identified for Original Project. No mitigation measures are required. 2The Stroschein House is listed as a City Historic Landmark (No. P30) on the IHCL and was also listed in the NRHP in July

64 This page intentionally left blank July

65 Exhibit 1 4 Conceptual Landscape Plan July

66 This page intentionally left blank July

67 Exhibit 1 5 View C Visual Simulation July

68 4.1(c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. As discussed in Section 4.1(a) and illustrated in the visual simulations, project implementation includes development of the subject property in accordance with the adopted Plaza Banderas CDP. The project proposes only minor modifications to the Approved Plaza Banderas project, including a reduction in density and the elimination of the retail/office structure. As described in the Plaza Banderas FEIR, that project was consistent with the long range goals and objectives identified in the Conservation/Open Space Element, Urban Design, and Circulation Elements of the City s General Plan (refer to Section IX Land Use and Planning). Similarly, the proposed project is also consistent with the relevant goals and objectives. In addition, the design of the project is consistent and compatible with the existing development in the historic downtown area and, in particular, with the Mission San Juan Capistrano. Although a change in the aesthetic character of the site and area will occur, neither the site design nor architectural character will compromise the aesthetic character of the area or significantly impact view from view locations within the City. As a result, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. 4.1(d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Community Design Element addresses exterior lighting. As suggested in that element, exterior lighting levels should be the minimum necessary to protect the public safety. Specifically, lighting in the community must be designed to achieve the following criteria: Within residential neighborhoods in hillside areas, street lights should be minimized and located at street intersections, curves in streets and at the end of cul de sacs. Within non residential areas, both pedestrian and parking lot lighting should be set at minimum levels recommended by the illuminating Engineering Society for public safety. Recreation lighting should require special studies and analysis to minimize light intrusion into adjacent neighborhoods. Operational light and glare impacts resulting from project implementation are virtually the same as those identified in the FEIR for the Original Project. Potential lighting impacts are associated with the introduction of external light sources in the proposed hotel and restaurant, parking areas, along streets, around buildings, and for signage and security purposes. These sources would add to the overall light and glare on the project site which, if not properly shielded, could affect nearby properties. CDP includes lighting standards to ensure that potential light and glare is minimized within the area to balance the goals of maintaining the small village, rural atmosphere and providing for the safe movement of vehicles and people in all districts. The lighting proposed for the project is intended to complement the architectural style of the buildings and retain a pedestrian scale while providing illumination of building facades and entrances and to enhance the desired atmosphere of the downtown area. To achieve those goals, the CDP includes the following requirements. Parking areas shall have lighting capable of providing adequate illumination for security and safety. Lighting standards shall be energy efficient and in scale with the height and use of the onsite structures. All illumination, including security lighting, shall be directed downward, away from adjacent properties and public rights of way preventing spillover onto adjoining properties, streets, or skyward. Lighting systems should be designed for normal levels during operating hours and reduced intensity levels throughout late, non operational hours (for security purposes). July

69 Any new street lighting shall match the existing fixtures. Although parking lot lighting and related exterior lighting will provide for maximum permitted illumination within the Revised Project areas for streets, parking areas and walkways, buildings, signage, etc., it must comply with Section of the City s Municipal Code. To that end, project lighting must be designed to meet the objectives in the Community Design Element, including the preparation of a photometric plan to be prepared and submitted to the City, which demonstrates that illumination does not create off site light and glare. As a result, the introduction of exterior lighting would comply with the City s lighting requirements and would not result in potentially significant adverse impacts; no mitigation measures are required. Standard Conditions SC 1 1 SC 1 2 SC 1 3 SC 1 4 The proposed project shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Committee (DRC) and Planning Commission, who shall determine compliance with the goals, policies and standards of the San Juan Capistrano Architectural Design Guidelines and the project s draft Comprehensive Development Plan that promote high quality urban design and aesthetic resource preservation through the City s design review process. All street, signage, landscape, and parking lot lighting sources shall be shielded and oriented, or provided with baffled luminaires so as to prevent lighting overspill into adjacent or nearby properties in compliance with the Title 9, Land Use Code, Section , Lighting Standards. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building/structure, the project developer shall submit, lighting & photometric plan(s) for all exterior lighting, which shall be subject to City review and approval to assure that compliance with the City s lighting standards per Section for permitted illumination within the parking areas and walkways as well as demonstrate that illumination does not create off site light and glare, to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director or their designee, or who may refer such plans to the Design Review Committee (DRC) for review determination. Site lighting shall not result in excessive illumination based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) of North America. Mitigation Measures In order to ensure that impacts to aesthetics are reduced to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measure that was required for the Original Project will be carried forward for the Revised Project and shall be implemented by the project applicant. MM 1 1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant/contractor shall prepare a Construction Staging Plan that identifies the location(s) of staging areas, including equipment and vehicle storage areas, stockpile areas, etc. These areas shall be located as far away from the existing view corridors as practical. In addition, the Construction Staging Plan shall also identify the manner in which the staging and equipment storage would be screened (e.g., temporary fencing, landscaping, berms, or a combination of these and other methods) subject to the approval of the Public Works Director, to ensure that the temporary visual impacts would be minimized within the viewshed. Conclusion The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant new adverse effects on aesthetics not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project, and would not cause any significant visual impacts previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. July

70 4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non forest use? Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increase Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact FEIR Analysis of Original Project The FEIR concluded that implementation of the Original Project would not result in the conversion of any prime or otherwise significant farmland. Although the subject property was used historically for agriculture, primarily livestock ranching, it is currently vacant. According to the Orange County Important Farmland Map, the entire July

71 area, including the subject property, is designated as Urban and Built Up Land, which encompasses land occupied by structures with a building density of at least one dwelling unit to one and one half acres. Development of the site as proposed will not result in any significant impacts to farmland or other agricultural resources. The subject property is not zoned for agricultural uses nor included in a Williamson Act contract. Approval of the Original Project would not result in conflicts potential impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated to occur to existing agricultural uses as a result of project implementation. Potential impacts to forestry resources were not included in the environmental checklist at the time the FEIR was prepared; thus, the FEIR did not analyze forestry resources. Analysis of Revised Project 4.2(a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non agricultural use? No Impact. The site is not currently used for agriculture. Furthermore, neither the City of San Juan Capistrano nor the State of California has designated the site or the surrounding the project site as agricultural and no agricultural uses existing within the surrounding area. As indicated in the FEIR for the Original Project, the project area, including the subject site, is designated as Urban and Built Up Land. Therefore, like the Original Project, the Revised Project would not result in the conversion of either existing or potential farmland to a nonagricultural use. No impacts to agricultural resources will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. 4.2(b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The project site is zoned TC (Town Center) (Regulated by CDP 10 01) and is designated as General Commercial on the City s Land Use Element Map. The site is zoned Planned Community (PC). The zone and land use designations were adopted in 2010 with the approval of the Plaza Banderas Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP). As indicated above, no agriculturally zoned land exists on the site or in the immediate vicinity of the project and there are no existing Williamson Act Contracts covering property or in the project area. Since there are no agricultural uses or Williamson Act contracts affecting the project site, neither the Original Project nor the Revised Project implementation would result in any significant impacts (i.e., conflicts with existing zoning or Williamson Act contract) to potential agricultural uses. 4.2(c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. There is no zoning for forest land in the City of San Juan Capistrano and no areas within the City are classified as forest or timberland as defined by PRC section 4526, including the subject property and surrounding area. Therefore, like the Original Project, implementation of the Revised Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, any forest or timberland. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. 4.2(d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non forest use? No Impact. As indicated above, there are no forest lands present either on the subject property or in the City. Therefore, project implementation would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non forest use. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. July

72 4.2(e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non forest use? No Impact. No important farmland, agricultural activity, or forest and/or timberlands exist on the project site or in the surrounding area. Therefore, implementation of the Revised Project would not result in environmental changes that would convert farmland to non agricultural uses or forest land to non forest uses. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Standard Conditions No standard conditions are required. Mitigation Measures No significant impacts to either agricultural or forest resources will occur as a result of project implementation; no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant new adverse effects on agriculture and forestry resources not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project, and would not cause any significant impacts to agriculture/forestry resources previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. 4.3 AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increase Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact July

73 FEIR Analysis of Original Project Construction activities associated with the Original Project would temporarily increase localized air pollutant concentrations in the project vicinity and regional emissions within the SoCAB. Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as onsite heavy duty construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions from construction activities onsite would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The primary source of construction related CO, SO X, VOC, and NO X emissions is gasoline and diesel powered, heavy duty mobile construction equipment. Other sources of air pollutant emissions during construction activities include fugitive dust (PM 10 and PM 2.5 ) and off gas emissions (VOCs) from application of architectural coatings and asphalt. Primary sources of PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions would be clearing, excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic on unpaved ground, and wind blowing over exposed earth surfaces. With the exception of VOC emissions, construction emissions resulting from grading, site preparation and construction activities were below the regional or localized significant thresholds established by the SCAQMD and were determined to be less than significant. Construction related VOC emissions did exceed the SCAQMD threshold, which required the implementation of mitigation (e.g., low emitting VOC paints and other compounds). As a result, VOC emissions were reduced to a less than significant level. Long term, operational air pollutant emissions generated by the Original Project were estimated based on trips to and from the project site and area sources emissions from natural gas used for cooking and heating. According to the traffic study, the project would generate 1,586 average daily trips (ADT), with 83 trips in the morning peak hour and 101 trips in the evening peak hour. As determined in the air quality analysis, emissions generated during operation of the project would not exceed any of the SCAQMD s regional significance thresholds. Furthermore, the CO hotspot analysis also concluded that implementation of the Original Project would not result in any significant stationary source impacts. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Although the Original Project required a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from General Commercial (GC) to Planned Community (PC), the project remained commercial/retail and would not substantial alter how SCAG calculates employment and populations projections. Furthermore, because the Original Project is not regionally significant, changes in the population, housing, or employment growth projections do not have the potential to substantially affect SCAG s demographic projections and, therefore, the assumptions in SCAQMD s AQMP. In addition, the project would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds with the implementation of mitigation measures. As a result, the Original Project would not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP and would not conflict with the adopted AQMP. The FEIR identified the following potentially significant impacts to air quality that could result from implementation of the Original Project: Impact Project implementation will result in construction emissions that exceed SCAQMD regional construction significance thresholds for VOC. Analysis of Revised Project 4.3(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact/Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Federal Clean Air Act (1977 Amendments) required that designated agencies in any area of the nation not meeting national clean air standards must prepare a plan demonstrating the steps that would bring the area into compliance with all national standards. The SCAB could not meet the deadlines for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, or PM 10. In the SCAB, the agencies designated by the governor to develop regional air quality plans are the SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The July

74 two agencies first adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in 1979 and revised it several times as earlier attainment forecasts were shown to be overly optimistic. The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) required that all states with air sheds with serious or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Amendments to the SIP have been proposed, revised and approved over the past decade. The most current regional attainment emissions forecast for ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and for carbon monoxide (CO) and for particulate matter are shown in Table 3 1. Substantial reductions in emissions of ROG, NOx and CO are forecast to continue throughout the next several decades. Unless new particulate control programs are implemented, PM 10 and PM 2.5 are forecast to slightly increase. Table 3 1 South Coast Air Basin Emissions Forecasts 1 Pollutant NOx VOC PM PM Emissions in Tons/Day Base Year 3 With current emissions reduction programs and adopted growth forecasts. SOURE: Giroux & Associates (June 2016) The Air Quality Management District (AQMD) adopted an updated clean air blueprint in August The 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was approved by the EPA in The AQMP outlined the air pollution measures needed to meet federal health based standards for ozone by 2010 and for particulates (PM 10 ) by The 2003 AQMP was based upon the federal one hour ozone standard which was revoked late in 2005 and replaced by an 8 hour federal standard. Because of the revocation of the hourly standard, a new air quality planning cycle was initiated. With re designation of the air basin as non attainment for the 8 hour ozone standard, a new attainment plan was developed. This plan shifted most of the one hour ozone standard attainment strategies to the 8 hour standard. As previously noted, the attainment date was to slip from 2010 to The updated attainment plan also includes strategies for ultimately meeting the federal PM 2.5 standard. Because projected attainment by 2021 requires control technologies that do not exist yet, the SCAQMD requested a voluntary bump up from a severe non attainment area to an extreme non attainment designation for ozone. The extreme designation will allow a longer time period for these technologies to develop. If attainment cannot be demonstrated within the specified deadline without relying on black box measures, EPA would have been required to impose sanctions on the region had the bump up request not been approved. In April 2010, the EPA approved the change in the non attainment designation from severe 17 to extreme. This reclassification sets a later attainment deadline (2024), but also requires the air basin to adopt even more stringent emissions controls. In other air quality attainment plan reviews, EPA has disapproved part of the SCAB PM 2.5 attainment plan included in the AQMP. EPA has stated that the current attainment plan relies on PM 2.5 control regulations that have not yet been approved or implemented. It is expected that a number of rules that are pending approval will remove the identified deficiencies. If these issues are not resolved within the next several years, federal July

75 funding sanctions for transportation projects could result. The 2012 AQMP included in the ARB submittal to EPA as part of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) is expected to remedy identified PM 2.5 planning deficiencies. The federal Clean Air Act requires that non attainment air basins have EPA approved attainment plans in place. This requirement includes the federal one hour ozone standard even though that standard was revoked almost ten years ago. There was no approved attainment plan for the one hour federal standard at the time of revocation. Through a legal quirk, the SCAQMD is now required to develop an AQMP for the long since revoked one hour federal ozone standard. Because the 2012 AQMP contains a number of control measures for the 8 hour ozone standard that are equally effective for one hour levels, the 2012 AQMP is believed to satisfy hourly attainment planning requirements. AQMPs are required to be updated every three years. The 2012 AQMP was adopted in early An updated AQMP must therefore be adopted in Planning for the 2016 AQMP is currently on going. The current attainment deadlines for all federal non attainment pollutants are: 8 hour ozone (70 ppb) 2032 Annual PM 2.5 (12 g/m 3 ) hour ozone (75 ppb) 2024 (old standard) 1 hour ozone (120 ppb) 2023 (rescinded standard) 24 hour PM 2.5 (35 g/m 3 ) 2019 The key challenge is that NOx emission levels, as a critical ozone precursor pollutant, are forecast to continue to exceed the levels that would allow the above deadlines to be met. Unless additional NOx control measures are adopted and implemented, attainment goals may not be met. The regional emissions inventory for the SoCAB is compiled by SCAQMD and SCAG. Regional population, housing, and employment projections developed by SCAG, are based, in part, on the City s General Plan land use designations. These projections form the foundation for the emissions inventory of the AQMP. These demographic trends are incorporated into the regional transportation plan compiled by SCAG, to determine priority transportation projects and determine vehicle miles traveled) VMT within the SCAG region. Like the Original Project, the Revised Project proposes the construction of 124 hotel rooms, which is substantially less than the 500 hotel rooms or more threshold and, therefore, would not be considered regionally significant by SCAG under this criterion. Furthermore, while the Original Project required a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from General Commercial (GC) to Planned Community (PC), it would remain commercial/retail and would not substantially alter how SCAG would calculate employment and populations projections. Furthermore, because the Revised Project is not regionally significant, changes in the population, housing, or employment growth projections do not have the potential to substantially affect SCAG s demographic projections and therefore the assumptions in SCAQMD s AQMP. Therefore, neither the Original Project nor the Revised Project would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds with the implementation of mitigation measures and, furthermore, would not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP and would not conflict with the AQMP. 4.3(b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less than Significant Impact/Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Revised Project is consistent with the land use designation prescribed by the General Plan as well as the C 2 Highway Commercial zoning classification and the Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay. The project is generally consistent with all of the policies and requirements established in Land Use Element of the San Juan Capistrano General Plan and the Historic Town Master Plan. Intensification of land uses in Orange County potentially impacts ambient air quality on two scales of motion. As cars drive throughout Southern California, the small incremental contribution to the basin air pollution burden from any single vehicle is added to that from several million other vehicles. The impact associated with the Revised Project is very small on a regional scale as indicated in the following discussion of long term (i.e., operational) impacts. Furthermore, July

76 because the project proposes a smaller restaurant and also eliminates the retail/office floor area, the pollutant emissions generated by the Revised Project are less than the emissions estimated for the Original Project, which was evaluated in the FEIR. Potential project related short term (construction) and long term (operation) emissions are summarized below. Construction Impacts Project implementation will necessitate demolition, site preparation and construction activities that will result in short term air pollutant emissions generated by on and off site equipment during the initial phase (i.e., construction). Table 3 2 summarizes the anticipated project related construction phase air pollutant emissions. As indicated in the table, construction related emissions would not exceed any of the SCAQMD significance thresholds and would also be less than the construction related emissions estimated in the FEIR for the Original Project. Therefore, project related construction emissions would be less than significant. Table 3 2 Construction Activity Emissions 2017 Maximal Construction Emissions Construction Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NOx CO SOx PM 10 PM Unmitigated Mitigated Unmitigated Mitigated SCAQMD Threshold Significant Impact (Yes/No) No No No No No No SOURCE: Giroux & Associates CalEEMod Mitigated peak daily construction activity emissions are estimated to be below SCAQMD CEQA thresholds with mitigation. The only model based mitigation measure (FEIR SC 3 2) applied was watering exposed dirt surfaces three times per day to minimize the fugitive dust generation during grading activities. All of the standard conditions and mitigation measures to minimize air pollutant emissions will be carried forward and included in the Revised Project. Construction equipment exhaust contains carcinogenic compounds within the diesel exhaust particulates. The toxicity of diesel exhaust is evaluated relative to a 24 hour per day, 365 days per year, 70 year lifetime exposure. The SCAQMD does not generally require the analysis of construction related diesel emissions relative to health risk due to the short period for which the majority of diesel exhaust would occur. Health risk analyses are typically assessed over a 9, 30, or 70 year timeframe and not over a relatively brief one year construction period due to the lack of health risk associated with such a brief exposure. Thus, a Health Risk Assessment was not conducted for the Revised Project. Operational Impacts The greatest project related air quality concern derives from the new vehicle trips that will be generated by the Revised during operation. As indicated above, at project build out, the Revised Project would generate July

77 1,336 maximum daily trips. 3 Operational emissions for project related traffic were calculated using CalEEMod for an assumed project build out year of 2018 as a target for full occupancy. Table 3 3 summarizes the operational emissions associated with the Revised Project. Implementation of the Revised Project will result in a reduction in pollutant emissions when compared to the Original Project due to the elimination of the retail/office floor area and the resulting trips generated by that land use. (Operational emissions for the Original Project ranged from 5 pounds/day for PM2.5 to 125 pounds/day for CO.) As a result, the SCAQMD s recommended threshold levels would not be exceeded. Operational emissions will be less than significant; no mitigation measures are required. Table 3 3 Daily Operational Pollutant Emissions Source Operational Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NOx CO SOx PM 10 PM 2.5 Proposed Area Sources Energy Sources Mobile Sources Total SCAQMD Threshold Significant Impact (Yes/No) No No No No No No SOURCE: Giroux & Associates (June 2016) CalEEMod As indicated in Table 3 3, the Revised Project would not cause any operational emissions to exceed their respective SCAQMD CEQA significance threshold. Project related operational emissions are, therefore, less than significant. As indicated for the Original Project, potential air quality impacts would be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures. With the anticipated reduction of pollutant emissions, the potential project related impacts would also be less than significant. No additional mitigation measures are necessary. 4.3(c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than Significant Impact/Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. As indicated above, implementation of the Revised Project would result in a reduction in the number of vehicular trips when compared to the Original Project and, as a result, a reduction in the amount of pollutants emitted into the air basin associated with long term. Long term project related pollutant emissions would not exceed any of the SCAQMD significance thresholds. The SCAQMD is currently designated a non attainment area for ozone and PM 10 and PM 2.5 ; however, the Revised Project will not contribute to the regional degradation of the air basin due to the small incremental long term emissions generated by the project and because the emissions do not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. As stipulated for the Original Project in the FEIR the Revised Project will comply with the applicable SCAQMD rules during construction to ensure that incremental impacts are minimized. As a result, potential impacts will be less than significant. 3The maximum number of daily trips is estimated for Saturday. It is estimated that the project would generate 1,318 weekday trips. As a result, the air quality analysis is based on the weekend maximum daily trip generate, which occurs on Saturday. July

78 4.3(d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact/Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site are the students and teachers attending school at San Juan Elementary School located adjacent to site north of Spring Street. Pollutants resulting from project implementation will occur during the construction phase and following completion and occupancy/use of the Revised Project. The emissions are mostly dust and particulate matter generated during the construction phase that are dispersed in the area of operations. Such emissions will be controlled through the implementation of standard conditions and rules prescribed by the SCAQMD. As with the Original Project, post development operational emissions generated by the Revised Project would not exceed significance thresholds adopted by the South Coast AQMD. No mitigation measures are required. Localized Significance Thresholds Localized significance thresholds (LSTs) were developed in response to the Governing Board s Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative I 4. Use of an LST analysis for a project is optional. LSTs are applicable for a sensitive receptor where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours such as a residence, hospital or convalescent facility. Although none of these uses existing in the vicinity of the project, San Juan Elementary School is located adjacent to the site north of Spring Street. For the Revised Project, the primary source of possible LST impact would be during construction. LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5 ). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The nearest sensitive receptors are modeled with the most conservative distance of 25 meters to represent the residence on the northwest perimeter. It would also take into consideration San Juan Elementary School. LST pollutant screening level concentration data is currently published for 1, 2 and 5 acre sites. The project site is just over 3 acres. Only emissions occurring on site are evaluated while emissions occurring off site such as those associated with on road truck haul for soils disposal or on road construction crew commuting are excluded. LST thresholds and emissions applicable to the Revised Project are summarized in Table 3 4. Table 3 4 LST and Project Emissions 1 LST 3.0 acres/25 meters Saddleback Valley CO NOx PM 10 PM 2.5 Maximum Allowable On Site Emissions 1, Maximum Project Emissions (Unmitigated) Maximum Project Emissions (Mitigated) Emissions in pounds/day SOURCE: Giroux & Associates (June 2016) As shown in Table 3 4, LSTs were compared to the maximum daily construction activities during each construction phase. Emissions just meet the LST for construction thresholds without dust suppression but would be reduced well below thresholds after dust suppression mitigation (i.e., watering three times daily). As with total construction activity emissions, the small reduction in project scope and the subsequent build out July

79 delay using a newer, cleaner equipment fleet creates a noticeable reduction in NOx LST emissions (28 pounds/day versus 54 pounds/day for the Original Project) and an increase in the CO LST emissions (442 pounds per day versus 33 pounds per day for the Original Project). In addition, PM 10 emissions for the Revised Project would be the same as for the Original Project abut PM 2.5 LST emissions would be slightly more than the Original Project (5 pounds/day versus 4 pound/day. Although there would be some increase in LST emissions, the emissions would be below the established LST thresholds. With the exception of watering, which is required by the SCAQMD Rule 403 (refer to FEIR SC 3 2), potential impacts would be less than significant; no mitigation measures are required. 4.3(e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact. Odors are one of the most obvious forms of air pollution to the general public. Odors can present significant problems for both the source and the surrounding community. Although offensive odors seldom cause physical harm, they can cause agitation, anger and concern to the general public. Most people determine an odor to be offensive (objectionable) if it is sensed longer than the duration of a human breath, which is typically 2 to 5 seconds. Land uses that result in or create objectionable odors typically include agriculture (e.g., livestock and farming), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, composting operations, refineries, landfills, etc.). The project does not include any use of the site that would be a source of potentially significant odors. Potential odors associated with the project are from the operation of diesel trucks and heavy equipment during construction of the Revised Project. Any odors from the equipment emissions, if perceptible, are common in the environment and would be of very limited duration. In addition, some odors may also emanate from the restaurant; however, these odors would be the same as anticipated for the restaurant in the Original Project. However, these odors would not be objectionable. No significant longterm project related odors would occur as a result of the Revised Project. Therefore, as indicated in the FEIR, any odor impacts would be considered less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. Standard Conditions The following standard conditions prescribed in the Plaza Banderas FEIR shall be implemented as part of the Revised Project. SC 3 1 SC 3 2 SC 3 3 SC 3 4 SC 3 5 SC 3 6 SC 3 7 The project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits air contaminants or other materials that cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property to be emitted within the SoCAB. The project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which sets requirements for dust control associated with grading and construction activities (refer to Tables 4, 5 and 6 in Appendix E). The project shall comply with SCAQMD Rules and 431.2, which require the use of low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment. The project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 1108, which sets limitations on ROG content in asphalt. The project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113, which sets limitations on ROG content in architectural coatings. The project shall comply with City of San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code Section , which requires implementation of dust control/suppression measures (similar to SCAQMD Rule 403). The project shall comply with 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. July

80 Mitigation Measures In order to ensure that impacts to air quality are reduced to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measure that were required for the Original Project will be carried forward in the Revised Project and shall be implemented by the project applicant. MM 3 1 The construction contractor shall use interior paints with a maximum volatile organic compound (VOC) content of 212 grams of VOC per liter of paint for all interior painting of all proposed project buildings. Paints that meet the low VOC limits of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1113 are known as super compliant paints. A list of super compliant VOC coating manufacturers is available at SCAQMD s website ( Prior to building permit issuance, the use of super compliant interior paints shall be noted on building plans. Conclusion The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant new adverse effects on air quality not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project, and would not cause any significant air quality impacts previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increase Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact July

81 Would the project: d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increase Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact FEIR Analysis of Original Project The biological assessment conducted for the Original Project concluded that the Original Project would impact approximately 1.3 acres of developed cover, 1.5 acres of disturbed habitat, and 0.9 acre of ornamental cover. The Original Project would result in impacts to non native ornamental trees with potential to support nesting raptors or other migratory bird species. Direct take of active migratory bird nests would be a significant impact. Direct take of active nests would be avoided by requiring a qualified biologist to conduct nesting bird surveys prior to removing trees during the nesting season (February 15 through July 31). Implementation of the Original Project would not result in any impacts to special status plants, animals or habitats and, furthermore, would not impact wetlands and/or jurisdictional waters. Finally, the Original Project would not result in an impact to wildlife movement due to the project location and barriers that exist preventing such movement. No significant biological impacts would occur. Analysis of Original Project 4.4(a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The project site, which encompasses 3.62 acres, has been substantially altered by prior development of the subject property. As indicated in the FEIR prepared for the Original Project, implementation of the Revised Project will impact approximately 1.3 acres of developed cover, 1.5 acres of disturbed habitat, and 0.9 acre of ornamental cover. No sensitive status plants or habitat exists on the subject property; therefore, no significant impacts will occur. The FEIR indicated that the project site has potential to support loggerhead shrike, which is a federal and CDFG species of special concern that forages over open ground within areas of short vegetation, pastures with fence rows, old orchards, mowed roadsides, cemeteries, golf courses, riparian areas, open woodland, agricultural fields, desert washes, desert scrub, grassland, broken chaparral and beach with scattered shrubs. Although this species was not observed on the project site or within the vicinity during the prior biological survey conducted for the project site, it had the potential to occur there for both foraging and nesting. However, because this species is widespread and relatively common, and because the site exhibits low quality habitat, the FEIR concluded that construction would not result in significant impacts to this species. Thus, no July

82 potential impacts would occur as a result of the Revised Project. Furthermore, all of the trees that previously existed on the subject property have been removed. As a result, potential nesting on the site is limited. Therefore, FEIR SC 4.7 2, which required avoiding construction in the nesting season (February 15 through July 31) or conducting nesting bird surveys prior initiating impacts to nesting habitat, as required by the City of San Juan Capistrano 4 is no longer required. No other special status animal species are expected to occur on site. Therefore, no significant impacts to special status species and/or habitat are expected as a result of the Revised Project; no mitigation measures are required. 4.4(b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. As discussed in the FEIR for the Original Project, no wetlands or waters of the United States subject to Corps jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act occur within the Original Project footprint. Therefore, development of the subject property with the Revised Project, which has a similar building footprint, will not result in impacts to jurisdictional waters, including wetlands, which would require a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Similarly, no streambed or riparian vegetation subject to CDFG jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code occur within the Original Project or the Revised Project footprint. Therefore, development of the subject property with the Revised Project will not result in impacts to jurisdictional waters, including wetlands, which would require a streambed alteration agreement from CDFG. 4.4(c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. As previously indicated, the FEIR revealed that the project site has been significantly altered as a result of past development of the subject property. Based on the prior biological assessment and jurisdictional delineation conducted for the Original Project, the site did not support wetlands. The site continues to be devoid of wetlands. As a result, the Revised Project would not result in impacts to wetlands. 4.4(d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The project site is located adjacent to a freeway and an arterial highway and is surrounded by development. The FEIR for the Original Project included the preparation of a biological assessment that indicated neither the site nor the surrounding area, serves a wildlife corridor due to the development that has occurred in the project area. Because the subject property does not serve as a potential wildlife movement corridor, no significant impacts to wildlife movement are expected as a result of the implementing the Revised Project. 4.4(e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. As previously indicated, the site is devoid of sensitive habitat and does not support sensitive biological resources. Although the site did support several trees, including citrus, loquat, camphor, Mexican fan palms, eucalyptus, and a variety of other non native species prior to the approval of the Plaza Banderas Hotel project, the trees have been removed in accordance with Tree Removal Permit (FEIR SC 4.7 1) that was approved with the Plaza Banderas Hotel project in All of the trees that existed on the site have been removed in accordance with the Tree Removal Permit and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act requirement to protect avian nesting as stipulated in FEIR SC As a result, implementation of the Revised Project would not 4SC 4.7 2; Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No ) for the Plaza Banderas Comprehensive Development Plan. 5TRP was issued on February 2, July

83 conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, including the preservation of trees. No Impact will occur. 4.4(f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The project site is located adjacent to a freeway and an arterial highway and is surrounded by development. Furthermore, the biological assessment prepared for the Original Project revealed that the highly disturbed project site and environs are detached from large areas of native habitat and/or open space and it is neither located within nor regulated by the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. As concluded for the Original Project, no significant impacts to wildlife movement are expected as a result of the Revised Project and no mitigation measures are required. Standard Conditions The standard conditions prescribed in the Plaza Banderas FEIR related to tree removal (SC and SC 4.7 2) have been implemented at the time the trees were removed pursuant to TRP No standard conditions are required. Mitigation Measures Project implementation will not result in any potentially significant impacts to sensitive biological resources; no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion The project changes associated with the proposed Revised Project would not result in any significant new adverse effects on biological resources not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project, and would not cause any significant biological resources effects previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines ? Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increase Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines ? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? July

84 FEIR Analysis of Original Project Archaeological Resources Development plans for the Original Project included grading to depths of about three feet. The uppermost archaeological deposits on the project site (i.e., 0 to 50 cm) are recent (i.e., American Historic and Modern periods), and consist largely of disturbed and redeposited materials. In the northwestern portion of the project site, at greater depth, earlier and intact deposits representing the Protohistoric and possibly earlier periods are present. In the southwestern corner of the project site, a Spanish Historic (or later) kiln was discovered just below the surface during a survey conducted in This kiln was purportedly reburied intact, including fill, either use related material or post abandonment deposits, in the bottom of the kiln. Other earlier artifacts are of traditional indigenous manufacture (pottery and lithic) and may date to the 19 th century or earlier. Two possible architectural features were further excavated: a cobble cluster and a rubble layer; however, both proved to be deposits of building demolition debris with 20 th century discards. Grading and development of the site necessary to implement the Original Project would result in a direct significant impact on the integrity of the deposits that give the site its historical significance. Historical Resources Although some improvements are proposed to Spring Street along the northern property boundary, the modifications/improvements are minor and would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic street. The improvements are consistent with the character of a historic street and meet the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. As a result, no significant impacts to Spring Street would occur. Paleontological Resources Although the site has been substantially altered by past grading and development, paleontological resources that may exist, including fossil remains and associated scientific data, fossil sites, and fossil bearing rocks, could be adversely affected by the direct and indirect environmental impacts accompanying the grading and excavation activities required for the development of the Original Project. Although construction would be a short term activity, the loss of some fossil remains and the fossil bearing rocks would be a permanent adverse environmental impact. On this particular parcel the project related construction activities are not expected to affect any fossil bearing formations. The FEIR identified the following potentially significant impacts to cultural and scientific resources that could result from implementation of the Original Project: Impact Impact Project implementation will result in grading the site to a depth of approximately three feet, which could result in a potentially significant direct project impact to historic and/or prehistoric resources. Paleontological resources, including fossil remains and associated scientific data, fossil sites, and fossiliferous rocks in the geological formations underlying the site could be adversely affected as a result of project implementation, which include site alteration activities (e.g., clearing and grubbing, excavation and grading, construction, etc.). Analysis of Revised Project Due to the history of the City of San Juan Capistrano and the prior occupation by Native Americans, several cultural resources assessments have been prepared throughout the City, including the project site and surrounding area, that have documented the existence of past use and occupation by Native Americans. July

85 4.5(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines ? Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The City adopted a Historical & Cultural Landmark ordinance that forbids damage of any kind to any resource listed in the City s Inventory of Historical & Cultural Landmarks (IHCL) without first obtaining City approval and a Historic Preservation Ordinance that addresses resources within identified historic districts. In general, the City relies on the criteria for significance presented in CEQA, as amended, and the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106). To date, the City has listed forty (40) individual properties; six (6) historic districts; and four (4) historic streets. It is important to note that under CEQA, if a proposed project were expected to cause substantial adverse change in a historical resource; environmental clearance for the project would require mitigation measures to reduce impacts. Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines (b)(1)). CEQA Guidelines (b)(2) describes material impairment taking place when a project: (A) (B) (C) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register or Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register... or its identification in an historical resources survey... unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or Demolishes or materially alters those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register... as determined by a lead agency for the purposes of CEQA. The federal and State inventories of historic properties that were reviewed at the SCCIC list one structure, Mission San Juan Capistrano, on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as well as on the California Register of Historical Resources. In addition, the City of San Juan Capistrano also recognizes the historic importance of the Mission, which is listed as the first landmark on the City s Inventory of Historic and Cultural Landmarks (IHCL). The Mission property is located immediate west of the site adjacent to El Camino Real. The City also lists Spring Street (from El Camino Real to its eastern terminus at the I 5 Freeway) and El Camino Real, as City Historic Streets, on its IHCL. Spring Street forms the northern boundary of the site; El Camino Real forms the western property boundary. The Stroschein House located at the northeast corner of the project site (31682 El Camino Real) was constructed in 1927; it is also listed as a City Historic Landmark (No. P30) on the IHCL and was also listed in the NRHP in Implementation of the Revised Project would have the same potential effects on the existing historic resources as previously identified in the Plaza Banderas FEIR for the Original Project. Although some improvements are proposed to Spring Street along the northern property boundary, the modifications/improvements are minor and would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic street. The improvements are consistent with the character of a historic street and meet the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. As a result, no significant impacts to Spring Street would occur. With the exception of an ingress/egress that is proposed on El Camino Real north of Ortega Highway, no significant improvements are proposed for El Camino Real that would adversely affect the historic integrity of that roadway. Although project implementation would dramatically change the character of the site, the project has been designed to eliminate the one story restaurant structure previously approved for the Plaza Banderas project. The proposed mission style July

86 architectural character of the proposed hotel building and two story restaurant building are consistent and compatible with the character of the area, including with Mission San Juan Capistrano. The Revised Project has been designed to provide appropriate setbacks from the historic and cultural resources to limit the potential for significant impacts. The hotel building is strategically designed on the site to avoid view impacts to the Mission and from adjacent viewsheds. The proposed character of the project would neither conflict with nor compromise the historic integrity of the historic downtown area, including Mission San Juan Capistrano. As a result, potential impacts to historic resources would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. 4.5(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines ? Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Phase I and Phase II Cultural Resources Assessments were undertaken to determine the potential for encountering archaeological resources and related cultural materials on the site. As concluded in those assessments and described in the Plaza Banderas FEIR, the site did yield a variety of cultural resource materials, including both historic and prehistoric artifacts. Because the cultural resources assessment determined that there was a high possibility of finding buried archaeological remains that could be significant, an archaeological testing program (i.e., Phase II investigation) was recommended prior to construction grading to determine project s potential effect on cultural/historic resources. As part of that investigation, Native American representatives participated in the archaeological testing program in order to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings and other complications that would jeopardize the field investigation. The Phase II subsurface investigations indicated some adobe foundations, Mission activity deposits, and Mexican period floors have been founded where no buildings have been recorded by early maps or historic records. The project site is characterized by buried archaeological deposits, including the remains of a historical kiln in the southwestern corner. Although important archaeological deposits have not been found in the eastern portion of the project site, proximity to important archaeological deposits to the west, northwest, and north, and topography and geomorphology, indicate some potential for buried, undiscovered, and important archaeological deposits in this area. Although important archaeological deposits are known to exist on the project site, the deposits identified to date are not one of a kind in the local area or the region, and the project site does not, based on current knowledge, appear to be a unique archaeological site as defined by the State CEQA Guidelines. Based on the results of the monitoring that took place in the 1990s and test excavations in that area, the upper parking lot area is unlikely to include, with the exception of a kiln previously encountered, intact and significant archaeological features and artifact bearing layers at depths less than 60 cm. The elevation of the northeastern portion of the site was built up with fill for construction in the 1960s, the southern and southeastern portions of the site were extensively trenched and drilled in the 1990s, the central portion was deeply pitted and filled when the gas station tanks were removed in 1998, and the southeastern portion of the site was over excavated for contaminated soil removal. The kiln was purportedly re buried in situ. The test excavations in the western and northern portions of the property encountered modern fill and 20 th century debris. Overall, 32 percent of the excavated contexts from the subject property were identifiable as Modern period (i.e., deposited after AD 1960 and after the American Historic Period). In addition, 49 percent were identifiable as 20 th century or later (i.e., deposited after 1901 during the late American Historic Period or Modern periods). Therefore, 81 percent of the excavated contexts were deposited within the last 110 years. Deposits identifiable as post Protohistoric Period and pre Modern period but which could not be more concisely dated within the intervening 190 years, made up 10 percent. None of the deposits could be securely dated to a specific historic period (i.e., Spanish Historic, Mexican Historic, or American Historic), or to a pre Protohistoric period date. Two contexts were tentatively dated to the Protohistoric period based on indigenous potsherds and the lack of evidence for an earlier or later age. As indicated in the Plaza Banderas FEIR, implementation of the Original Project required grading, which could result in a potentially significant direct impact to historic and/or prehistoric resources. As a result, several mitigation measures were prescribed to ensure that potentially significant impact would be avoided or reduced July

87 to a less than significant level. Implementation of the Revised Project would result in similar grading and, thus, the same potential impacts to cultural/historic resources. Therefore, the same mitigation measures would also be necessary to avoid or mitigate the potential impacts and are being carried forwarded to this Addendum. FEIR MM 5 1a, MM 5 1b, and MM 5 1c require monitoring during grading by a qualified archaeologist and a Native American to ensure that cultural resources can be properly protected. No new or more significant impacts would be anticipated and no new mitigation measures are required. 4.5(c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. As indicated in the Plaza Banderas FEIR, the site has been substantially altered by past grading and development; however, paleontological resources that may exist, including fossil remains and associated scientific data, fossil sites, and fossiliferous rocks, could be adversely affected by the direct (i.e., ground disturbing activities associated with site preparation and grading) and indirect environmental impacts accompanying the grading and excavation activities required for the development of the project site. Although project related construction activities are not expected to affect any fossil bearing formations. However, if a significant paleontological resource is identified within the boundaries of the Revised Project, ground disturbance could result in the loss of paleontological resources, including scientifically important fossil remains, associated geologic data, fossil sites, and fossiliferous rocks, by disturbing fossil bearing and potentially fossiliferous rocks. Although construction would be a short term activity, the loss of some fossil remains and the fossil bearing rocks would be a permanent adverse environmental impact. In order to ensure that potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources does not occur, mitigation measures were previously prescribed for the Original Project in the Plaza Banderas FEIR, which would also be implemented as a result of implementation of the Revised Project to ensure that such impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. These measures (FEIR MM 5 2a and MM 5 2b), which are carried forward in this Addendum require monitoring during grading by a qualified paleontologist. No additional mitigation measures are required. 4.5(d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. with Mitigation. As reflected in the Plaza Banderas FEIR, some bone fragments were uncovered during the Phase I monitoring. Although there is a possibility that the bone fragments could be human, the author of the subsequent Phase II cultural resources assessment was not able to inspect the specimens and make a positive identification on those bones. Although no other bone or other evidence of human burial (inhumation or cremation) was found during the test excavations conducted by Archer Archaeology during the Phase II cultural resources assessment and the report concluded that if any exist on site, they would be located at depths greater than 50 cm below the surface. Nonetheless, due to the proximity of the site to the Mission San Juan Capistrano, there is a possibility that human remains could be encountered during grading activities, which could extend below 50 cm. As a result, mitigation measures prescribed for the Original Project would also be required for the proposed Revised Project. As indicated above, FEIR MM 5 1a, MM 5 1b, and MM 5 1c will be carried forward in the Revised Project to ensure that potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. Potential impacts to human remains would be expected to be the same as previously identified and no additional mitigation measures are required as a result of project implementation. Standard Conditions No standard conditions are required. Mitigation Measures Potential impacts to cultural and paleontological resources are the same as those identified for the Original Project. In order to ensure that impacts to cultural/archaeological and paleontological resources are reduced to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures that were required for the Original Project shall be implemented by the project applicant for the Revised Project. July

88 Cultural Resources MM 5 1a MM 5 1b Prior to issuance of the grading permit and/or any ground disturbing activity, the applicant shall submit a written monitoring plan to the City for review and approval. The monitoring plan shall specify procedures for field observation; diverting and halting grading to protect finds; notifying and consulting with concerned parties; significance evaluation of finds; treatment of finds, including but not limited to the potential need for a research design and data recovery program in the case of significant finds; and compliance with Health and Safety Code Section and Public Resources Code Section (f) and in the event human remains are encountered. The plan shall address the potential for encountering previously recorded and/or unknown sites or features. The plan shall address the possibility of the kiln feature in the upper parking lot being found to remain in place when grading exposes that area of the site, and shall provide for the evaluation of its current condition and significance as well as a determination by the archaeologist on appropriate treatment and/or data recovery as applicable. A qualified archaeologist (defined as an archaeologist on the List of Certified Archaeologists for Orange County) shall be retained by the project applicant and shall be present at pre construction meetings to advise construction contractors about the sensitive nature of cultural resources located on and/or in the vicinity of the project site, as well as monitoring requirements. A qualified monitor (defined as an individual with a bachelor s degree in anthropology with archaeological monitoring experience), supervised by the qualified archaeologist, shall observe on and off site construction activities that result in grading, and/or excavating on or below the original ground surface (including during project related off site utility [natural gas, electricity, sewer, water, drainage, communications, etc.] and roadway improvements). Should nonhuman cultural resources be discovered, the monitor shall have the power to temporarily halt or divert construction activities until the qualified archaeologist can determine if the resources are significant and, if significant, until recovered by the archaeologist or other procedure identified in the approve monitoring plan. In the event that human remains are discovered, construction activities shall be halted or diverted until the provisions of of the Health and Safety Code and of the Public Resources Code have been implemented. MM 5 1c During construction/grading activities, a Native American monitor shall observe construction/grading activities that result in grading, excavating, and/or trenching on or below the original ground surface (including during project related off site utility [e.g., natural gas, electricity, sewer, water, drainage, communications, etc.] and roadway improvements). The Native American monitor shall consult with the archaeological monitor regarding objects and remains encountered during grading that may be considered sacred or important. In the event that evidence of human remains is discovered, the Native American monitor shall verify that the archaeologist has notified the Coroner. MM 5 1d Prior to final inspection by the Community Development Department, the applicant shall submit evidence that final reports for any historical, cultural or archaeological resources recovered from the project site during grading or construction have been filed with the appropriate information repository. Reports shall include information on disposition of resources at a suitable repository. Paleontological Resources MM 5 2a Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified paleontologist (defined as a paleontologist on the List of Certified Paleontologists for Orange County) shall be retained by the project applicant and shall be present at pre construction meetings to advise construction contractors about the potential occurrence of paleontological resources located on and/or in the vicinity of the project site, as well as monitoring requirements. July

89 MM 5 2b A qualified monitor (defined as an individual with a bachelor s degree in paleontology and monitoring experience), supervised by the qualified paleontologist, shall be on site during construction activities that result in the grading and/or excavating of current surface material (including during projectrelated off site utility [e.g., natural gas, electricity, sewer, water, drainage, communications, etc.] and roadway improvements) to monitor for paleontological resources. Should paleontological resources be discovered, the monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert construction activities in the vicinity until the qualified paleontologist can determine if the resources are significant. Significant paleontological resources shall be recovered by Conclusion The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant new adverse effects on cultural resources not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project, and would not cause any significant impacts to cultural resources previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Informatio n Showing New or Increase Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 2) Strong seismic ground shaking? 3) Seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction? 4) Landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on site or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 1 B of the California Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or No Impact July

90 Would the project: alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Informatio n Showing New or Increase Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact FEIR Analysis of Original Project Although the project site is not located within an Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known active faults are shown on current geologic maps crossing through the site, the potential for ground rupture was determined to be very low. However, the structures would be subject to potential earthquake ground motions in the future that is associated with seismic activity occurring on the Newport Inglewood fault, San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust fault, or one of the several active or potentially active faults in the region. In order to avoid potentially significant impacts associated with seismic shaking on the site, compliance with the CBC for the types of structures proposed was required. In addition, compliance with the City s excavation and grading ordinance was also required as well as additional mitigation, which included adherence to specific minimum design parameters for structural design to ensure that damage to the structures is minimized. The only short term impact related to soils and geology anticipated to occur as a result of Original Project is the potential for erosion during the relatively short period during which bare soils are exposed and unprotected. Excavation and grading necessary to prepare the site in order to accommodate the Original Project would result in the possibility that the underlying soils would be exposed and could be subject to erosion if not properly protected during grading and construction operations. As a result, temporary erosion protection during grading and site development activities would be necessary pursuant to standard conditions, including the provision of appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be included in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that must be prepared for the Original Project. The Original Project was also subject to the potential for secondary seismic effects, including liquefaction, based on the presence of alluvial soils and groundwater within the uppermost 50 feet. In addition, because the undisturbed alluvial soils underlying the site are moderately compressible and are not subject to significant hydro collapse. Static settlements due to the proposed fills are anticipated to be largely elastic and complete following the application of loading. Based on anticipated building loads and footing elevations, all footings must be underlain by a minimum thickness of compacted fill to ensure that static settlements are maintained at normal levels (i.e., levels not requiring special foundation design). With the implementation of the required corrective grading, static settlement for the buildings would be minimized. Expansion index and plasticity test results conducted for the Original Project within the zone of potential grading (i.e., 0 to 10 feet below ground surface) indicated that the development proposed in the Original Project would be subject to a low to medium expansion potential. In addition, testing indicated that a negligible sulfate exposure to concrete existed, which allows for the use of Type II/V cement. The Preliminary Geotechnical Report recommended corrective measures to address this soil factor based on the corrosive nature of the on site soils to ferrous metal (i.e., and hence reinforcement) and to minimize the potential for flooring moisture problems. The mitigation measures prescribed for the geotechnical constraints discussed above are adequate to reduced potential impacts to a less than significant level. The FEIR identified the following potentially significant impact that could result from implementation of the Original Project: Impact Project implementation will result in the exposure of surface soils and those underlying the site to potential erosion during the excavation and grading phase prior to development of the site. July

91 Impact Impact Impact Impact The proposed hotel, retail/commercial, and restaurant structures will likely be subjected to moderate to strong seismic ground shaking during its design. The major geotechnical constraint affecting the proposed development is the presence of loose unsuitable undocumented fill materials that exist in proposed development areas. These fill soils are not suitable for support of structures and improvements in their present condition and may result in excessive potential differential settlements across the proposed buildings due to the existence of loose compressible or otherwise variable materials. The proposed residential structures may be subject to low to moderately expansive soils that exist on the site. Development of the proposed project will be susceptible to potential settlement. Analysis of Revised Project 4.6(a)(1) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact. As indicated in the Plaza Banderas FEIR, the site is not located within an Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known active faults are shown on current geologic maps crossing through the site. The most recent geotechnical investigation reported conducted by GMU confirmed that the site is not located within an identified earthquake fault zone. Therefore, no potential for a fault rupture on the site will occur. 4.6(a)(2) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. A subsequent geotechnical investigation was conducted by GMU to update the information previously included in the Plaza Banderas FEIR. As confirmed in this report, the site is not located within an Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. However, several active faults are located within 60 miles of the project site, including the Newport Inglewood Fault Zone and the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust Fault. These faults are capable of producing maximum earthquake magnitudes (Mw) of 7.5 and 7.1 earthquakes, respectively. As a result, the proposed structures would be subject to potential earthquake ground motions in the future that is associated with seismic activity occurring on these and/or one of the several active or potentially active faults in the region. The design magnitude earthquake for site development is a M7.0 event on the Newport Inglewood fault. The probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) conducted by GMU for the Original Project (i.e., Plaza Banderas) assumed a risk level of 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. GMU calculated a design ground motion of 0.36g, based on the parameters in the 2007 California Building Code (CBC). In order to avoid potentially significant impacts associated with seismic shaking on the site identified for the Original Project, the Revised Project must comply with the CBC for the types of structures proposed (refer to SC 4.9 2). In addition, the project will also comply with the City s excavation and grading ordinance. Additional mitigation prescribed in the FEIR for the Original Project that will be carried forward in the Revised Project includes adherence to specific minimum design parameters for structural design to ensure that damage to the structures is minimized. A site specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) was performed by GMU in the updated analysis to evaluate the likelihood of various ground motion levels at the site as reflected in peak horizontal ground acceleration (PHGA), taking into account the geological slip rates of all known active faults and background seismicity within 200 km and 1,000 km of the site, respectively, and the site specific response characteristics. The Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric Mean (MCEG) PHGA as defined by Section 21.5 of ASCE 7 10 was estimated to be 0.5g (using USGS tools), and a site specific Magnitude Scaled PHGA for an July

92 earthquake magnitude (Mw) of 7.5 using the EZFRISK program was determined to be 0.43g, which is the basis of the evaluation of secondary seismic hazards. The proposed structures will be designed to comply with the design parameters prescribed in the CBC and other applicable regulations and/ or measures recommended in the geotechnical investigation that are intended to minimize seismic related groundshaking impacts to a less than significant level (a)(3) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Based on a review of the seismic hazard zone report for the San Juan Capistrano Quadrangle as reflected in the Plaza Banderas FEIR, the subject property is located within a zone of required investigation for liquefaction, based on the presence of alluvial soils and groundwater within the uppermost 50 feet. The alluvial soils below the site are primarily fine grained silts and clays. Results of plasticity tests indicated that the soils are largely clay like and not subject to liquefaction. Consolidation tests and liquidity index values calculated for the site soils indicate that they are not sensitive and, therefore, are not subject to significant amounts of cyclic softening. The GMU report also evaluated potential liquefaction potential based on the Revised Project. The older alluvial soils below the site are primarily fine grained silts and clays. Plasticity results indicate that the soils are largely clay like and not subject to liquefaction. Consolidation tests and calculated liquidity index values indicate that the upper 20 feet of the on site soils are not sensitive and hence not subject to significant amounts of cyclic softening. The fine grain soils deeper than 20 feet bgs are low to moderately sensitive; however, their effects will be less pronounced on the surface due to the upper 20 foot cap. The result of the liquefaction analysis conducted for the Revised Project indicated that discrete thin zones (i.e., thin zones of potentially sand like materials) within the alluvial stratum may be subject to liquefaction during the design seismic event. The estimated earthquake induced (EQ induced) settlements, which consider the proposed remedial grading and fill placement, range from 0.3 to 1.3 inches across the site (average total seismic settlement: 0.7 ) with a differential seismic settlement of ½ inch over 40 feet. Although seismic settlement at the ground surface is anticipated to be minor, site preparation and building construction as prescribed in the CBC and recommended in the geotechnical investigation will adequately address potential liquefaction and reduce potential liquefaction impacts to a less than significant level. 4.6(a)(4) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. With the exception of retaining walls along the northern and southeastern boundary of the site that were identified in the FEIR for the Original Project, no significant slopes are present within or immediately adjacent to the site. Therefore, slope stability will not affect the proposed grading and/or improvements. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 4.6(b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Some excavation and site grading will be required in order to prepare the subject property to accommodate the proposed hotel, restaurant and retail/commercial structures. Soil erosion occurs as a result of the action of wind and water on exposed soils during the grading and site preparation phase. The only short term impact related to soils and geology anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation is the potential for erosion during the relatively short period during which bare soils are exposed and unprotected. As indicated above, the site is located in an area of the City that is urbanized and relatively flat. Virtually the entire area in the vicinity of the subject property, including the project site, has been previously graded in order to 6The Updated Geotechnical Investigation prepared by GMU reflects updated seismic design parameters reflected in the 2013 California Building Code (CBC), which supersede earlier CBC design parameters specified in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the Original Project. July

93 accommodate the existing development surrounding the site. However, excavation and grading necessary to prepare the site in order to accommodate the Revised Project would result in the possibility that the underlying soils would be exposed and could be subject to erosion if not properly protected during grading and construction operations. As a result, it will be necessary to incorporate temporary erosion protection during grading and site development activities pursuant to standard conditions. Exposure of the soils while grading and excavation activities are underway can be adequately addressed through the provision of appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be included in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that must be prepared for the Revised Project. Adherence to the City s grading ordinance and implementation of the BMPs prescribed in the SWPPP that will be prepared for the project (refer to MM 6 1b). As a result, short term impacts would be less than significant. The site will be ultimately improved following grading in order to avoid significant soil erosion and/or loss of topsoil. The applicant has prepared a Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that includes Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address erosion, consistent with the City codes and ordinances and with the approval of all agencies with jurisdiction (e.g., County of Orange, Regional Water Quality Control Board, etc.) Therefore, potential impacts are anticipated to be less than significant with the implementation of the BMPs prescribed in the WQMP. 4.6(c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in an on site or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. As indicated in Section 4.6a(3), the site is subject to potential liquefaction; however, mitigation measures are prescribed the FEIR 7 and in the updated geotechnical report that would reduce potential liquefaction effect to less than significant. Based on the liquefaction analysis conducted for the project, liquefaction induced lateral spreading is considered to be unlikely at the site due to the lack of a free face or significant sloping ground. As previously indicated, with the exception of proposed retaining walls on the northern and southeastern boundaries of the site, no significant slopes are present within or immediately adjacent to the site. Although the Caltrans I 5/Ortega Highway interchange project created a manufactured slope along the southeast portion of the site, slope stability will not affect the proposed grading and improvements. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. 4.6(d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 1 B of the California Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Expansion index and plasticity test results conducted for this investigation within the zone of potential grading (i.e., 0 to 10 feet bgs) indicate low expansion potential soils as previously identified for the Original Project. For design purposes, a low expansion potential was assumed; however, the GMU reports prepared for the Original Project and the Revised Project recommended additional expansion testing at the completion of rough grading to confirm that the near surface soils possess a low expansion potential. Potential impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. 4.6(e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. As indicated in the FEIR for the Original Project, there are adequate sewer facilities within the affected roadways in the project area. Although project implementation would result in an increase in the generation of raw sewage associated with site development, the increase in the demand on current sewer facilities and/or the need for additional sewer facilities from project implementation would not be significant. No septic tanks would be required. No impacts associated with inadequate soils conditions related to septic 7Where necessary, mitigation measures prescribed in the FEIR have been updated to reflect current (2013) CBC requirements for structural design related to seismicity and seismic effects. July

94 tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems are anticipated and as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. Standard Conditions SC 6 1 SC 6 2 All activities associated with the implementation of the proposed hotel and retail/commercial development shall comply with the City s Excavation and Grading Ordinance. The project shall comply with all applicable City Building Code requirements as well as those prescribed in the California Building Code (CBC). Mitigation Measures In order to ensure that impacts to geology and soils are reduced to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures required for the Original Project as modified in the updated geotechnical report shall be carried forward for the Revised Project and implemented by the project applicant. MM 6 1a MM 6 1b MM 6 2 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall prepare an Erosion Control Plan, which shall be approved by the City Engineer or his designee. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that identifies specific construction and operational BMPs, which shall be approved by the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a detailed grading plan prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer. The proposed structures shall be designed based on applicable geotechnical parameters prescribed in the report for foundation design as well as those established by the California Building Code and applicable regulations. At a minimum, on site structures shall be designed in accordance with the 2013 CBC criteria as reflected in the updated geotechnical report and identified below. Parameter Value Soil Profile Type (Table ) S D Short Period Spectral Acceleration S 1 S sec. Period Spectral Acceleration S Site Coefficient Fa (Table ) Site Coefficient Fv (Table ) Short Period MCE 2 Spectral Acceleration S 1 MS sec. Period MCE Spectral Acceleration S 1 M Short Period Design Spectral Acceleration S 1 DS sec. Period Design Spectral Acceleration S 1 D MCE Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) Site Coefficient FPGA (able ) MCE G Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA M ) Values obtained from USGS Earthquake Hazards Program website are based on the ASCE7 10 and 2013 CBC and site coordinates of N and MCE G Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric Mean MM 6 3a Corrective grading shall be required to remove and recompact all previously placed artificial fill soils; removal and recompact the upper 2 to 5 feet of low density, older alluvium; and provide a July

95 blanket of engineered fill below the proposed site improvements. To satisfy the necessary removal of unsuitable soils, corrective grading for each area is identified below: Corrective grading for the proposed hotel shall extend 6 feet below the existing ground surface, or 3 feet below the bottom of proposed foundations, whichever is greater. The removal shall extend across the entire building pad, and shall extend a minimum of 5 horizontal feet outside the edges of foundations or equidistant to the depth of fill below the foundation, whichever is greater. Corrective grading removals for the mixed use building (retail/commercial) will be needed to eliminate artificial fills and place a minimum of 3 feet of engineered fill below the bottom of the proposed foundations. The total amount of excavation (i.e., design and corrective grading) will be approximately 10 to 12 feet below the existing ground surface in the area of the existing parking lot, and about 6 to 8 feet below the existing ground surface in the adjacent areas. The removals shall extend across the entire building pad, and shall extend a minimum of 5 horizontal feet outside the edges of foundations or equidistant to the depth of fill below the foundation, whichever is greater. Special excavation provisions may be necessary adjacent to existing streets. Corrective grading for retaining walls shall extend six feet below the existing ground surface, or 3 feet below the bottom of proposed foundations, whichever is greater. The removal shall extend across the entire foundation, and shall extend a minimum of 3 horizontal feet outside the edges of foundations or equidistant to the depth of fill below the foundation, whichever is greater. Corrective grading for miscellaneous foundations (i.e., swimming pool, pilaster, screen walls, patio covers, etc.) shall extend 3 feet below the existing ground surface, or 2 feet below the bottom of proposed bottom or foundations, whichever is greater. The removals shall extend across the entire bottom or foundation, and shall extend a minimum of 2 horizontal feet outside the edges of bottoms or foundations or equidistant to the depth of fill below the foundation, whichever is greater. Corrective grading for pavement, hardscape, and landscape areas shall extend at least 3 feet below the existing grade. MM 6 3b Grading activities shall be continuously monitored by a project geotechnical consultant. Such observations are essential to identify field conditions that differ from those identified during the subsurface investigation and adjust designs to actual field conditions encountered. MM 6 4 MM 6 5 Geotechnical observation and laboratory testing shall be performed upon completion of rough grading confirm the expansion characteristics of typical on site soils beneath foundations. All building foundations shall be designed for total settlement on the order of 1.0 inch and differential settlements on the order of 0.5 inch over 40 feet. Conclusion The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant new adverse effects on geology and soils not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project, and would not cause any significant geologic and/or soils impacts previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. July

96 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increase Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact FEIR Analysis of Original Project Construction activities associated with the Original Project would consume fuel and result in the generation of GHG emissions. Construction related GHG emissions were projected to generate 435 metric tons (MTons) total. Construction GHG emissions would cease upon completion of the construction phase of the project and would therefore be a small fraction of total Original Project related emissions when considering the longevity of operation emissions associated with the project. Additionally, GHG emissions generated by construction activities may be reduced by reducing the amount of construction and demolition waste generated by the project. To encourage recycling and salvaging of construction and demolition debris, the City of San Juan Capistrano requires that a minimum of 50 percent (as measured by tonnage) of all construction demolition debris containing concrete and asphalt, and 15 percent of all construction and demolition debris not containing concrete and asphalt be diverted from landfills. GHG emissions generated during the operational phase of the Original Project would include emissions from transportation, energy, waste disposal, and area sources. GHG emissions from project related operational activities are separated into emission sources for the applicable GHG emissions sectors established by CARB. Transportation Sector emissions are emissions produced from vehicular travel to and from the project site. It is estimated that the Original Project would generate approximately 3,126 MTons of GHG per year or 9.6 MTons per service population. The total increase in GHG emissions onsite from the project would be nominal. In addition, because the Original Project would not exceed the regional emissions thresholds for criteria pollutants established by SCAQMD, GHG emissions were not considered substantial enough to result in a significant cumulative impact relative to GHG emissions and climate change impacts. The Original Project also incorporated a number of energy efficiency measures detailed below to minimize the consumption of energy resources that contribute to GHG emissions. Therefore, the project s cumulative contribution to GHG emissions would be less than significant. Statewide GHG emissions reduction measures that are being implemented would reduce GHG emissions by 409 MTons, or 13 percent, from the post 2020 BAU scenario. Because the GHG emissions reductions for transportation, buildings, energy, and other economic sectors would be implemented by year 2020, the Original Project would be consistent with the GHG reduction goals of AB 32, as described in the statewide GHG emissions reduction strategy outlined in the Scoping Plan. July

97 Analysis of Revised Project 4.7(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Greenhouse gases (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as global warming. These greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth s atmosphere by transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation in some parts of the infrared spectrum. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. For purposes of planning and regulation, Section of the California Code of Regulations defines GHGs to include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on road motor vehicles, off highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one fourth of total emissions. California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. GHG statues and executive orders (EO) include AB 32, SB 1368, EO S 03 05, EO S and EO S AB 32 is one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation that California has adopted. Among other things, it is designed to maintain California s reputation as a national and international leader on energy conservation and environmental stewardship. It will have wide ranging effects on California businesses and lifestyles as well as far reaching effects on other states and countries. A unique aspect of AB 32, beyond its broad and wide ranging mandatory provisions and dramatic GHG reductions are the short time frames within which it must be implemented. Major components of the AB 32 include: Require the monitoring and reporting of GHG emissions beginning with sources or categories of sources that contribute the most to statewide emissions. Requires immediate early action control programs on the most readily controlled GHG sources. Mandates that by 2020, California s GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels. Forces an overall reduction of GHG gases in California by 25 40%, from business as usual, over the next 3.5 years (by 2020). Must complement efforts to achieve and maintain federal and state ambient air quality standards and to reduce toxic air contaminants. Statewide, the framework for developing the implementing regulations for AB 32 is under way. Maximum GHG reductions are expected to derive from increased vehicle fuel efficiency, from greater use of renewable energy and from increased structural energy efficiency. Additionally, through the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR now called the Climate Action Reserve), general and industry specific protocols for assessing and reporting GHG emissions have been developed. GHG sources are categorized into direct sources and indirect sources. Direct sources include combustion emissions from on and off road mobile sources, and fugitive emissions. Indirect sources include off site electricity generation and non company owned mobile sources. July

98 Construction Related GHG Emissions Like air emissions, GHG impacts will be short term construction related GHG emissions are estimated to be significantly less than the 3,000 MT significance threshold recommended by the SCAQMD. As indicated in Table 7 1, the construction related GHG emissions resulting from implementation of the Revised Project are estimated to be metric tons (MT), with a 30 year amortized estimate of 21.2 MT compared to 435 MT (14/5 MT amortized over 30 years). Although the construction emissions are higher than estimated for the Original Project, the total is less than the SCAQMD recommended threshold. Therefore, construction related GHG emissions are less than significant; no mitigation measures are required. Table 7 1 Construction Related GHG Emissions CO 2 e (Metric Tons) Year 2017 Total Emissions Year Total Year Amortized Total 21.2 SOURCE: Giroux & Associates (June 2016) Operational GHG Emissions Operational GHG emissions will be generated by the Revised Project. The total operational and annualized construction emissions for the Revised Project are reflected in Table 7 2. As indicated in the table, implementation of the Revised Project would generate 2,757.1 MT CO 2 e, compared to the 3,126 MT CO 2 e estimated for the Original Project. As a result, project related GHG emissions, including the construction emissions estimated in Table 7 1, would not exceed the recommended 3,000 MT threshold established for GHG by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Therefore, long term emissions would be less than significant; no mitigation measures are required. Table 7 2 Estimated Operational GHG Emissions CO 2 e (Metric Tons) Consumption Source Area Sources 0.0 Energy Utilization 1,473.7 Mobile Source 1,204.9 Solid Waste Generation 32.9 Water Consumption 24.4 Construction 21.2 Total 2,757.1 SCAQMD Guideline Threshold 3,000 Exceeds Threshold (Yes/No) No SOURCE: Giroux & Associates (December 2016) July

99 4.7(b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The City of San Juan Capistrano has adopted a Go Green Guide, but does not have any plans, policies, regulations, or laws addressing climate change at this time and has not yet completed a climate action plan to reduce GHG emissions within its jurisdictional boundaries. No applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions apply to the project. While the SCAQMD does not have an adopted threshold for assessing the significance of GHG emissions, the draft screening value for all land use types is 3,000 MT CO 2 e per year. As shown in Table 7 2, the Revised Project would result in operational and amortized construction GHG emissions that are below the suggested 3,000 MT CO 2 e per year metric. As a result, the Revised Project is consistent with SCAQMD s adopted plans and policies, which were determined by SCAQMD to be consistent with California s state level plans, policies, regulations related to GHG. Therefore, the project is also consistent with state level plans, based on its consistency with the 3,000 MT threshold. The project is required to comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations established by the Energy Commission regarding energy conservation standards. These standards are articulated in the 2013 Building Code (CALGreen) update that will create a more stringent energy conserving design standard than previously assumed for the project site. Compliance with the 2013 Building Code will further reduce GHG emissions. On April 8, 2016, SCAG submitted the approved Final Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS). As indicated in the RTS/SCS, the SCAG region must achieve specific federal air quality standards. It also is required by state law to lower regional greenhouse gas emissions. California law requires the region to reduce per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the SCAG region by eight percent by 2020 compared with 2005 levels and by 13 percent by The strategies, programs and projects outlined in the 2016 RTP/SCS are projected to result in greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the SCAG region that meet or exceed these targets. As indicated in the Plaza Banderas FEIR, the GHG emissions reductions for transportation, buildings, energy, and other economic sectors would be implemented by 2020; therefore, the Revised Project would be consistent with the GHG reduction goals of AB32 as described in the statewide GHG emissions reduction strategy outlined in the Scoping Plan and with the GHG reduction targets included in the RTS/SCS through cleaner fuels/new vehicle technology, carpooling, reduction of vehicle miles traveled (e.g., alternative transportation). The Revised Project will not result in any conflicts with the City s General Plan or other long range plans and programs affecting the project site. No significant impacts will occur as a result of the proposed; no mitigation measures are required. Standard Conditions No standard conditions are required. Mitigation Measures No significant GHG impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant new adverse effects on greenhouse gas not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project, and would not cause any significant greenhouse gas previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. July

100 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section , and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increase Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact FEIR Analysis of Original Project Although an accidental release of these materials could be possible due to an accident on the public streets and highways of the City of San Juan Capistrano or other neighboring cities, the materials transported to and from the July

101 site are those whose use is permitted for the uses proposed. No toxic and/or hazardous materials would be utilized or stored on the subject property. The proposed uses must comply with all applicable regulatory requirements pertaining to the transport, use, storage and disposal of and hazardous materials. Further, the land uses permitted in the Plaza Banderas Comprehensive Development Plan are those that typically to not require the storage or use of hazardous materials. Based on the types of uses proposed in the Original Project (i.e., hotel, retail/office and restaurant), potential impacts of the proposed project are anticipated to be less than significant. Vehicle emissions resulting from the Original Project, primarily associated with the use of heavy trucks for such things as refuse collection, also release minor amounts of diesel particulate; a known carcinogen. However, use of these trucks (medium heavy duty and heavy heavy duty) during site occupation (e.g., refuse collection) is limited to about 1.4 percent of the vehicle population and these emissions are distributed over a vast area due to vehicle travel. As such, vehicle travel is not typically associated with prolonged exposure to toxic emissions. Mandatory adherence to the SCAQMD rules would ensure that any impact from toxic air contaminants associated with the operation of the Original Project would remain less than significant. A database records search was conducted for the site through EDR that determined the subject property of the Original Project is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites and there is no evidence of either on site or off site environmental conditions that would adversely affect site development. The site was properly remediated for leaking underground storage tanks associated with the ARCO gasoline station that occupied a portion of the site. In addition, there are no airports within two miles of the project site that would expose visitors or tenants to hazards associated with aviation operations. No significant impact would occur as a result of implementing the Original Project. Analysis of Revised Project 4.8(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Similar to other hotel and restaurant developments, hazardous materials, including paints, solvents, pesticides, fertilizers and other materials would likely be stored on site and utilized in the daily operations and/or maintenance of the property (e.g., landscape and building/structural maintenance, etc.). However, as indicated in the FEIR for the Original Project, these materials, which would not exceed permitted regulatory quantities, would be transported to and from the site by truck and stored on the premises in accordance with current regulatory requirements. The materials transported to and from the site are those the use of which is permitted for the uses proposed. The uses proposed in the Revised Project, like the Original Project, must comply with all applicable regulatory requirements pertaining to the transport, use, storage and disposal of and hazardous materials. As a result, potential impacts of the Revised Project are anticipated to be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. 4.8(b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Currently, there are a variety of existing business operations in the City of San Juan Capistrano that use, store, or transport hazardous substances, as well as generate hazardous waste. As indicated above, the Revised Project includes the development of a hotel and a restaurant. With the exception of routine building and landscape maintenance, the proposed uses are not those that typically use and store hazardous materials and chemicals on the premises. As indicated in the FEIR for the Original Project, while the risk of exposure to household hazardous materials cannot be eliminated, measures can be implemented to maintain risks to acceptable levels. Several federal, state and local regulatory agencies oversee hazardous materials handling and management. Like the Original Project, implementation of the Revised Project also requires compliance with the San Juan Capistrano General Plan and Plaza Banderas Comprehensive Development Plan, which prohibit uses that use or manufacture significant quantities of or generate significant hazardous or toxic emissions. In addition, oversight by the appropriate agencies and compliance with applicable regulations are considered adequate to offset any potentially significant environmental effects related to the use of hazardous materials that could result in an accidental release. July

102 4.8(c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant Impact/No Change/New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. San Juan Elementary School is located on Spring Street, north of the subject property. The proposed hotel and restaurant are not associated with the release of toxic air contaminants (TACs). Vehicle emissions, primarily associated with the use of heavy trucks for such things as refuse collection, also release minor amounts of diesel particulate; a known carcinogen. However, as noted in the CalEEMod model used to analyze the Original Project in the FEIR, use of these trucks (medium heavy duty and heavy heavy duty) during site occupation (e.g., refuse collection) is limited, idling times are also restricted based on SCAQMD recommendations, and these emissions are distributed over a vast area due to vehicle travel. As such, vehicle travel is not typically associated with prolonged exposure to toxic emissions. The SCAQMD, under Rule 1401 (New Source Review of Carcinogenic Air Contaminants) enforces emission limits when a new facility applies for permits for new construction, modifications, or relocation of equipment that emits any of the TACs listed therein. Permits are granted if the increase in cancer risk from the new, modified or relocated source does not exceed one in a million or 10 in a million cancer cases, if the proposed controls are the best available and the equipment is supplied with Toxic Best Available Control Technology (T BACT). SCAQMD Rule 402 prohibits emissions of air pollutants that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. Adherence to the mandatory SCAQMD rules would ensure that any impact from toxic air contaminants associated with the operation of the project remains less than significant. 4.8(d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. As indicated in the Plaza Banderas FEIR for the Original Project, a database records search was conducted for the site through EDR that determined the subject property is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites. Further, there is no evidence of either on site or off site environmental conditions that would adversely affect site development. The site was properly remediated for leaking underground storage tanks associated with the ARCO gasoline station that occupied a portion of the site. The Orange County Health Care Agency (Public Health Division of Environmental Health) issued a Remedial Action Completion Certification letter on May 12, 1999, which confirmed that no further action related to the UST release is required. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 4.8(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. No airports are located in southern Orange County in the vicinity of the subject property. As reflected in the FEIR for the Original Project, the project site is located approximately 15 miles south of John Wayne Airport (JWA), the nearest public airport to the Revised Project and is not, therefore, located within the limits of an adopted airport land use plan or two miles of a public airport. Operations at JWA will not pose a safety to workers during the construction of the project due to the distance of the project site to the airport. Furthermore, because the Revised Project does not include any residential or other development, it would not expose future residents and/or workers to a potential aviation hazard. No potential hazards associated with proximity to that aviation facility will occur; no mitigation measures are required. July

103 4.8(f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. As indicated above as in the FEIR, the nearest airport to the project site is JWA, which is located approximately 15 miles northwest of the project site; however, no private airstrips are located within the project environs. Construction of the proposed sewer main would not be subject to any safety hazards associated with operations at a private airstrip. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. 4.8(g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The City of San Juan Capistrano has prepared an Emergency Preparedness Plan that designates procedures to be followed in case of a major emergency. The plan identifies resources available for emergency response and establishes coordinated action plans for specific emergency situations and disasters, including earthquakes, fires, major rail and roadway accidents, flooding, hazardous materials incidents, civil disturbance, and nuclear disasters and attack. The project site is not designated for emergency use within the Emergency Preparedness Plan. The primary concern of the Public Safety Element and the City of San Juan Capistrano is in terms of risks to persons and personal property. Although the site is subject to potentially severe seismic shaking and fires, development pursuant to building and fire code requirements will ensure that the potential impacts are minimized or reduced to an acceptable level. Development of the subject property as proposed will not adversely affect either the evacuation routes or the adopted emergency preparedness planning program(s) being implemented by the City of San Juan Capistrano. Therefore, as indicated in the FEIR for the Original Project that concluded the Original Project would not adversely affect the City s Emergency Preparedness Plan. implementation of the Revised Project will not physically interfere with the City s emergency planning program. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. 4.8(h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The subject property is neither located within nor adjacent to a designated wildland area and would not, therefore, be exposed to the potential for wildland fire. As indicated in the FEIR prepared for the Original Project and in Section 4.14 of the, the OCFA provides fire protection and would respond to fire and/or emergency situations occurring in the project area, including the subject site. The site plan for the Revised Project has been reviewed and approved by the OCFA. 8 Compliance with the conditions stipulated on the approved Fire Master Plan, potential impacts to fire protection would be less than significant; no mitigation measures are required. Standard Conditions The standard conditions prescribed in the Plaza Banderas FEIR shall be implemented as part of the Revised Project. SC 8 1 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. 8Orange County Fire Authority Site Review No ; January 25, July

104 Mitigation Measures No significant hazards and/or hazardous materials impacts would occur as a result of the construction of the sewer main; no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant new adverse effects on hazards/hazardous materials not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project, and would not cause any significant hazards and/or hazardous materials impacts previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on or off site? e. Create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g. Place housing within a 100 year flood hazard as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increase Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact July

105 Would the project: Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions City of San Juan Capistrano New Information Showing New or Increase Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact h. Place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? FEIR Analysis of Original Project The FEIR for the Original Project revealed that the concentration of urban pollutants in storm runoff from the grading and construction activities associated with project implementation could increase during the construction phase; however, the runoff would be controlled through applicable BMPs prescribed in the SWPPP to minimize discharges of pollutants, including siltation associated with erosion resulting from grading activities. Implementation of the BMPs prescribed in the SWPPP and WQMP would ensure that the construction related impacts (e.g., erosion and sediment transport) resulting from site grading as well as longterm, operational impacts would be minimized. The WQMP for the Original Project included site design, structural and non structural BMPs to ensure that water quality impacts were minimized. In addition, other standard conditions (e.g., compliance with applicable building code requirements) will further minimize construction related impacts. The site for the Original Project was been divided into three drainage subareas. The surface flows emanating on the site for the Original Project would be directed to several private catch basins within the site. These flows will then enter the private storm drain system that conveys all of the stormwater flows to a proposed detention feature (i.e., underground storm chamber). Prior to enter the detention facility, the stormwater is treated they would be treated by means by the treatment system that includes both secondary and primary stormwater filters. Treatment provided by the control measures are adequate to satisfy the water quality requirements prescribed in the Orange County DAMP for the Original Project. Site design, structural and non structural BMPs were included in the WQMP for the Original Project to ensure that water quality impacts were avoided. Following treatment, the stormwater would be directed via a private storm drain facility to the underground storm chambers, where it is detained before being discharged in the El Horno Creek via the existing outlet in the headwall of the L05 flood control facility. The Original Project was designed to reduce the post development Q 25 runoff volume to below that occurring in the undeveloped condition. The post development Q25 volume of 8.13 cfs is approximately 25 percent less than the 10.9 cfs that occurs under the existing condition. The storm drain system for the Original Project included three public catch basins along the north side of Ortega Highway to collect runoff from the roadway. Runoff would be conveyed via laterals into a public storm drain that extends along the southern portion of the property parallel to Ortega Highway to the same outlet in the headwall of El Horno Creek. To the north, stormwater from Spring Street would be directed to another public catch basin and then into an existing 12 inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP). Implementation of the Original Project would not result in potentially significant flooding impacts caused by flooding along El Horno Creek. The applicant was required to submit an as built plan FEMA in order to receive the final LOMR F, which would remove the buildings from the floodplain. All of the structures are proposed in the Original Project were to be located outside of the 100 year flood plain of El Horno Creek as July

106 delineated on the current FEMA flood insurance rate map. Therefore, no significant flooding impacts would occur and no mitigation measures were required. Analysis of Revised Project 4.9(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Implementation of the Revised Project includes development of one parcel (a total of 3.62 acres) with a hotel and restaurant. Other project components include a chapel garden, trellis with seasonal roof, swimming pool with amenities and additional site improvements (e.g., underground parking structure, retaining walls, etc.). The project environs is currently developed with a variety of land uses and structures, including an elementary school and Mission San Juan Capistrano to the north and west, respectively and commercial development within the historic downtown area of the City to the south. Similar to the Original Project, implementation of the Revised Project will result in some grading that would expose the underlying soils to potential erosion that could affect water quality. As indicated in the FEIR for the Original Project, the project site is located within the San Juan Creek Watershed Work Plan. Receiving waters include San Juan Creek, San Juan Creek Mouth, and the Pacific Ocean shoreline. The 303(d) listed impairments for San Juan Creek including DDE, indicator bacteria, phosphorus, selenium, total nitrogen, and toxicity. In addition, the San Juan Creek Mount 303(d) listed impairments include indicator bacteria. Applicable TMDLs include bacteria fecal coliform, and total coliform. Primary pollutants of Concern include nutrients and bacteria/pathogens. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs), as defined in the Basin Plan and the County of Orange Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Although the site does not discharge directly to areas defined as ESAs or Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS), the site is tributary to impaired water bodies, which are designated as ESAs under DAMP guidelines. Surface flows emanating on the site would be directed to El Horno Creek before being discharged into San Juan Creek. Pollutants of concern identified for the Revised Project are the same as those identified for the Original Project and are listed in Table 9 1. July

107 Table 9 1 Pollutants of Concern Pollutant Suspended Solids/Sediment Nutrients Metals Pathogens (Bacteria and Viruses) Pesticides Oil and Grease Toxic Organic Compounds Trash and Debris E Expected N Not Expected E E E E E E E N Additional Information and Comments Pollutant is not a Primary Pollutant of Concern (POC). Potential sources of sediment include landscaping areas and disturbed earth surfaces. Pollutant is a Primary POC. Potential sources on site include fertilizers, sediment and trash/debris. Pollutant is a Primary POC. Potential sources of metals include vehicles in the parking spaces, drive aisles and drive through. Pollutant is a Primary POC. Potential sources for the project include food wastes, sediment and landscaping areas. Pollutant is not a Primary POC. Potential sources including landscaping areas on site. Pollutant is not a Primary POC. Potential sources include automobiles in arks areas, drive aisles, and drive through. Pollutant not anticipated to be a POC as the project is not considered a Category 7 Priority Project to less than 5,000 square feet of parking areas, including drive aisle. Pollutant is not a Primary POC. Potential sources of trash and debris include landscaping activities, food wrappers and food wastes. SOURCE: Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. (Revised April 19, 2016) Best Management Practices (BMPs) are included in the WQMP for the Revised Project that will be incorporated into the project design to ensure that potential water quality impacts are avoided or reduced to acceptable levels. These BMPs include site design features as well as structural and non structural source control BMPs. Site design BMPS incorporated into the project include: (1) minimization of impervious areas: (2) preservation of existing drainage patterns and time of concentration; (3) disconnection of impervious areas; and (4) revegetation of disturbed areas and xeriscape landscaping. In addition, low impact development (LID) BMPs must also be incorporated into design features and source controls to reduce project related storm water pollutants. Due to the presence of unfavorable soils for infiltration BMPs, the project proposes the use of biotreatment BMPs to address the project s pollutants of concern. Biotreatment BMPs are a class of structural LID BMPs that treat suspended solids and dissolved pollutants in storm water using mechanisms characteristic of biologically active systems. These BMPs are considered treat and release facilities and include treatment mechanisms that employ soil microbes and plants. Additional benefits of these BMPs may include aesthetic enjoyment, recreational use, wildlife habitat and reduction in storm water volume. The project has been designed to incorporate proprietary vegetated biotreatment systems in the form of a modular wetlands system. Runoff from the project s drainage management area (DMA) will be conveyed to the subsurface detention vault for storage prior to discharging through the proposed proprietary bio filtration facility. July

108 The WQMP will also incorporate both structural and non structural source control BMPs into the design of the Revised Project in order to reduce the potential for pollutant runoff from the proposed site. These BMPs are summarized in Table 9 2 and Table 9 3. These BMPs are the same as specified for the Original Project. Table 9 2 Structural Source Control BMPs Not Applicable Reason Why Not Applicable Identifier Name Included S1 Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage X S2 Design and construct outdoor No outdoor storage areas material storage areas to reduce X proposed for the facility pollution introduction Design and construct trash and S3 waste storage areas to reduce X pollution introduction S4 Use Efficient irrigation systems and landscape design X S5 Protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation X Incorporate requirements applicable to individual project X features S6 Dock areas X No dock areas proposed for facility. S7 Maintenance bays X No maintenance bays proposed for facility. S8 Vehicle wash areas X No vehicle washing anticipated for proposed facility. S9 Outdoor processing areas X No outdoor processing of goods required for facility. All facility related equipment S10 Equipment wash areas X (restaurant type) shall be washed indoors. S11 Fueling areas X No fueling areas in project scope. S12 Hillside landscaping X Site is relatively flat. No hillside landscaping in project scope. S13 Waste water control for food preparation S14 Community car wash racks X X No applicable to restaurant facility. SOURCE: Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. April 19, 2016) July

109 Table 9 3 Non Structural Source Control BMPs Identifier Name Included N1 Education for Owner, Tenants, Employees and contractor X N2 Activity Restrictions X N3 Common Area Landscape Management X N4 BMP Maintenance X N5 Title 22 CCR Compliance (How development will comply) Not Applicable N6 Local Industrial Permit Compliance X N7 Spill Contingency Plan X N8 N9 Underground Storage Tank Compliance Hazardous Materials Disclosure Compliance N10 Uniform Fire Code Implementation X N11 Common Area Litter Control X N12 Employee Training X N13 Housekeeping of Loading Docks X N14 N15 Common Area Catch Basin Inspection Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots N16 Retail Gasoline Outlets X X X X X X Reason Why Not Applicable Proposed facility will not generate waste subject to Title 22 CCR compliance. Not applicable to restaurant type facility. Proposed facility will not generate waste or store materials subject to the requirements of Chapter 6.95 of the CA Health and Safety Code. No underground storage tanks proposed for the project. Proposed facility will not store or generate hazardous materials subject to agency requirements. Proposed facility does not propose to store toxic or highly toxic compressed gases. No loading docks are proposed for the project. Project consists of a restaurant type facility. SOURCE: Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. April 19, 2016) With the incorporation of design BMPs as well as the structural and non structural BMPs included in the WQMP consistent with the FEIR for the Original Project, potential impacts to water quality resulting from the Revised Project would also be less than significant. July

110 4.9(b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The project site encompasses 3.62 acres (including adjacent area within the drainage area). Under existing conditions, the project site is 68 percent pervious and 32 percent impervious. The urban uses on surrounding parcels substantially limit groundwater recharge in downtown San Juan Capistrano. The WQMP prepared for the Revised Project determined that the site would be 95 percent impervious following its development. As indicated in the FEIR for the Original Project, the site is not a good candidate for infiltrating its runoff due to poor percolation. Hydromodification strategies are incorporated into the project s design as required by the LID. 9 These strategies mimic the original natural hydrology of the site, eliminating hydromodification impacts. They also maximize water storage and minimize surface and groundwater contamination from stormwater. However, due to the presence of unfavorable soils on the project site, infiltration BMPs have not been included in the project design. As previously indicated, the project includes a subsurface detention vault for storage prior to discharging through a proprietary biofiltration facility. The detention vault has a capacity of 13,120 cubic feet to accommodate an estimated design capture volume (DCV) of only 9,019 cubic feet. Given the small size of the site and, furthermore, that no groundwater wells are proposed nor will any existing wells be affected by the proposed improvements, development of the Revised Project is not anticipated to substantially reduce groundwater recharge opportunities compared to existing conditions and is not anticipated to contribute to lowering the local groundwater table. Impacts to groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge would be less than significant. 4.9(c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. In the existing condition, runoff from the project site drains in an easterly direction as sheet flow towards the easterly boundary of the project. Runoff is then conveyed easterly and southerly to an existing local storm drain facility and conveyed to San Juan Creek, prior to discharging to the Pacific Ocean. In the post development condition, however, runoff will be conveyed towards the proposed subsurface detention facility located in the easterly portion of the project site. Runoff will then be conveyed easterly via a proposed storm drain line and connect to an existing off site local storm drain facility. Runoff is then conveyed southerly off site to San Juan Creek. In general, the site is divided into two drainage areas (western and eastern) for the Revised Project compared to three drainage areas for the Original Project. The western/northern area drains toward two storm drain inlets located near the westerly end of the project site. Although the drainage plan for the Revised Project is different than for the Original Project, surface flows generated on the site can be accommodated by the existing storm drain and flood control system as reflected in the FEIR. Flows generated by the Revised Project will be conveyed to a proposed storm drain system that will connect to an existing off site storm drain line located just east of the project boundary. The southeastern/eastern are will also drain towards two proposed storm drain inlets located on the project s easterly boundary and conveyed to an existing storm drain system located offsite, east of the project site. As indicated in the FEIR, all stormwater flows will be conveyed and discharged to El Horno Creek (OCFCD Facility No. L05) via an existing 24 inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) located at the project s easterly boundary. Flows will continue in a southerly direction under Ortega Highway and the I 5 Freeway. OCFCD Facility No. L05 extends southerly and ends at San Juan Creek (LOCFD Facility No. L01). The existing and proposed storm drainage and flood control facilities are adequate to accommodate the Revised Project; no mitigation measures are required. 9Hydromodification was not a component of the WQMP requirements in 2010 when the Original Project was proposed and the project did not include hydromodification features or low impact development (LID) as currently required. July

111 4.9(d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on or off site? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The project site encompasses 3.62 acres and is characterized by a former paved asphalt parking lot on the west and an undeveloped area on the east. In the existing condition, the stormwater runoff from the undeveloped area surface flow to the east and discharge to an open storm drain ditch channel, which is connected to an existing storm drain pipe before outletting to El Horno Creek channel. There is an existing off site residential lot (0.16 acre) at the southeast corner of El Camino Real and Spring Street that generates surface flows that easterly along the southerly half of Spring Street, which encompasses an approximately 0.4 acre area. These off site flows enter the project site near the easterly corner of the property. The existing (i.e., pre development) runoff associated with a 100 year storm was calculated to be 14.3 cubic feet per second (cfs). As indicated above, the post development condition reflects two drainage areas: Area A and Area B, consisting of 4.06 acres 10 as opposed to three drainage areas for the Original Project. Drainage Area A encompasses 2.06 acres that would generate storm flows that would be directed northerly to catch basins located at low points at the northwest corner and northeast corner of the parking lot. The proposed catch basins inlets will intercept and divert the low flows to the proposed hydromodification detention vault. Flows detained in the hydromodification detention vault will partially flow to a Modular Wetland System (MWS) for biotreatment before being discharged to a downstream storm drain system. The proposed storm drain catch basins will collect the storm flow from 10 year to 100 year peak flows and convey the runoff to a storm drain line that will extend along the northerly parking lot from west to east and connect with another storm drain before discharging to the existing storm drain open channel and the easterly end of the site. Drainage Area B encompasses 1.4 acres that generates stormwater from building and street parking, which will flow in an easterly direction to a catch basin located at the low point of the east side of the roadway parking. The proposed catch basin inlet will intercept and divert the low flows associated with the 2 year and 10 year storms, to the hydromodification detention vault where they would be treated by the MWS before being discharged to the downstream storm drain system. The proposed storm drain catch basin will collect the storm flow from the 1 year to 100 year peak storms and convey the runoff to a proposed storm drain that would extend from west to east along the southern street parking area then connect to the other storm drain line from Area A before discharging to the existing storm drain open channel at the east end of the project site. As reflected in the WQMP, the total water quality treatment if 0.67 cfs, which would be diverted to the MWS vault from the hydromodification detention vault. Post development runoff associated with a 100 year storm is estimated to be 11.3 cfs when compared to the pre development conditions. Although the drainage plan has been revised to reflect the Revised Project, it has been evaluated in the hydrology study contained in the WQMP. Based on that analysis, it is anticipated that the existing and proposed storm drain systems are adequate to accommodate surface runoff generated by the Revised Project. Potential impacts are less than significant; no mitigation measures are required. 4.9(e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. As discussed in 4.9(d) and reflected in the FEIR for the Original Project, implementation of the Revised Project, as with the Original Project, would result in an increase in impervious surfaces on the site. Although the drainage plan is different than that for the Original Project, the existing and proposed storm drainage systems will be adequate to accommodate post development storm flows generation by the 25 year and 100 year storms. This will be accomplished with the inclusion of a hydromodification detention vault under the project site to detain and treat approximately 0.67 cfs of storm flows generated on the site. The WQMP prepared for the Revised Project prescribes a variety of site design as well as structural and non structural source controls to ensure that 10The total area of the drainage area is 4.06 acres and includes an area that is not part of the project site. July

112 potential pollutants would be minimized. As a result, potential drainage/hydrology and water quality impacts are anticipated to be less than significant; no mitigation measures are required. 4.9(f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Revised Project has been designed to comply with the requirements of the Orange County MS4 Permit (Order No. R /NPDES No. CAS ), of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board and the San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code (Title 7, Chapter 14, Section 8 14), requiring compliance with the County of Orange Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the City s Local Implementation Plan (LIP) for the Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program. As such, requisite BMPs for site design as well as structural and non structural sources have been prescribed in the WQMP prepared for the project. Although WQMP requirements have been revised since 2010 when the FEIR for the Original Project was prepared, the BMPs are adequate to treat surface flows and to accommodate the runoff. As a result, as concluded in the FEIR for the Original Project, project implementation of the Revised Project would not substantially degrade water quality; no mitigation measures would be required. Refer to 4.9(a). 4.9(g) Place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. Prior to the approval of the Original Project in 2010, a portion of the subject property was located within the 100 year floodplain of El Horno Creek as delineated on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No C0443J (December 3, 2009). However, an on site Conditional Letter of Map Revision Fill (CLOMR Fill) for the Original Project was filed and accepted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which determined that a revision to the flood hazards depicted in the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report and/or National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) map is warranted. 11 The Letter of Map Revision Determination Document issued by FEMA revises the effective NFIP map to reflect the updated information. The Conceptual Grading Plan reveals that the project has been designed to drain to the east. All of the proposed structures are located outside the limits of the 100 year flood plain/inundation area. Therefore, project implementation will not result in potentially significant flooding impacts caused by flooding along El Horno Creek. The Revised Project must be designed to ensure that the proposed structures are located above the limits of the 100 year flood elevation. The Revised Project includes the importation of approximately 6,700 cubic yards of earth material. Once the project is constructed, an as built plan will be submitted to FEMA in order to receive the final LOMR F, which will remove the buildings from the flood plain. No potentially significant flooding impacts would occur as a result of project implementation; no mitigation measures are required. 4.9(h) Place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. As indicated in the FEIR for the Original Project and above, FEMA has determined that a revision to the 100 year flood plain delineated on FIRM No C0443J is warranted based on information presented to that agency in the Letter of Map Revision in Based on the design of the Revised Project and, furthermore, on the determination in the Letter of Map Revision Determination Document issued by FEMA dated July 30, 2010, no structures are located within the 100 year flood hazard areas. Thus, flood flows would not be affected as a result of project implementation. No impacts will occur. 4.9(i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. Project implementation will not expose either people or structures to flood hazards as a result of the failure of a dam or levee. The site is not subject to inundation as a result of the failure of a dam or levee because no such structure is located near the subject property that would adversely affect the site in the event of a failure. Therefore, no flooding or inundation impacts will result from implementation of the project. 11Federal Emergency Management Agency, Letter of Map Revision Determination Document, July 30, July

113 4.9(j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? City of San Juan Capistrano No Impact. A seiche involves the oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed basin, such as a reservoir, storage tank, or lake. According to the City s General Plan, no enclosed bodies of water are located in the immediate vicinity of the site; therefore, no impacts from seiches are anticipated as a result of project implementation. A tsunami, commonly referred to as a tidal wave, is a sea wave generated by submarine earthquakes, major landslides, or volcanic action. The area of San Juan Capistrano in which the proposed sewer alignment is located well inland, away from the Orange County coastline. As reflected in the FEIR for the Original Project, due to the elevation and the distance from the coastline, tsunami hazards do not exist for the project site and vicinity. Similarly, the site is essentially flat and devoid of steep slopes (either natural or manmade) that could be undermined by seismic activity or other instability to cause mudflows. Implementation of the Revised Project, like the Original Project, will not expose people or structures to seiches, tsunamis or mudflows. Therefore, no impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. Standard Conditions SC 9 1 SC 9 2 SC 9 3 SC 9 4 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 State Water Quality Resources 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 NPDES permit, a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared and will establish BMPs in order to reduce sedimentation and erosion. Prior to Planning Commission approval, the project applicant shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the project and submit the WQMP to the City of San Juan Capistrano for approval. The WQMP shall specifically identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will 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 Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP), 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 Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP will establish BMPs in order to reduce sedimentation and erosion and prevent construction pollutants from leaving the site. The project shall also incorporate all monitoring elements as required in the General Construction Permit. The project applicant shall also develop an erosion and sediment control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City of San Juan Capistrano prior to issuance of grading permit. 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 As examined in the FEIR and in this Addendum, implementation of the standard conditions, including the SWPPP and WQMP will ensure that potential increases in surface runoff can be adequately accommodate and potential water quality impacts would be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. No mitigation measures are required. Conclusion The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant new adverse effects hydrology and water quality not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project, and would not cause any significant hydrology and water quality impacts previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. July

114 4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Informatio n Showing New or Increase Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR a. Physically divide an established community? b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact FEIR Analysis of Original Project Although the Original Project required a General Plan Amendment, the land uses are consistent with the longrange plans and programs adopted by the City for the subject property. In addition, the Original Project was also consistent with the goals and policies articulated in the relevant elements of the San Juan Capistrano General Plan. In addition, the consistency analysis prepared for the Original Project determined that it was consistent with other long term plans and programs, including the SCAG s Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. Therefore, implementation of the Original Project would not adversely affect such a plan, sensitive habitat and/or resources. The Original Project would also not physically divide an established residential community because it was designed to avoid conflicts with the adjacent uses within the downtown/commercial areas surrounding the site. Project related traffic was directed to adjacent arterial roadways to avoid conflicts with residential development. No features are proposed within the project that would physically divide an established residential neighborhood. Concerns were also expressed during the scoping process about security and, in particular, the appropriateness of locating transient lodging adjacent to an elementary school and the potential for child abduction and/or molestation. The City s OCSD/Police Service Department indicated that, based on discussions with Dana Point Police Services about such land use relationships, that agency has not encountered any threats from suspected molesters staying at the numerous hotels and motels within Dana Point; many of the motels in Dana Point are located within one mile of schools. Uses such as bars, bowling alleys, and recreational centers would likely pose a greater risk; however, none of those uses are proposed, with the possible exception of a bar in the proposed restaurant and/or hotel. OCSD Police Services Department has indicated that based on the scale and type of hotel (i.e., higher end boutique hotel), it would not be expected that nomadic guests or subjects seeking a temporary residence would be attracted. Nonetheless, several measures were prescribed Several measures, including defensive space measures, have been identified for incorporation into the design of the Original Project to reduce the potential for conflicts between the proposed uses, including the hotel, and the existing San Juan Elementary School. The FEIR concluded that potential impacts could be avoided. July

115 Analysis of Revised Project 4.10(a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The project site is not located in an area that is characterized by residential development. The site is bounded on the north by Ortega Highway, on the west by El Camino Real, and on the south by Spring Street. The I 5 Freeway forms the eastern boundary of the subject property. Although the site was previously developed, it is currently vacant; however, the Original Project was approved in As a result, development of the site has been anticipated. Although the Revised Project represents a departure from the Original Project, the modifications are minor and include the elimination of the one story restaurant building. The FEIR for the Original project analyzed a larger development and determined that potential land use impacts would be less than significant. With the reduction in floor area, including the elimination of the retail/office building, the potential impacts anticipated to occur as a result of the Revised Project would be reduced when compared to the Original Project. As reflected in the Plaza Banderas FEIR, the Revised Project is not located in a residential area. Therefore, development of the Revised Project would not physically divide an established residential community. Furthermore, the Revised Project has been designed to avoid conflicts with the adjacent uses within the downtown/commercial areas surrounding the site. Project related traffic will be directed to adjacent arterial roadways to avoid conflicts with residential development. No features are proposed within the project that would physically divide an established residential neighborhood. 4.10(b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The Plaza Banderas FEIR included an extensive analysis of the project s consistency with the applicable adopted long range plans and policies, including the San Juan Capistrano General Plan. As concluded in the FEIR, the potential land use impacts anticipated as a result of the Revised Project, which would require an amendment to CDP as proposed by the project applicant have been analyzed adequately in the FEIR. The modifications proposed in the Revised Project are minor and include only revisions that redefine the project as currently proposed. Specifically, the project description would be revised to reflect the floor areas Revised Project. In addition, the Original Project and related architectural elevations and related exhibits would also be replaced with similar exhibits depicting the Revised Project. No substantive changes that would result in potential conflicts with adopted plans and programs would occur. Finally, because the modifications are minor, the Revised Project is also consistent with the long range goals and policies of the San Juan Capistrano General Plan that were analyzed in the FEIR for the Original Project. Based on the consistency analysis included in the FEIR, the Revised Project is also consistent with the applicable adopted goals, policies and objectives of the San Juan Capistrano Community Design Element, which are substantially implemented through the City s adopted Architectural Design Guidelines and the conditions of approval provide for further Design Review Committee and planning Commission review of the preliminary design plan and final construction plans to assure for consistency with the guidelines. Furthermore, the CDP contains design standards that are intended to provide further guidance to ensure that high quality architectural design is integrated into the proposed development plans. Finally, the project will be consistent with the policies and objectives of the Community Design Element to the extent that the project is consistent with the following policies under Community Design Goal 1: Policy 1.2 Encourage high quality and human scale design in development to maintain the character of the City. Policy 2.1 July

116 Encourage development which complements the City s traditional, historic character through site design, architecture, and landscaping. As indicated above, the Revised Project is consistent with the Plaza Banderas CDP, with the exception of the minor modifications to the project description and relevant graphic presentations depicting the revised development parameters. The project is consistent with the development standards prescribed in CDP and provides adequate setbacks from important historic resources and does not exceed building height and related maximums. The modifications were adequately assessed in the FEIR for the Original Project. As a result, the Revised Project would be consistent with the policy and regulatory documents, including the development agreement that was approved in Therefore, no significant land use policy conflicts will occur; no mitigation measures are required. 4.10(c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The Revised Project would not conflict with an adopted plan of this type. As identified and described in the Plaza Banderas FEIR, the San Juan Capistrano General Plan identifies the City s open space and conservation areas designated within the City. As previously identified in the FEIR and in Section 4.4 (Biological Resources) of this analysis, the subject property is devoid of native habitat due to the past use. As a result, the biological assessment prepared for the FEIR for the Original Project concluded that it does not encompass any significant natural features and/or habitat that supports sensitive species (i.e., coastal California gnatcatcher). In particular, although the site is located in the vicinity of El Horno Creek, there are no wetlands or jurisdictional waters identified on any portion of the subject property; the site is not located within a Natural Community Conservation Plan or Habitat Conservation Plan and project implementation would not result in either direct or indirect impacts on a natural community. Therefore, as concluded for the Original Project in the FEIR, implementation of the Revised Project would not adversely affect such a plan, sensitive habitat and/or resources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. Standard Conditions SC The Plaza Banderas Hotel project will be reviewed for consistency with the approved Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP), California Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, and other applicable codes and ordinances prior to issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measures No significant land use impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant new adverse effects on land use and planning not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project, and would not cause any significant land use impacts previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. July

117 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increase Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact FEIR Analysis of Original Project Neither the City s General Plan nor the State of California has identified the site or environs as a potential location for mineral resources of State wide, regional, or local significance. No mineral resources are known to exist. Therefore, development of the Original Project would not result in the loss of any locally important mineral resource recovery site. No significant impacts would occur as a result of implementing the Original Project. Analysis of Revised Project 4.11(a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. As indicated in the FEIR for the Original Project, the project site is located in an area of the City that is currently undeveloped and designated for urbanization in accordance with the Plaza Banderas CDP. Neither the San Juan Capistrano General Plan nor the State of California has identified the project site or environs as a potential mineral resource of Statewide or regional significance. No mineral resources are known to exist either on the site or in the project environs; therefore, as concluded in the FEIR for the Original Project, implementation of the Revised Project would not result in any significant impacts to mineral resources and no mitigation measures are required. 4.11(b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. As indicated above and in the FEIR for the Original Project, the San Juan Capistrano General Plan does not identify the project environs as having potential value as a locally important mineral resource site. No mineral resources are known to exist on the site. Implementation of the Revised Project as proposed will not result in the loss of any locally important mineral resource site and, therefore, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. Standard Conditions No standard conditions are required. July

118 Mitigation Measures No significant impacts to mineral resources will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion The project changes associated with the proposed Revised Project would not result in any significant new adverse effect on mineral resources not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project, and would not cause any significant impacts to mineral resources previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe NOISE Would the project: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increase Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact FEIR Analysis of Original Project Construction of the Original Project would result in elevated noise levels in the vicinity of the project throughout construction activities. Construction would be restricted to the daytime hours in the City of San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code. Construction equipment and related construction activities are a source of potentially significant noise. Nearby noise sensitive uses, including San Juan Elementary School, the Mission July

119 San Juan Capistrano, and a residential home adjacent to the project site would be subject to elevated noise levels due to the operation of project related construction equipment. Maximum and average estimated noise levels attributable to the development of the Original Project were estimated in the FEIR. Onsite project related construction noise would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 68 dba L eq to 89 dba L eq at the surrounding noise sensitive receptors when construction equipment is operating at the close distances. Noise levels would range from 61 dba L eq to 78 dba L eq at the surrounding noise sensitive receptors when construction equipment is operating at typical distances (center of construction site). Construction activities resulting from the Original Project would elevate ambient noise levels during the daytime at the noise sensitive receptor locations surrounding the proposed project site, resulting in potential disruptions in classroom activities at San Juan Elementary School as well as tourist activities at the Mission San Juan Capistrano during excavation/grading of the site. The Original Project would comply with Section and Section of the San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code; however, construction related noise would occur during operating hours of the San Juan Elementary School and Mission San Juan Capistrano. Overall project related construction activities would take approximately one year to complete. Although the construction is short relative to many construction projects, it would potentially disrupt classroom activities and the relatively quiet ambient noise environment at the Mission San Juan Capistrano closest to the project site. Consequently, significant construction related noise impacts may occur prior to the implementation of mitigation measures. In addition to construction noise, the use of heavy construction equipment also generates construction related vibration. Although some construction related vibration generated on the project would create an annoyance at San Juan Elementary School, it would not result in a significant impact. In addition, vibration levels from construction equipment would be below the FTA criteria for vibration induced structural damage for all the analyzed locations with the exception of the adjacent residence to the northwest. Consequently, there would not be the potential for project related construction activities to cause vibration related damage to offsite structures. Although Original Project would generate traffic, it would not result in significantly increasing the noise levels along the arterial roadways adjacent to the site. At buildout year 2015 of the Original Project, it was estimated that project related traffic would result in noise increases of less than 1 db along each of the roadway segments evaluated and, therefore, would not result in an increase that would cause a significant noise impact. Increases in project related traffic noise are minimal due to the relatively low volume of traffic generated by the Original Project compared to the generally large volume of traffic on local roadways. Original Project implementation would result in a maximum increase in ambient noise levels of 2.2 dba along El Camino Real between Spring Street and Ortega Highway. Consequently, the project would not substantially increase noise levels by 3+ dba at General Plan Buildout. Project related traffic increases under both project buildout (i.e., 2015) and General Plan Buildout would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels within the vicinity of noise sensitive receptors on these roadways. However, noise levels at the hotel uses of the Original Project would be exposed to noise levels of approximately 65 to 68 dba CNEL, which exceeds the City s exterior noise compatibility standards of 65 dba CNEL for hotel uses prior to the implementation of mitigation measures. Other onsite noise generated by the Original Project included that from delivery trucks, idling trucks, parking lot activities, and the operation of HVAC features; however, the noise levels did not exceed exterior standards. The FEIR identified the following potentially significant impacts that could result from implementation of the Original Project: Impact Impact Project related construction noise would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 61 dba L eq to 89 dba L eq at the adjacent and nearby noise sensitive receptors (i.e., San Juan Elementary School, the single family residential dwelling unit, and Mission San Juan Capistrano). Vibration levels from heavy construction equipment would exceed the FTA threshold for vibration annoyance at the San Juan Elementary School and the residence to the northwest of the project site under maximum conditions when equipment is located closest to those existing uses. July

120 Impact Exterior noise levels at the easternmost portion of the proposed hotel would be approximately 68 dba CNEL at ground level and higher at the second and third floors, which would exceed the interior noise levels for such uses prescribed by the City of San Juan Capistrano. Analysis of Revised Project 4.12(a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The City Noise Ordinance (Chapter of the City s Municipal Code), is designed to protect people from nontransportation (stationary) noise. The Noise Ordinance for the City of San Juan Capistrano sets limits on the level and the duration of time a stationary noise source may impact an adjoining residential use. Ordinance limits generally apply to stationary sources such as mechanical equipment, or vehicles operating on private property. The City s noise ordinance limits are stated in terms of a 30 minute limit with allowable deviations from this 50 th percentile standard. The louder the level becomes, the shorter the time becomes that it is allowed to occur. The standards would apply to site operations as they might impact sensitive uses. The nearest noise sensitive uses include Mission San Juan Capistrano, the adjacent residence to the northwest of the project site, and the San Juan Elementary School. As concluded in the FEIR for the Original Project and in Section 4.12(d) below, construction noise levels will be excessive and will result in exceedance of interior noise levels in classrooms at San Juan Elementary School and exterior noise levels at the Mission San Juan Capistrano. Mitigation measures were prescribed for the Original Project that will be carried forward in the Revised Project; however, as indicated for the Original Project, short term noise levels (i.e., during construction) will be the same as identified in the FEIR and cannot be adequately mitigated for the Revised Project. However, no new or more severe short term noise impacts will occur as a result of the Revised Project. Refer to Section 4.12(d). 4.12(b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Construction activities generate ground borne vibration when heavy equipment travels over unpaved surfaces or when it is engaged in soil movement. The effects of ground borne vibration include discernible movement of building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. Within the soft sedimentary surfaces of much of Southern California, ground vibration is quickly damped out. Because vibration is typically not an issue, very few jurisdictions have adopted vibration significance thresholds. Vibration thresholds have been adopted for major public works construction projects, but these relate mostly to structural protection (cracking foundations or stucco) rather than to human annoyance. Vibration is most commonly expressed in terms of the root mean square (RMS) velocity of a vibrating object. RMS velocities are expressed in units of vibration decibels. The range of vibration decibels (VdB) is as follows: 65 VdB threshold of human perception 72 VdB annoyance due to frequent events 80 VdB annoyance due to infrequent events VdB minor cosmetic damage Table 12 1 reflects the approximate vibration levels associated with typical heavy construction equipment at various distances. July

121 Table 12 1 Potential Vibration Impacts Approximate Vibration Levels (VdB) 1 Equipment 25 feet 50 feet 60 feet 100 feet 150 feet Large Bulldozer Loaded Truck Jackhammer Small Bulldozer FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment, Chapter 12, Construction (1995) SOURCE: Giroux & Associates (June 2016) The on site construction equipment employed for the Revised Project that will create the maximum potential vibration is a large bulldozer. The stated vibration source level in the FTA Handbook for such equipment is 87 VdB at 25 feet from the source. If heavy equipment is operating at the property line, the residence at the corner of Spring Street and El Camino Real, vibration could experience vibration levels as high as 87 VdB. By 60 feet, the distance to the San Juan Elementary offices and classrooms, the vibration level dissipates to 79 VdB. These potential vibration levels are similar to those estimated for construction equipment in the FEIR for the Original Project. As indicated in the FEIR for the Original Project, vibration levels from heavy construction equipment could occasionally exceed the vibration annoyance level at the San Juan Elementary School and the residence to the northwest of the project site under maximum conditions when heavy grading equipment is located closest, but not during typical conditions when equipment is located near the center of the project site. Project construction vibration will be somewhat masked by traffic along El Camino Real and Spring Street. As indicated in Table 12 1, vibration levels for the Revised Project, like those anticipated from the Original Project, may occasionally exceed the nuisance threshold at sensitive receptors; however, they are less than the damage threshold. Thus, potential vibration impacts would not exceed those anticipated for the Original Project. Therefore, the vibration levels associated with the Revised Project construction would be less than significant. 4.12(c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Potential long term noise impacts would be generated both off site as a result of increase traffic volumes traveling on adjacent roadways and also from on site activities, including the operation of mechanical equipment, loading and unloading of goods, etc. The potential noise levels anticipated to occur as a result of the Revised Project are summarized below. Off Site Noise Levels Long term noise concerns from the proposed commercial uses at the project site can be derived from vehicular operations on project area roadways. Table 12 2 summarizes the 24 hour CNEL level at 50 feet from the roadway centerline along six area roadway segments. As shown in Table 12 2, traffic generated by the Revised Project will have only a minor effect on the projected noise levels. Because the area is mostly built out, addition of project traffic to area roadways does not significantly alter the noise environment. The largest project related impact is +0.9 db CNEL at 50 feet from the roadway centerline along Spring Street between El Camino Real and the Cul de Sac. This segment has the least background traffic (around 1,000 vehicles per day), so addition of even a small amount of project traffic creates a larger impact than for the other segments which are carrying 6,000 37,000 vehicles per day. Nevertheless, as indicated in the FEIR for the Original Project, which estimated July

122 that noise level increases would range from 0.1 to 0.9 dba), the impact for the Revised Project also would be the same and is below the level of perception. Thus, as anticipated for the Original Project, potential long term offsite noise impacts anticipated for the Revised Project are also less than significant. Table 12 2 Traffic Noise Impact Analysis 1 Existing Plus Project Project Impact Roadway Segment Existing Spring Street between El Camino Real and Cul de Sac El Camino Real between Spring Street and Ortega Highway Ortega Highway between Camino Capistrano and El Camino Real Ortega Highway between El Camino Real and Del Obispo Street Ortega Highway between Del Obispo Street and I 5 SB Ramps Ortega Highway between I 5 SB Ramps and I 5 NB Ramps Noise levels expressed in dba CNEL at 50 feet from roadway centerline. SOURCE: Giroux & Associates (June 2016) On Site Noise Levels As indicated in the FEIR for the Original Project, operation of the Revised Project will also generate a variety of potential noise sources. Various operations of the Revised Project would lead to the introduction of new mobile and stationary sources of noise. On site vehicular traffic, mechanical ventilation systems (HVAC) and possible loading dock activity are the primary sources of stationary noise. The potential noise impacts anticipated to occur as a result of the Revised Project are identified and described below. Because setbacks to the Mission San Juan Capistrano are greater than those of the school and adjacent residence, associated impacts were not evaluated. If noise levels do not exceed thresholds at the school and residence they will be met with an even greater margin of safety at Mission San Juan Capistrano. On Site Vehicular Noise Noise from vehicles entering or leaving the site upon the residence in the northwest corner of the site as well as the San Juan Elementary School was evaluated. The Spring Street entrance (Driveway 1) would impact the elementary school. Since school instructional time typically starts at 8:00 a.m. and ends at 3:00 p.m. it is unlikely peak hour project traffic will be an issue. The Spring Street Driveway 1 is stop controlled and will serve as an exit only for hotel guests but as an entry for service/delivery trucks and possible tour bus traffic for the hotel and restaurant. The truck composition is primarily of medium duty box trucks (i.e. UPS, FedEx); however, noisier vehicles such as trash trucks, large delivery trucks and tour buses may also access the site via this driveway. Based on the TIA prepared for the project, 89 trips would be generated. Approximately 14 of the peak hour trips (16 percent) would travel on Spring Street and utilize Driveway 1. Most of the Driveway 1 trips would be hotel guests leaving the site or UPS/FedEx trucks. As a worst case one heavy diesel type truck was assumed to be in the hourly mix. The noise signature associated with 14 peak hour trips of light duty auto would be 42 db Leq; and 49 db Leq if one of the vehicles is a heavy duty diesel truck. The measured background Leq was 53 db at this location so that project traffic will likely not be noticeable. This noise level is also less than the City s noise standard. The noise levels estimated for the Original Project resulting from on site vehicular activity were estimated to be 57 to 60 dba in the vicinity of the sensitive receptors (i.e., school and residential home at the northwest corner of the project site). July

123 The existing residence is located just north of Driveway 2 on El Camino Real with an approximate 40 foot separation distance. It is estimated that 60 percent of project traffic will utilize Driveway 2. Vehicles would enter the site before reaching the homes so there would be no pass by noise. The noise signature from 54 peak hour vehicles entering or leaving the premises would be around 48 db Leq at 50 feet with no heavy duty diesel truck and 52 db Leq with a heavy duty diesel truck. As discussed, heavy duty diesel trucks will rarely visit the site; however, the noise level is estimated to be less than the 65 db Leq threshold specified in the Municipal Code for residential, public or institutional use. The noise level is also less than the measured level of 55 db Leq. There are parking spaces at the Spring Street and El Camino Real property line. However, all noise generated in the parking lot would be of short duration. Parking activity noise tends more to be a nuisance rather than causing any violation of standards. The sound of starting an automobile lasts only a few seconds and produces noise of approximately 67 db at 50 feet. Impulsive horn sounds occur mostly due to remote door locking systems and car alarms activation can create noise levels of 62 db at 50 feet. Door slams also can create very short duration noise which can also provide noise levels as high as 46 db at 50 feet. While noise generated within the parking lots would occasionally be audible, traffic noise on the surrounding roadways would generally be greater and would mask the majority of noise from parking lot activities. The adjacent residence is single story. A 6 foot noise wall separating the home from the project would provide at least 5 db of noise attenuation and minimize any parking lot or driveway associated noise nuisance. However, even with the wall, parking lot activities may be audible from time to time but are generally not perceived as being loud. Parking lot noise at the nearest residence is below the noise baseline such that people are unlikely to be aware that cars are entering or leaving the site. Mechanical Equipment As indicated in the FEIR for the Original Project, HVAC systems and other on site machinery would have standard manufacturer equipment enclosures, which reduces noise levels. Noise associated with HVAC systems is regulated under Municipal Code Section and, therefore, must not exceed established noise limits. As a result, the FEIR concluded that the Original Project would not result in a substantial increase in the ambient noise environment. Mechanical equipment typically includes heating, ventilating, air conditioning, and refrigerating equipment. Noise generated by rooftop mounted mechanical equipment varies significantly depending upon the equipment type and size. However, based on measurements at other similar commercial centers and literature from Trane Industries, noise levels of 54 dba at 50 feet from external mechanical systems is typical. The nearest San Juan Elementary School classroom/office building has a separation distance of 150 feet from the proposed hotel structure and, noise levels would decay to 44 db Leq. Parapet walls are typically required to shield HVAC equipment both visually and acoustically. An additionally 5 dba is taken for the attenuation from parapet walls reducing noise levels to 39 db. The closest project building to the existing residence at the northwest project corner has more than 60 feet distance separation. HVAC equipment noise at this residence is expected to be 53 db Leq without shielding and 48 dba with shielding. This is also less than applicable noise standards. Additionally, traffic noise will likely mask the noise from project HVAC equipment. Nonetheless, the applicant for the Revised Project will be required to submit engineering and acoustical specifications for project mechanical equipment for review prior to the issuance of building permits which demonstrates that the equipment design combined with distance separation or screen walls will not exceed the noise standards for any adjacent sensitive use. Loading Docks As identified in the FEIR for the Original Project, the Revised Project could also result in the generation of noise from activities associated with delivery truck loading and unloading. During loading and unloading of the truck the engine can only idle for five minutes in compliance with State air quality requirements. There is a loading area proposed at the north of the hotel building. This location is 220 feet from the closest residence and 150 feet from the nearest building of the San Juan Elementary School. As discussed, the primary type of truck vehicles will be box trucks such as FedEx or UPS. There is little noise from loading activities associated with these vehicles. However, as a worst case, noise from a semi truck loading was evaluated. The measured reference noise level for unloading semi trucks and for associated ancillary activities is 67 db Leq at 50 feet July

124 from the center of the activities with no noise protection. Modern loading docks for trucks include a foam seal and enhanced bumpers on the deck leveler to reduce dock mating noise. The rubber gasket provides a tight connection between the truck and the building. All unloading can be done directly into the building. The project dock activity will therefore be slightly quieter than the measured prototype data source, but the unprotected noise levels were used as a worst case condition. Noise impacts from semi truck unloading could be as high as 57 db at the San Juan Elementary School and 54 db at the closest residence. This noise level is less than the daytime noise standard and likely lower than the nocturnal standard. As indicated above, the noise levels on site were estimated to be between 57 to 60 dba in the vicinity of the sensitive receptors. It is recommended that delivery trucks at the northern hotel loading dock should not unload during nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. through 7:00 a.m. to ensure that such noise is minimized. Trash Pick Up Trash pick up activity noise can be disturbing from dumpsters banging and from high engine rpm while hoisting containers. Although distance separation and a rear perimeter wall at the closest residence will substantially abate this noise source, it may still be sleep disturbing if it occurs during quiet hours. However, because such noise would also be a source of sleep disturbance for guests during early morning hours, trash pick up will be limited to daytime hours of lesser sensitivity. A prohibition against trash pick up during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. is recommended for all on site uses to reduce any potential nuisance. 4.12(d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Construction noise impacts vary markedly because the noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used which changes during the course of the project. Construction noise tends to occur in discrete phases dominated initially by demolition and/or earth moving sources and later for finish construction. The earth moving sources are seen to be the noisiest with equipment noise ranging up to about 90 db(a) at 50 feet from the source. Spherically radiating point sources of noise emissions are atmospherically attenuated by a factor of 6 db per doubling of distance, or about 20 db in 500 feet of propagation. The loudest earth moving noise sources may therefore sometimes be detectable above the local background beyond 1,000 feet from the construction area. An impact radius of 1,000 feet or more pre supposes a clear line of sight and no other machinery or equipment noise that would mask project construction noise. With buildings and other barriers to interrupt line of sight conditions, the potential noise envelope around individual construction site is reduced. Construction noise impacts are, therefore, somewhat less than that predicted under idealized input conditions. During most intensive heavy equipment operations, the peak hourly average noise level from several pieces of equipment in simultaneous hourly operation is db Leq at 50 feet from the activity. Even with closed windows at the residence adjacent to the project boundary such levels could interfere with quiet interior residential activity. However, the Revised Project would result in similar impacts as identified in the FEIR. As indicated in that document, onsite construction associated with the Original Project would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 68 dba L eq to 89 dba L eq at the surrounding noise sensitive receptors when construction equipment is operating at the close distances. Noise levels would range from 61 dba L eq to 78 dba L eq at the surrounding noise sensitive receptors when construction equipment is operating at typical distances (center of construction site). San Juan Elementary School is also noise sensitive and could experience a temporary construction noise nuisance from heavy equipment. Such noise may be intrusive into indoor learning and outdoor recreational use. The nearest construction activities may occur as close as 60 feet to the school property line. Outdoor activities at the school occur within a sheltered courtyard or on a lightly used outdoor court/field 150 feet away from planned construction plus being blocked by the school buildings itself. The primary noise constraint would be to the interior instructional environment. Because the classrooms are air conditioned, the structural attenuation of rooms with heavy duty plate windows is db or more. July

125 In order for language to be clearly understood a teacher is able to use normal conversational voice when the background noise level is low (50 55 dba); however, when background noise levels are elevated, a teacher must speak in a very loud voice in order to be heard clearly. With outdoor to indoor noise mitigation a construction noise level greater than db could interfere with speech intelligibility at the nearest classrooms. Temporary noise levels from heavy construction equipment could be in the high 80 db range and could thus intrude into classroom instructional activities. Therefore, where feasible, the grading contractor should coordinate with management of the school facilities to schedule the noisiest activities during periods of lesser sensitivity. Such coordination could be to not operate large equipment close to outdoor student assembly areas when outdoor recreation is in progress, or, preferably, when the school facility is not occupied would assist in noise mitigation but impacts would still be significant as reflected in the FEIR, which concluded that average construction related noise levels would range from 67 dba to 78 dba and maximum constructionrelated noise levels at the school would range from 76 to 82 dba. With the incorporation of mitigation measures prescribed in the FEIR for the Original Project, academic activities occurring within the classrooms would not be exposed to excessive levels of project related construction noise and would not result in a significant noise impact. The existing residence is adjacent to the site along the northwestern property line. The maximal noise levels would occur when construction equipment are operating at their closest boundary. A typical building with single pane windows can reduce noise levels by db with the windows closed (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1974). For indoor noise environments, the highest noise level that permits relaxed conversation with 100 percent intelligibility throughout the room is 45 db. Speech interference is considered to be intolerable when normal conversation is precluded at 3 feet, which occurs when background noise levels exceed 60 db. An exterior noise level of 70 db at receptor locations would maintain an acceptable interior noise environment of 45 db with closed windows. In some cases, this noise reduction could be maintained only on a temporary basis, since it requires that windows remain closed at all times assuming homes have air conditioning. a significant noise impact would occur when noise levels remained above the 70 db exterior noise level and 45 db interior noise level speech interference thresholds. Mission San Juan Capistrano is a historical landmark with outdoor touring activities. Excessive levels of noise have the potential to negatively affect speech intelligibility as well contemplation at the site, thereby hindering visitor s enjoyment of the Mission. Assuming normal conversation occurs at a distance of 3 feet, speech intelligibility can still be maintained with a background noise level of 65 db as the upper limit using normal effort in speech. During the grading phase, noise at the Mission could exceed this limit even with attenuation from the substantial Mission perimeter walls. When construction equipment is operating at the western portion of the project site closest to the Mission, speech interference may occur. As indicated in the FEIR for the Original Project, average and maximum construction noise levels in the vicinity of the Mission San Juan Capistrano would range from 65 to 72 dba and from 78 to 89 dba, respectively, resulting in a significant, unavoidable adverse impact. Construction activities would elevate ambient noise levels during the daytime at the noise sensitive receptors surrounding the project site and potentially disrupt classroom activities and tourist activities at the Mission San Juan Capistrano during construction of the site. San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code, permissible hours of construction are 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays and 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Saturdays and these hours are included as conditions on any project construction permits. However, construction related noise would occur during operating hours of the San Juan Elementary School and Mission San Juan Capistrano and would potentially disrupt classroom activities and the relatively quiet ambient noise environment at the Mission San Juan Capistrano closest to the project site. In addition, construction noise levels could interfere with speech intelligibility at the adjacent residence. Although mitigation measures prescribed in the FEIR for the Original Project will be carried forward in the Revised Project, short term construction noise levels will remain significant and unavoidable. July

126 4.12(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. As indicated in the FEIR for the Original Project and previously discussed (refer to Section 4.8(e)), John Wayne Airport (JWA) is the nearest aviation facility to the project site, located approximately 15 miles to the northwest. The project site is well beyond airport s 65 dba CNEL noise contour. Therefore, as indicated in the FEIR for the Original Project, no aviation noise impacts will occur to the Revised Project and no mitigation measures are required. 4.12(f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The McConville Airstrip located in Lake Elsinore represents the nearest private use airport and is approximately 15 miles to the northeast of the project site. The project site is well beyond either airport s 65 dba CNEL noise contour and significant impacts associated with this facility would not result from the implementation of the Revised Project. Standard Conditions SC 12 1 Construction activity which includes the delivery and/or recovery of materials, supplies, or construction equipment shall be conducted in accordance with City of San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code, Title 8, Chapter 2, Section , Permitted Hours of Construction Operation as follows: Mitigation Measures Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Hauling soil to or from the site, or from one part of the project site to another, shall comply with San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code Section , Import or Export as follows: The loading and transportation of earth from or to the site shall be accomplished between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday and between 8:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. on Saturdays. Saturday afternoon work hours may be extended up to 4:30 p.m. only with the prior approval of the Building Official. Such approval shall be based upon the consideration of the haul routes, noise and dust factors, proximity to residences, and similar criteria. No earth loading or transportation shall be permitted on Sundays or on Federal holidays. In order to ensure that noise impacts are reduced to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures required for the Original Project shall be carried forward in the Revised Project and implemented by the project applicant. Nonetheless, as concluded in the FEIR for the Original Project, short term construction impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. MM 12 1a The construction site supervisor (the individual with complete supervisory control over all onsite construction scheduling and activities) shall properly maintain and tune all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions. The contractor shall maintain all equipment maintenance records (originals or copies) onsite during construction and shall allow inspection of those records by authorized City staff, including Community Development Department staff or Public Works Department staff, when so requested. Violations of this provision, including failure to maintain records onsite, may be subject to administrative July

127 citation pursuant to Chapter 7, Administrative Citations, of Title 1 of the San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code. MM 12 1b MM 12 1c MM 12 1d MM 12 1e MM 12 1f MM 12 1g MM 12 1h The construction site supervisor shall be responsible for assuring that all construction equipment has been fitted and maintained with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer to minimize noise emissions. Lack of or improperly maintained mufflers, silencers, and/or shrouds on construction equipment may constitute a violation subject to administrative citation pursuant to Chapter 7, Administrative Citations, of Title 1 of the San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code. The construction site supervisor shall locate and maintain the construction staging area for construction vehicles, materials and equipment on the south eastern portion of the project site as far away as practically possible from the Mission San Juan Capistrano and the San Juan Elementary School. All stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from noise sensitive receptors as feasible, but at least 100 feet from existing noisesensitive residential land uses. In any case, where such stationary noise sources cannot be situated at least 100 feet from existing noise sensitive residential land uses, such equipment shall be provided with a temporary noise barrier subject to approval by the City s building/grading inspector. Violations of this provision may be subject to administrative citation pursuant to Chapter 7, Administrative Citations, of Title 1 of the San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code. Prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading or building permit, the associated plans shall depict the location of the construction staging area which shall be subject to the approval of the Development Services Director or his designee. In the event any demolition, grading or trenching occurs during days when school is in session, the construction site supervisor shall install temporary sound barriers (sound blankets or plywood) along the western and northern perimeter of the site during demolition, grading, and trenching activities consistent with a temporary sound barrier plan that shall be subject to review and approval by the City. The plan shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that the temporary sound barrier will reduce construction noise impacts on San Juan Elementary School to not greater than 65 dba CNEL measured at the exterior of the school buildings. The temporary sound barriers shall have a minimum height of six feet and shall remain in place on the boundaries until the completion of the site preparation phase. Violations of this provision, including failure to secure City approval of a temporary sound barrier plan or failure to maintain seamless sound barriers, may be subject to administration citation pursuant to Chapter 7, Administrative Citations, of Title 1 of the San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code. Material delivery, soil haul trucks, and equipment servicing shall be restricted to the hours set forth in the City of San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code, Title 8, Chapter 2, Section , Permitted Hours of Construction Operation, and Section , Import or Export. To the maximum extent practicable, construction activities will be schedule to occur during summer non school hours so as to minimize noise impacts to San Juan Elementary School. The construction site supervisor shall decrease the overall duration (number of days) of construction activities and associated construction noise impacts by having construction crews work a minimum of 10 hours per day but within the days (Monday through Saturday only) and hours specified under San Juan Capistrano municipal code Section The construction site supervisor shall install and maintain temporary sound barrier walls (sound blankets or plywood) along the western and northern perimeters of the site during demolition, grading, and trenching activities subject to review and approval of the Development Services Director prior to issuance of any demolition, grading or building permit. The temporary sound barrier walls shall have a minimum height of eight feet. If constructed July

128 using sound blanket material, such barrier walls shall provide a minimum of 20 STC (Sound Transmission Class). If constructed using plywood, such barriers walls shall use a minimum 5/8 inch thick plywood with the plywood seams center on the support posts so as to create a seamless, uniform sound wall. The temporary sound barrier shall remain in place on the boundaries until the completion of the site preparation phases. If demolition, grading, and trenching activities are not scheduled to occur during school days, the sound barrier wall along the northern perimeter shall not be required. MM 12 1i MM 12 1j MM 12 1k The construction site supervisor shall conduct demolition, grading and trenching operations during non school hours and/or during summer vacation when classes at San Juan Elementary School are not in session to the greatest extent practicable. If such activities must occur when classes are in session, additional sound attenuating measures shall be implemented to ensure that the classroom learning environment is not adversely affected. These additional measures may include but are not limited to raising the height of the temporary noise wall, placement of sound blankets at strategic locations along the perimeter of the site, and, were possible, conducting activities farther away from the school. The construction site supervisor shall coordinate the use of heavy construction equipment operations with the Principal of San Juan Elementary School to avoid noise disturbance during state or district mandated achievement testing days. The construction site supervisor shall not allow the operation of heavy construction equipment during such mandated testing days. However, as an alternative, the construction site supervisor may operate such equipment during mandated testing days/periods if such equipment has been provided with sound blanket barriers or similar noise proofing to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director or his designee. Prior to the start of construction, the construction site supervisor shall post signs, clearly visible along the three street frontages of the project site, with a contact name and telephone number of that on site person responsible for immediately investigating and addressing construction noise complaints and shall provide that contact information to the Principal of San Juan Elementary School. This signs shall be maintained until the end of all construction activities. If construction noise is significantly hampering educational instruction, the principal would convey this to the site supervisor, who would institute these additional noise reduction measures as necessary. 1. Have construction equipment throttle down so that it generates less noise. 2. Reschedule noisy activities near the northern project boundary, which is closest to the school, to after school or on weekends. 3. Increase the height of the sound barrier wall. 4. Use portable screens to further shield stationary or semi stationary noise sources. 5. Reschedule noise intensive activities for after school or weekends. 6. Use quieter methods to achieve the same task if available. 7. Install windows or use plywood coverings on window openings as soon as possible to reduce building construction noise. MM 12 2 During construction, the construction manager shall ensure that the following minimum operating distances between construction equipment and the adjacent residence to the northwest of the project site are maintained: Loaded trucks and jackhammers 20 feet Large construction equipment (equivalent to a large bulldozer) 40 feet Vibratory roller 50 feet MM 12 3a Prior to the approval of final building plans for the Plaza Banderas hotel component, the applicant shall prepare an acoustic study that demonstrates that the exterior noise levels at the July

129 proposed hotel pool shall not exceed 65 dba CNEL per the City s noise compatibility standards. Acoustical design features incorporated into the proposed project design may include exterior features to reduce noise, such as masonry walls, glass or plexiglass, subject to the review and approval under the City s design review process. MM 12 3b Prior to the approval of final building plans for the Plaza Banderas hotel component, the acoustic study required by MM 12 3a shall include analysis that demonstrates that the interior noise levels in habitable rooms (residential and offices) shall not exceed 45 dba CNEL, as defined by the California Building Code. Acoustical design features incorporated into the proposed project design, which may include exterior features to reduce noise, such as berms/walls or architectural features such as Sound Transmission Class or Outdoor Indoor Transmission Class rated windows and doors, shall be shown on all building plans and shall be incorporated into construction of the proposed project. The acoustic study shall include special attention to and mitigation of lower frequency of noise generated by the large number of heavy duty trucks that traverse the I 5 freeway and Ortega Highway. This conclusion shall be demonstrated through submission of an acoustics study prepared by a qualified consultant. Conclusion The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant new adverse noise effects not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project, and would not cause any significant noise impacts previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. As indicated in the FEIR, short term construction noise impacts associated with the project will remain significant and unavoidable POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increase Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact FEIR Analysis of Original Project Implementation of the Original Project would not eliminate any residential dwelling units or residents. Therefore, no existing housing or residents would be displaced if it was constructed and no significant impacts will occur. Further, the Original did not include residential development or other land uses that would be considered directly growth inducing. Further, all of the infrastructure existed in the area and was available to accommodate the Original Project. Adequate capacity existed in all of the infrastructure systems that serve the July

130 site, including sewer, water, storm drainage, roadways and no new or expanded facilities were required to provide service to the project. No significant additional growth would be anticipated to occur as a direct result of the Original Project. Therefore, no significant growth inducing impacts were anticipated as a result of its implementation. Analysis of Revised Project 4.13(a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. Generally, growth inducing projects possess such characteristics as being located in isolated, undeveloped or under developed areas, necessitating the extension of major infrastructure (e.g., sewer and water facilities, roadways, etc.) or those that could encourage the premature or unplanned growth in an area not planned for development (i.e., leapfrog development). The subject property is located within the historic town center of the City that is developed with a variety of land uses, including transportation (I 5 Freeway), commercial, religious (Mission San Juan Capistrano), and institutional (public school). Like the Original Project analyzed in the FEIR, implementation of the Revised Project will not result in encroachment into designated open space allocated in the existing long range plans adopted by the City of San Juan Capistrano and, furthermore, it would not induce substantial population growth since the project environs is urbanized and designated for development. As indicated above and in the FEIR for the Original Project, all essential infrastructure, including sewer and water facilities, storm drainage facilities, electricity and natural gas, and related utilities currently exist, or can be extended to the site without creating the need for unplanned infrastructure expansions. Utility extensions would occur consistent with the City s adopted facility plans. All of the public services and facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed expansion; and, project implementation will not result in significant or unanticipated increases in demands on the infrastructure. Therefore, no significant growth inducing impacts are anticipated as a result of the Revised Project. 4.13(b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project site is vacant; no residential development exists on the property. The FEIR concluded that implementation of the Original project would not result in the displacement of existing housing stock or the need for replacement housing. Similarly, implementation of the Revised Project will neither result in the displacement of any existing housing nor require the construction of replacement housing. Therefore, no significant impacts to housing will occur and no mitigation measures are required. 4.13(c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. As indicated above and in the FEIR for the Original Project, the project site does not support any existing housing. As a result, no people will be displaced or adversely affected by the implementation of the Revised Project; no replacement housing is required. No significant impacts to population will occur and no mitigation measures are required. Standard Conditions No standard conditions are required. Mitigation Measures No existing dwelling units will be eliminated and no residents will be displaced as a result of the Revised Project. Therefore, no significant impacts to population and housing; no mitigation measures are required. July

131 Conclusion City of San Juan Capistrano The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant adverse effects on population and housing not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project, and would not cause any significant impacts to population and housing previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increase Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1) Fire protection? 2) Police protection? 3) Schools? 4) Parks? 5) Other public facilities? No Impact FEIR Analysis of Original Project Fire Protection It is possible that short term construction impacts associated with the Original Project could necessitate the closure of roadways that serve the subject property in order to facilitate access to the site during the construction phase of the project. As a result, the project applicant will be required to coordinate road closures and emergency access with the OCFA to ensure that an adequate level of fire protection can be maintained during the construction of the proposed project. As indicated in the Final EIR prepared for the General Plan Update concluded that the increase in development within the City, including the implementation of the Original Project, would require additional fire stations and equipment over time (i.e., buildout of the city as planned) to ensure adequate emergency response capabilities. The OCFA typically enters into a Secured Fire Protection Agreement with private developers whose major development projects impact the ability of that agency to provide emergency and fire protection services at the adopted service levels. Project implementation will not require the construction of a new fire station. With the payment of the fair share fees in accordance with the Secured Fire Protection Agreement, project related emergency response and related impacts on fire protection facilities and service associated with the Original Project would be reduced to a less than significant level. July

132 In addition to the potential impacts identified above related to the potential impacts to existing facilities, equipment and manpower levels that affect response times, project implementation could have a potential adverse effect on effectiveness of the ability of firefighting equipment and personnel to access the site and provide combat fires and related emergencies on the site. Without adequate access, both to the site and to each of the proposed structures, firefighting and related emergency activities could be hampered. In order to ensure that adequate access is provided to the site and proposed structures, the applicant was required to submit the site plan for review to the Orange County Fire Authority. Additional mitigation measures have also been prescribed by the OCFA to ensure that potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. With the implementation of those measures, potential impacts to the OCFA would be less than significant. Police Protection The FEIR revealed that a potential existed for vandalism, theft, trespassing and other related law enforcement impacts during the construction phases. Implementation of a Construction Security Plan reviewed and approved by the OCSD would adequately address potential vandalism during the construction phase. In addition, lane closures during the construction phase could affect response times. However, with the implementation of appropriate security measures and the Traffic Control and Construction Management Plan, no significant construction related law enforcement impacts are anticipated to result from project implementation. Potential conflicts between hotel and San Juan Elementary School were identified in the form of transient residents and other visitors that may occupy the hotel. The OCSD determined that potential conflicts would be minimized through the imposition of incorporate of defensive space measures into the project design. The FEIR revealed that OCSD officials indicated that the increase in demands on law enforcement services resulting from project implementation would not be significant when compared to the current demand levels based on the nature and character of the proposed development. Schools Construction activities necessary to implement the Original Project will not result in the generation of school age children within the CUSD. Short term impacts associated with the Original Project are those resulting from construction of the hotel, restaurant, and retail/office buildings and include traffic congestion, safety, and noise. Specifically, traffic generated by the Original Project could pose a safety hazard to children attending San Juan Elementary School and other pedestrians in the area. In addition, potential increase in construction noise would also increase interior and exterior noise levels at San Juan Elementary School and the increase in pollutant emissions could also affect sensitive receptors. All of these potential impacts were addressed in mitigation measures prescribed for the Original Project. Implementation of the Original Project would not result in the direct generation of school age children. Based on the CUSD student generation rate, the Original project would have the potential to generate two school age children. Although this impact is less than significant, the project would be required to pay the applicable statutory developer fee. As indicated in previously, implementation of the Original Project would result in a potential increase in service calls associated with the proposed hotel, restaurant and retail/office. However, the OCSD has indicated that potential land use conflicts between the guests of the hotel and the school would not be expected based on information ascertained from the City of Dana Point police services staff, which indicated that the OCSD has not experienced such conflicts between hotels and schools that are located in close proximity. The OCSD recommended several measures that would facilitate safety and security, which include the use of perimeter landscaping, lighting, camera surveillance, the provision of a physical barrier to deter direct access to the nearby school, and building design. In addition, the proposed project would be subject to review by the OCSD during the development review process to ensure that adequate security features are incorporated into the design of the project to avoid or minimize the potential safety and security impacts. As a result, no significant impacts would occur. July

133 Analysis of Revised Project 4.14(a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 4.14(a)(1) Fire protection? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Fire protection services and facilities in the City of San Juan Capistrano are provided and maintained through a contract with the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). Staffing and equipment are provided regionally. OCFA operates out of 72 fire stations with seven divisions and a daily staff of 328. In addition to OCFA manpower and equipment, the OCFA is also a party to the master mutual aid agreement of California and has contracts with both the California Department of Forestry and the U.S. Forest Service; however, this area does not require either Mutual or Automatic Aid. There are no other adjacent local agency fire departments serving cities located adjacent to San Juan Capistrano. At the present time, OCFA Fire Station No. 7, located at Del Obispo Street in the City of San Juan Capistrano is the closest fire station to the subject property. This facility is staffed with one Engine and three firefighters and a Medic Van with two firefighter/paramedics. Additional reserve units are staffed by reserve firefighters (i.e., Patrol and Water Tender) and are available to augment the manpower and equipment levels at Fire Station No. 7. Other stations located outside the City include Station 29 (Dana Point), Station 50 in San Clemente, and Station 9 in Mission Viejo. In addition to the stations identified above, Station No. 56, which includes a paramedic engine and a wildland engine, was opened in This fire station will provide secondary service to the project area. Resources are deployed based upon a regional service delivery system, assigning personnel and equipment to emergency incidents without regard to jurisdictional boundaries. The equipment used by the department has the versatility to respond to both urban and wildland emergency conditions. The OCFA Board of Directors has adopted a response time standard intended to maintain an adequate levels of service. That standard requires that the first unit must be on scene from receipt within seven minutes and 20 seconds 80 percent of the time. OCFA has assigned a 12 minute response for a full first alarm assignment (i.e., three engines, one truck, one medic, and one chief) 80 percent of the time; the first unit equates to a five minute drive time. It is possible that short term construction impacts could necessitate the closure of roadways that serve the subject property in order to facilitate access to the site during the construction phase of the project. As a result, the project applicant will be required to coordinate road closures and emergency access with the OCFA, including the preparation of a temporary access plan, to ensure that an adequate level of fire protection can be maintained during the construction of the Revised Project. The subject property is not located within the limits of a designated high fire hazard area as indicated in the Safety Element of the San Juan General Plan. Therefore, no potentially significant wildland fire hazard danger exists. As indicated in the Plaza Banderas FEIR, development of the site will result in the intensification of development within the City, which is characterized by the construction of the hotel and restaurant buildings on the property. Although the Revised Project is consistent with the intensity of development analyzed in the FEIR for the Original project and permitted in the San Juan Capistrano General Plan and zoning density allocations, development of the site will increase the demands for (structural) fire protection and paramedic services and, therefore, have a potential adverse effect on the ability of the OCFA to continue to provide an adequate level of service. July

134 As indicated in the Plaza Banderas Final EIR prepared for the General Plan Update concluded that the increase in development would require additional fire stations and equipment over time (i.e., buildout of the city as planned) to ensure adequate emergency response capabilities. In order to continue to provide an adequate level of fire protection service within the City of San Juan Capistrano, the OCFA typically enters into a Secured Fire Protection Agreement with private developers (refer to MM ) whose major development projects impact the ability of that agency to provide emergency and fire protection services at the adopted service levels. Project implementation will not require the construction of a new fire station. Nonetheless, a developer is required to mitigate the project s incremental impact to fire protection facilities and service by providing a pro rata fair share funding for capital improvements and infrastructure costs. With the payment of the fair share fees in accordance with the Secured Fire Protection Agreement, project related emergency response and related impacts on fire protection facilities and service associated with the development of the site as proposed would be reduced to a less than significant level. In addition to the potential impacts identified above related to the existing facilities, equipment and manpower levels that affect response times, implementation of the Revised Project could have a potential adverse effect on effectiveness of the ability of firefighting equipment and personnel to access the site and provide combat fires and related emergencies on the site as indicated in the FEIR for the Original Project. Without adequate access, both to the site and to each of the proposed structures, firefighting and related emergency activities could be hampered. In order to ensure that adequate access is provided to the site and proposed structures, the applicant will be required to submit the site plan for review to the Orange County Fire Authority (refer to SC ). Additional mitigation measures were also prescribed in the FEIR for site development by the OCFA, which will also be implemented to ensure that potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. Standard Conditions Standard conditions are addressed in the Fire Master Plan; however, the following conditions apply to the Revised Project. SC SC SC SC SC Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the project plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Orange County Fire Authority for compliance with all applicable OCFA standard conditions, including those for access, water supply and pressure, built in fire protection systems, road grades and width, building materials, etc. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall have completed implementation of that portion of the approved fuel modification plan determined to be necessary by the OCFA before the introduction of any combustible materials into the project area. Approval shall be subject to an on site inspection by OCFA. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall obtain approval of the Fire Chief for all fire protection access roads to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior of every structure on site. The plans shall include plan and sectional views and indicate the grade and width of the access road measured flow line to flow line. When a dead end street exceeds 150 feet or when otherwise required, a clearly marked fire apparatus access turnaround must be provided and approved by the Fire Chief. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for combustible construction, the builder shall submit a letter on company letterhead stating that water for fire fighting purposes and allweather fire protection access roads shall be in place and operational before any combustible material is placed on site. Building permits will not be issued without OCFA approval obtained as a result of an on site inspection. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a fire hydrant location plan to the Fire Chief for review and approval. July

135 SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC City of San Juan Capistrano Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy, all fire hydrants shall have a blue reflective pavement marker indicating the hydrant location on the street as approved by the Fire Chief, and must be maintained in good condition by the property owner. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit plans and obtain approval from the Fire Chief for fire lanes on required fire access roads less than 36 feet in width. The plans shall indicate the locations of red curbs and signage and include a detail of the proposed signage, including eight, stroke and colors of the lettering and its contrasting background. Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy, the fire lanes shall be installed in accordance with the approved fire master plan. The CC&Rs or other approved documents shall contain a fire lane map, provisions prohibiting parking in the fire lanes, and a method of enforcement. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, if applicable, the applicant shall obtain the approval from the Fire Chief for the construction of any gate across required fire department access roads. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall provide evidence of adequate fire flow. The Orange County Fire Authority Water Availability for Fire Protection form shall be signed by the applicable water district and submitted to the Fire Chief for approval. An automatic fire extinguishing system (i.e., sprinklers) will be required for the project. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a note shall be placed on the fire master plan stating that all structures exceeding 5,500 square feet (per amendment) and all structures exceeding fire department access requirements shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system in a manner meeting the approval of the Fire Chief. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans for any required automatic fire sprinkler system in any structure to the Fire Chief for review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, this system shall be operations in a manner meeting the approval of the Fire Chief. As required by the California Fire Code (CFC), applicable structures shall have automatic fire sprinkler systems. A supervised fire alarm system that complies with the requirements of the California Fire Code shall be included in the project design in an accessible location with an annunciator. Access to and around structures shall meet OCFA and California Fire Code requirements. Mitigation Measures In order to ensure that impacts to fire protection are reduced to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures required for the Original Project shall be carried forward in the Revised Project and implemented by the project applicant. MM Prior to approval of any final parcel map for the project, the developer shall enter into a Secured Fire Protection Agreement with the OCFA, which shall specify the developer s pro rata fair share funding of capital improvements necessary to establish adequate fire protection facilities and equipment, and/or personnel. Said agreement shall be reached as early as possible in the planning process, preferably for each phase or land use sector of the project, rather than on a parcel by parcel basis. The secured Fire Protection Agreement shall be paid in full prior to issuance of the grading permit. July

136 MM a MM b MM c All electrically operated gates necessary for emergency/fire access within the proposed project shall install emergency opening devices as approved by the Orange County Fire Authority. A water supply system to supply fire hydrants and automatic fire sprinkler systems shall be incorporated into the project design as required by the San Juan Capistrano Utilities Department. Fire hydrant spacing is 300 feet between fire hydrants. Turning radius and access in and around the project site and structures shall be designed to accommodate all OCFA fire/emergency vehicles and their weight. Conclusion The project changes associated with the proposed Revised Project would not result in any significant new adverse effects on fire protection service not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project, and would not cause any significant impacts to fire protection previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. 4.14(a)(2) Police protection? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The City of San Juan Capistrano has been contracting its primary law enforcement services from the Orange County Sheriff s Department (OCSD) since The OCSD provides 24 hour contract law enforcement services to the City. Service provided includes staffing for calls for service, preventive patrol, traffic enforcement, general and traffic investigation, and specialized enforcement, school resource officer, motor deputies, and a regional directed enforcement deputy. Sheriff s regional and departmental services are also supplied to the City, which include homicide, sex, and economic crime investigations. Special weapons and tactics (SWAT), Hostage Negotiations, and Reserve supplement, and many other services are also available to the City from OCSD. The department maintains mutual aid agreements with surrounding contracted Sheriff s cities. On major planned or emergency events, outlying cities will supply manpower and resources to assist. Depending on the event, reimbursement may be necessitated to the contributing agency. City, County, and State mutual aid agreements exist for a variety of situations. The OCSD/Police Services Department embraces the concept of Community Based Policing, which encompasses the active participation of local government, civic and business leaders, residents, schools, churches, public and private agencies, etc. A total of 30 OCSD personnel are assigned to the City of San Juan Capistrano, including one lieutenant, four sergeants, two investigators, 21 deputies, and two community service officers. The City s staffing level is based on response times and crime rates determined to be adequate for the City. The last enhancement to staffing occurred during the 2001/02 fiscal year. Law enforcement in the City is provided by units that patrol San Juan Capistrano during designated shifts. Response times to the project site are dependent on various factors, including the location of patrol vehicles at the given moment. Emergency calls receive the quickest response, with alarm calls and non emergency calls having longer response times. Construction activities on the site would occur over a period of approximately 12 months. As indicated in the FEIR for the Original Project, without adequate security measures implemented during construction, there is a potential for increased theft, vandalism, and trespassing during the construction phases. However, the project applicant will be required to ensure that site access is restricted and that adequate security is maintained during the construction period in order to prevent unlawful trespass, vandalism, theft of construction materials and/or equipment, and other property crimes. In addition, road and/or lane closures that may be required during the construction phases could also affect response times by law enforcement agencies. However, with prior notification of construction schedules, lane closures, etc., the Police Services Department will be able to respond in a timely manner to emergency calls in the affected area. Field deputy awareness and by pass routes will be determined for responses to calls in the project area. As a result, response times would be expected to remain constant. The provision of law enforcement services to surrounding land uses will not be significantly impacted during the project construction period as concluded in the FEIR. Measures prescribed in the FEIR will July

137 be carried forward in the Revised Project and implemented by the project applicant. With the implementation of appropriate security measures and the Traffic Control and Construction Management Plan that will be prepared for the project (refer to MM 16 1a through MM 16 1g in Section 4.16 Transportation/Traffic), no significant construction related law enforcement impacts are anticipated to result from project implementation. Project implementation will result in the development of approximately 101,965 square feet of development, including the 124 room hotel and restaurant uses that would result in an increased demand for police protection services provided by the City OCSD/Police Services Department. With the types of uses proposed, the OCSD has indicated that thefts due to frauds and break ins are the most frequent crimes with hotel/motel sites; however, higher end hotels tend to have less frequent occurrences of these incidents. Bars within a restaurant could present additional concerns, such as fights and driving under the influence (DUI) within the City, which could require additional calls for police services. Other activities occurring either at the proposed hotel that could result in incidents requiring law enforcement responses include special events, such as weddings and birthdays or VIP visitors that may require some law enforcement effort in the form of protection. These potential impacts are the same as identified by the OCSD and reflected in the FEIR for the Original Project. The OCSD indicated that in 2015, the Best Western Hotel in San Juan Capistrano, which has 108 rooms, had 55 calls for service, including 18 calls that were categorized as Disturbance Calls and 10 categorized as Keep the Peace. Less than 10 of the calls resulted in criminal reports. Also in 2015, the Residence Inn by Marriot had 34 calls for service, including 10 calls that were criminal reports. The remainder include non criminal (e.g., disturbances, keep the peace, suspicious persons, etc.). These figures are similar to the 2009 statistics presented in the FEIR for the Original Project. It is anticipated that similar incidents may be expected at the proposed hotel, necessitating law enforcement response. The OCSD indicated that the increase in calls for service, estimated to be a minimum of 50 to 60 per year, would be expected to occur primarily on weekends and holidays, and during the summer months. It is possible that with on site security provided by the hotel, the potential OCSD response could be reduced. Other potential impacts could include the potential for conflicts with students/pedestrians on the streets surrounding the subject property resulting from the increase in vehicular traffic generated by the Revised Project. As indicated in the FEIR for the Original Project, the proposed hotel will accommodate visitors to the City of San Juan Capistrano and, in particular, to the City s historic downtown area. San Juan Elementary School is located on Spring Street, north of the project site. In both correspondence and meetings conducted with representatives of the Capistrano Unified School District, concern was expressed about the potential for sexual predators to occupy the hotel. The City s OCSD/Police Service Department indicated that, based on discussions with Dana Point Police Services, that agency did not encounter any threats from suspected molesters staying at the numerous hotels and motels within that City; many of the motels in Dana Point are located within one mile of schools. It is anticipated that uses such as bars, bowling alleys, and recreational centers would likely pose a greater risk; however, none of those uses are proposed, with the possible exception of a bar in the proposed restaurant and/or hotel. Furthermore, the OCSD Special Victims Unit indicated that it is difficult to determine if the potential exists for molestations and abductions by the mere presence of a hotel. While all hotels would have transitory guests, the OCSD Police Services Department has indicated that based on the scale and type of hotel (i.e., higher end boutique hotel), it would not be expected that nomadic guests or subjects seeking a temporary residence would be attracted. Nonetheless, there are several measures, which were included in the FEIR for the Original Project, that can be incorporated into the design of the Revised Project to reduce the potential for conflicts between the proposed uses, including the hotel, and the existing San Juan Elementary School. These defensive space measures may include establishing a physical barrier between the hotel and Spring Street, which would assist in the prevention of hotel guests wandering onto school property, causing concerns for teachers and parents. Lighted parking lots; video surveillance in the lobby, walkways, and parking area; and well lighted perimeters will assist in the prevention of crime. In addition, imposing conditions on bar hours, advance City required band and activity permits, and establishing event population limits may also assist in avoiding potential law July

138 enforcement problems that would reduce the potential impacts to law enforcement and police services provided by the OCSD. The measures prescribed in the FEIR for the Original Project will be carried forward in Revised Project. Specifically, the City periodically evaluates the level of law enforcement service provided with San Juan Capistrano based on development that has occurred to ensure that appropriate levels of law enforcement and police protection are adequate. The increased demand for police and law enforcement services generated by the Revised Project would be provided in the same manner as that which currently exists within the area. Currently, no adverse impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Upon completion of the project and when the hotel is open, Police Services requests the City to evaluate the adequate law level of law enforcement in the City to reflect the growth in both commercial and residential areas. Standard Conditions SC Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall submit the site plan for review and approval by the Orange County Sheriff s Department/Police Services Department to ensure that it is designed in accordance with all applicable requirements of the Police Service Department, including but not limited to parking, security, lighting, and access. Mitigation Measures In order to ensure that impacts to police protection are reduced to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures required for the Original Project shall be carried forward in the Revised Project and implemented by the project applicant. MM MM Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall prepare and submit a Construction Security Plan to the OCSD/Police Services Department for review and approval. The Construction Security Plan shall identify the provision of fencing, lighting and/or other measures (e.g., security patrols, etc.) that will be incorporated to minimize demands on law enforcement services. The contractor shall notify the OCSD/Police Services Department in advance of any lane and/or roadway closures necessitated by construction activities. Written notification to the OCSD/Police Services Department shall identify the roadway location/segment and the duration of the closure. Conclusion The project changes associated with the proposed Revised Project would not result in any significant new adverse effects on police protection not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project, and would not cause any significant impacts to police protection previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. 4.14(a)(3) Schools? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The provision of education and school facilities in the City is the responsibility of the Capistrano Unified School District (CUSD), which is the second largest school district in Orange County, encompassing 195 square miles. As indicated above, no development is proposed that would generate new students directly (e.g., residential). Therefore, implementation of the Revised Project would neither cause an increase in school age students nor result in the need to construct additional school facilities. However, as indicated in the FEIR for the Original Project, the Revised Project would be subject to developer fees pursuant to SB 50. These fees would be paid prior to issuance of the grading permit. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. July

139 It is important to note that the proposed 124 unit hotel will accommodate visitors to the City of San Juan Capistrano. In order to ensure that conflicts between the proposed uses and the adjacent San Juan Elementary School are avoided, several measures were identified in the FEIR for the Original Project that can be incorporated into the design of the Revised Project to reduce the potential for conflicts between the proposed uses, including the hotel, and the existing San Juan Elementary School. These defensive space measures may include establishing a physical barrier between the hotel and Spring Street, which would assist in the prevention of hotel guests wandering directly onto Spring Street and adjacent to the school property, causing concerns for teachers and parents. Lighted parking lots; video surveillance in the lobby, walkways, and parking area; and well lighted perimeters will assist in the prevention of crime. In addition, imposing conditions on bar hours, advance City required band and activity permits, and establishing event population limits may also assist in avoiding potential law enforcement problems that would reduce the potential impacts to law enforcement and police services provided by the OCSD. With proper design, potential impacts would be avoided and no significant impacts would be anticipated. Standard Conditions SC Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall pay the applicable statutory developer fees in effect at the time of the building permit. Mitigation Measures In order to ensure that impacts to schools are reduced to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures required for the Original Project shall be carried forward in the Revised Project and implemented by the project applicant. MM The site plan shall be designed to incorporate defensive space measures to minimize the potential security and safety risk at the adjacent elementary school. The features that may be considered include, but are not limited to the following: Incorporate a physical barrier between the hotel site and Spring Street, which would assist in the prevention of hotel guests wandering onto school property, causing concerns for teachers and parents. Provide well lighted parking lots, including video surveillance in the lobby, walkways, and parking area. Ensure that perimeters are well lighted, which will assist in the prevention of crime. Impose conditions on bar hours, advance City required band and activity permits, and establishing event population limits at the hotel and restaurant. Minimize the amount of perimeter landscaping that would provide a hiding place or cover for individuals. Design the northern façade of the hotel to minimize direct views from rooms to the school campus. Conclusion The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant new adverse effects on schools not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project, and would not cause any significant impacts to schools previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. July

140 4.14(a)(4) Parks? No Impact. The FEIR for the Original Project concluded that parks and recreational facilities would not be directly affected as a result of implementing that project. The nearest public park to the project site is the 2.25 acre Historic Town Center Park, which is approximately 500 feet south of Ortega Highway at El Camino Real. This park is characterized by open space, which is the site of archaeological remains and adobe structures and foundations. It has been designed for and used to accommodate a variety of community events. Los Rios Park is the next nearest park and is located less than one quarter mile west of the site at Los Rios Street. In addition to the Montanez adobe and other historic features, it supports active recreation, including baseball, softball and soccer. Implementation of the Revised Project does not include residential development. Demands for parks and recreational facilities are directly related to residential development and the resulting increase in population. However, the Revised Project does not include residential development; neither the 124 room hotel nor the restaurant would result in the generation of permanent residents in the City of San Juan Capistrano that would create a demand for parks and/or public recreation. Therefore, no impacts to public parks and/or recreational facilities will occur as a result of the proposed project. Standard Conditions No standard conditions are required. Mitigation Measures No significant impacts to parks will occur; no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant new adverse effects on parks not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project, and would not cause any significant impacts to parks previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe. 4.14(a)(5) Other public facilities? No Impact. Library services in San Juan Capistrano are provided by the San Juan Capistrano Library at El Camino Real, which is operated by the Orange County Public Libraries (OCPL). The 33 branch OCPL system provides residents of Orange County and the City of San Juan Capistrano with access to books, periodicals, and other materials. Members of the system have access to the network s entire holdings, which include books, government publications, magazines, video/dvd materials, cassette/cd books, e books, and historical photos. The San Juan Capistrano Library location offers approximately 12,000 square feet of space and 80,000 volumes of material. The OCPL uses a performance standard of 0.2 square feet per capita for library space and 1.3 volumes per capita for library collections. Based on these standards and the City s existing population of approximately 36,085, the City currently needs to provide approximately 7,217 square feet of library space and 46,910 items for materials. Therefore, the existing San Juan Capistrano Library provides adequate library space and materials for residents relative to the local population. There is no service standard for non residential population. Residents of Orange County can use any library with the OCPL system if they are a member. The Revised Project does not include residential dwelling units and would not, therefore, directly result in the generation of additional permanent residents in San Juan Capistrano. Therefore, impacts of the Revised Project on library services would be less than significant. July

141 Standard Conditions No standard conditions are required. Mitigation Measures Project implementation will not result in any potentially significant impacts to library service. No mitigation measures are required. Conclusion The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant new public services effects not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project, and would not cause any significant impacts to library services previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe RECREATION Would the project: a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increase Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact FEIR Analysis of Original Project Project implementation, which proposes the development of a vacant site that is designated for commercial use, includes the construction of 89,200 square feet of commercial floor area on the site, including a 124 room hotel, retail/office, and restaurant. No residential development is proposed that would create a new demand, or increase an existing demand, for recreational facilities. Existing parks in the vicinity of the project site will not be physically altered nor will their total acreage be reduced as a result of project implementation. Further, given the nature of the Project (i.e., non residential), a greater demand for parks and recreation would not occur because the Project would not result in a direct increase in population that would necessitate new or expanded recreational facilities. Therefore, no significant impacts to City wide recreational opportunities are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. July

142 Analysis of Revised Project 4.15(a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The FEIR for the Original Project concluded that no impacts would occur to recreation facilities in San Juan Capistrano because no residential development was proposed. The Revised Project, which also does not include residential development, would create a demand for public recreation. No direct impacts to recreational facilities will occur. 4.15(b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. As indicated above and in the FEIR for the Original Project, the Revised Project encompasses nonresidential uses that would not create a demand for public recreation. As concluded in the FEIR for the Original Project, no other uses are proposed in the Revised Project that would require either the construction of new facilities or the expansion of existing recreational facilities. No impacts will occur as a result of the Revised Project. Standard Conditions No standard conditions are required. Mitigation Measures No impact impacts to recreation/recreational facilities will occur as a result of project implementation; no mitigation measures are required. Conclusion The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant new recreation effects not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project, and would not cause any significant impacts to recreation previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increase Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact July

143 Would the project: including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?? b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions City of San Juan Capistrano New Information Showing New or Increase Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR e. Result in inadequate emergency access? f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? FEIR Analysis of Original Project No Impact The FEIR identified the following potentially significant impact that could result from implementation of the Original Project: Impact Impact Impact Project implementation will result in the generation of construction related traffic associated with grading, site preparation and construction. The construction related traffic will result in some traffic delays resulting from the use of heavy trucks hauling construction equipment and materials to and from the site. Project implementation will result in a significant cumulative impact at the I 5 NB Ramps/Ortega Highway intersection (Existing plus Project Traffic Plus Project Conditions) based on the HCM Method of Analysis. With the project s effect resulting from its contribution in traffic, the intersection is forecast to operate at LOS F (i.e., Delay of s/v) during the a.m. peak hour. Project implementation will result in a significant cumulative impact at the I 5 SB Ramps/Ortega Highway intersection (Existing plus Project plus Cumulative Traffic Conditions) based on the HCM Method of Analysis. With the project s effect resulting from its contribution in traffic, the intersection is forecast to operate at LOS F (i.e., Delays of s/v and s/v, respectively) during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. July

144 Impact Analysis 4.16(a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared for the Revised Project by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, Inc. (LLG) to assess the potential traffic impacts and circulation needs associated with its implementation. Five (5) key study intersections were selected for analysis based on direction by City staff. Potential traffic impacts were analyzed using two methodologies. The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology, which conforms to the City of San Juan Capistrano traffic study requirements, is used to evaluate signalized intersections and estimates the volume to capacity (V/C) relationship for an intersection based on the individual V/C ratios for key conflicting traffic movements. In addition to ICU, the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) was utilized to evaluate stop controlled (i.e., unsignalized) intersections. The HCM method of analysis was also employed to evaluate existing and projected peak hour operating conditions at the five key study intersections. The HCM methodology estimates the average control delay for each of the subject movements and determines the level of service for each movement. The findings and recommendations presented in the analysis TIA prepared by LLG are summarized in the following analysis; the TIA is included as Appendix A. Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The principal local network of streets serving the Revised Project includes Ortega Highway, Del Obispo Street, El Camino Real, and Spring Street. The results of the ICU and HCM analyses conducted for the Revised Project are summarized below. ICU Intersection Analysis The existing peak hour levels of service for each of the 13 key study intersections. As indicated in Table 16 1, all of the key study area intersections are operating at acceptable levels of service based on the City s prescribed level of service (LOS) criteria for the respective intersections. July

145 Table 16 1 Existing Intersection Levels of Service ICU Analysis Key Study Intersection Hot Spot Designation Minimum Acceptable LOS Camino Capistrano/Ortega Highway D El Camino Real/Ortega Highway D Del Obispo Street/Ortega Highway I 5 SB Ramps/Ortega Highway I 5 NB Ramps/Ortega Highway ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization LOS Level of Service Traffic Operation Traffic Operation Traffic Operation SOURCE: Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers, Inc. (June 2016) HCM Intersection Analysis E E E Time Period AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Existing Traffic Conditions ICU LOS A A A A A A B B D B Table 16 2 summarizes the peak hour HCM level of service results at the five key study intersections. Based on the LOS standards and significant impact criteria specified by the City of San Juan Capistrano, the five intersections are currently operating at an acceptable level of service (i.e., LOS E or better) during the AM and PM peak hours. July

146 Table 16 2 Existing Intersection Levels of Service HCM Analysis Key Study Intersection Hot Spot Designation Minimum Acceptable LOS Camino Capistrano/Ortega Highway D El Camino Real/Ortega Highway D Del Obispo Street/Ortega Highway I 5 SB Ramps/Ortega Highway I 5 NB Ramps/Ortega Highway ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization LOS Level of Service Traffic Operation Traffic Operation Traffic Operation SOURCE: Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers, Inc. (June 2016) Roadway Segment Levels of Services E E E Time Period AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Existing Traffic Conditions Delay (Sec/veh) LOS 26.2 C 23.1 C 34.6 C 6.0 A 14.9 B 13.5 B 26.8 C C D C Six roadway segments were analyzed to determine the existing levels of services. The results of the existing daily roadway segment levels of service are summarized in Table As indicated in the table, all of the key study roadway segments are operation at LOS A on a daily basis. July

147 Key Roadway Segment Table 16 3 Existing Daily Roadway Segments LOS No. of Lanes 1 Hot Spot Classification 2 Minimum Acceptable LOS 3 LOS E Capacity (VPD) 4 Existing Traffic Conditions V/C Ratio Daily Volume LOS Spring Street El Camino Real to Cul de Sac 2U C 12, A El Camino Real Spring Street to Ortega Highway 2U C 12,500 5, A Ortega Highway 4U D 25,000 6, A Camino Capistrano to El Camino Real El Camino Real to Del Obispo 4U D 25,000 11, A Street Del Obispo Street to I 5 SB Traffic 4U Ramps Operation E 56,300 33, A I 5 SB Ramps to I 5 NB Traffic 8D Ramps Operation E 75,000 37, A VPD Vehicles per day V/C Volume to Capacity LOS Level of Service (refer to Table 3 4 in the TIA, Appendix A) Bold V/C /LOS Values indicate adverse service levels based on City of San Juan Capistrano LOS standards. 1 D Divided; U Undivided 2 San Juan Capistrano General Plan Circulation Element 3 San Juan Capistrano Administrative Policy 310 Preparation and Use of Traffic Studies (April 7, 1998) 4 Guidance for Administration of the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (October 2012) SOURCE: Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers, Inc. (June 2016) Project Related Trip Generation Table 16 4 summarizes the trip generation rates used in forecasting the vehicular trips generated by the Revised Project. As indicated in the table, the proposed project has a forecasted generation of 1,318 net trips per day, including 70 AM peak hour and 89 PM peak hour trips. The project related hotel trips have been reduced to reflect an internal capture reduction factor associated. In addition, the project related restaurant trips have also been adjusted to account not only for the internal capture trip reduction but also a mode shift adjustment and a pass by trip reduction typical of quality restaurants. July

148 Table 16 4 Project Traffic Generation Forecast Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ITE Land Use Code/Project Description 2 Way Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Trip Generation Rates 310 Hotel (TE/Room) % 41% % 49% Quality Restaurant (TE/TSF) % 10% % 33% 7.49 Trip Generation Forecasts Hotel 1, Internal Capture Trip Reduction 1 Total Hotel Trip Generation Quality Restaurant (4,834 square feet) Internal Trip Reduction 1 Subtotal Mode Shift Adjustment 2 Subtotal Pass by Reduction 3 Quality Restaurant Total Trip Generation Total Project Trip Generation Forecast 1, Approved Plaza Banderas Trip Generation 4 1, Net Difference in Trip Generation Consistent with the Trip Generation Handbook published by ITE (2014), Project trip generation was adjusted to account for internal capture between the hotel and restaurant components of the project. 2 A mode shift adjustment factor of 10% was used to account for walk in traffic from the adjacent downtown area. This factor was applied to the daily, AM, and PM peak hour traffic for the restaurant component of the project. 3 Passby trips are trips made as intermediate stops on the way from an origin to a primary rip destination. Passby trips are attracted from traffic passing the site on adjacent streets, which contain direct access to the generator. A passby reduction of 10% (estimated) was applied to the Daily and AM peak hour project trips and 44% (Source: Trip Generation Handbook, 3 rd Edition, published by ITE (2014) was applied to the PM peak hour trips. 4 Source: Traffic Impact Analysis Report for Plaza Banderas, dated July 22, 2010, prepared by LLG. Please note that the trip generation for the project development as evaluated in the July TIA has been updated using the Trip Generation, 9 th Edition. SOURCE: Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers, Inc. (June 2016) Trip Generation, 9 th Edition (Institute of Traffic Engineers, 2012) As indicated in Table 16 3, the Approved Plaza Banderas project generated a total of 1,425 trips per day, including 79 AM peak hour trips and 99 PM peak hour trips. However, implementation of the proposed Inn at the Mission San Juan Capistrano project would result in a net reduction in total daily trips (107 fewer daily trips) as well as peak hour trips (i.e., 9 fewer AM peak hour trips and 10 fewer PM peak hour trips). Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions ICU Methodology Table 16 5 summarizes the results of the ICU analysis of existing traffic with the addition of project related traffic. As indicated in the table, the addition of project related traffic would not result in any project related traffic impacts at any of the key study intersections based on the City s significance criteria for LOS. All of the July

149 key study intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during both the AM and PM peak hours based on the LOS standards established by the City of San Juan Capistrano. Therefore, project related traffic impacts are less than significant; no additional mitigation measures are required. HCM Methodology Table 16 6 summarizes the results of HCM analysis of existing traffic with the addition of project related traffic. As indicated in the table, the addition of project related traffic would not result in any project related traffic impacts at any of the key study intersections based on the City s significance criteria for LOS. All of the statecontrolled key study intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service during both the AM and PM peak hours based on the LOS standards established by the City. As a result, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. Roadway Segment Analysis As indicated in Table 16 7, all of the key study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service when the project related traffic is added to the existing traffic volumes. The level of service at only one roadway segment (Ortega Highway between I 5 SB Ramps and I 5 NB Ramps) would be reduced from the existing LOS with the addition of project traffic; however, that intersection would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS B); the remaining five roadway segments would continue to operate at LOS A, Ortega Highway Synchro Operations Method of Analysis A Synchro 9.0 analysis has been performed for the four (4) key intersections along Ortega Highway as require by the City of San Juan Capistrano. The segment of Ortega Highway includes closely spaced intersections that are less than 700 feet apart, which may create substantial queuing and backup as a result of their proximity to each other. The Synchro 9.0 software program is used to analyze closely spaced intersections to determine the operating impact and potential queue. Similar to the prior analyses, Synchro 9.0 analyses were performed for the following scenarios to determine the potential traffic impact that the Revised Project may have on the traffic operations along the segments of Ortega Highway. Table 16 8 summarizes the peak hour Service Levels at the four (4) study intersections located along Ortega Highway that have been evaluated using the Synchro 9.0 software program. As indicated in the table, he results of the Synchro analyses are similar to those summarized in Table 16 6 and are based on the HCM Delay/LOS Method of Analysis. The potential traffic impact of the Revised Project was assessed based on the City s LOS standards and significance impact criteria defined in this report. As reflected in Table 16 8, the Revised Project will not impact any of the study intersections. All four (4) intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable service levels during the AM and PM peak hours. July

150 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Table 16 5 Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ICU Analysis Key Study Intersection Camino Capistrano/Ortega Highway El Camino Real/Ortega Highway Del Obispo Street/Ortega Highway I 5 SB Ramps/Ortega Highway I 5 NB Ramps/Ortega Highway Hot Spot Designation 1 Traffic Operation Traffic Operation Traffic Operation Minimum Acceptable LOS 2 D D E E E Time Period AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Existing Traffic Conditions Existing Plus Project Traffic Project Significant Impact w/planned Improvements ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU Increase 3 Yes/No 4,5 ICU LOS A A No A A No A A No 0404 A A No A A No A A No B B No B B No D D No B B No ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization LOS Level of Service BOLD ICU/LOS values indicate adverse serve levels based on City of San Juan Capistrano LOS Standards 1San Juan Capistrano General Plan Circulation Element (December 14, 1999) 2San Juan Capistrano Administrative Policy 310, Preparation and use of Traffic Studies (April 7, 1998) 3ICU Inrease Colum(5) minus Column (4) 4Project Impact considered significant if Column (5) minus Column (4) is or greater and LOS Column (5) is E or F. 5 Hot Spot project impact considered significant if Column 5 minus Column (4) is 0.01 or greater and LOS Column (5) is F. SOURCE: Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers, Inc. (May 2016) San Juan Capistrano, CA July

151 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Table 16 6 Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service HCM Analysis Key Study Intersection Camino Capistrano/Ortega Highway El Camino Real/Ortega Highway Del Obispo Street/Ortega Highway I 5 SB Ramps/Ortega Highway I 5 NB Ramps/Ortega Highway Hot Spot Designation 1 Traffic Operation Traffic Operation Traffic Operation Minimum Acceptable LOS 2 D D E E E Time Period AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Existing Traffic Conditions Delay (Sec/veh) LOS 26.2 C 23.1 C 34.6 C 6.0 A 14.9 B 13.5 B 26.8 C 26.6 C 46.1 D 28.3 C Existing Plus Project Traffic Delay (Sec/veh) LOS 26.5 C 23.8 C 45.1 D 6.2 A 15.1 B 13.8 B 27.0 C 26.7 C 46.6 D 28.9 C Project Significant Impact w/planned Improvements Delay ICU LOS Increase 3 Yes/No 4,5 0.3 No 0.7 No 10.5 No 0.2 No 0.2 No 0.3 No 0.2 No 0.1 No 0.5 No 0.6 No Sec./veh. Intersection Capacity Utilization LOS Level of Service BOLD ICU/LOS values indicate adverse serve levels based on City of San Juan Capistrano LOS Standards 1San Juan Capistrano General Plan Circulation Element (December 14, 1999) 2San Juan Capistrano Administrative Policy 310, Preparation and use of Traffic Studies (April 7, 1998) 3ICU Inrease Colum(5) minus Column (4) 4Project Impact considered significant if Column (5) minus Column (4) is or greater and LOS Column (5) is E or F. 5 Hot Spot project impact considered significant if Column 5 minus Column (4) is 0.01 or greater and LOS Column (5) is F. SOURCE: Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers, Inc. (June 2016) San Juan Capistrano, CA July

152 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Table 16 7 Existing Plus Project Roadway Segment Daily Volume/Capacity Analysis Existing Plus Project Traffic Conditions Daily V/C Volume Ratio LOS Significant Impact Min. LOS E Existing Traffic Conditions No. of Hot Spot Accept. Capacity Daily V/C VC Key Roadway Segment Lanes 1 Class. 2 LOS 3 (VPD) 4 Volume Ratio LOS Inc. 5 Spring Street El Camino to Cul de Sac 2U C 12, A 1, A No El Camino Real Spring Street to Ortega Highway 2U C 12,500 5, A 6, A No Ortega Highway Camino Capistrano to El Camino Real 4U 00 D 25,000 6, A 7, A No El Camino Real to Del Obispo Street 4U D 25,000 11, A 12, A No Del Obispo Street to I 5 SB Ramps 6D I 5 SB Ramps to I 5 NB Ramps 8D Traffic Operation Traffic Operation VPD Vehicles per day V/C Volume to Capacity LOS Level of Service (refer to Table 3 4 in the TIA, Appendix _) Bold V/C /LOS Values indicate adverse service levels based on City of San Juan Capistrano LOS standards. Project Impact 6,7 E 56,300 33, A 34, B No E 75,000 37, A 37, A No 1D Divided; U Undivided 2San Juan Capistrano General Plan Circulation Element 3San Juan Capistrano Administrative Policy 310 Preparation and Use of Traffic Studies (April 7, 1998) 4Guidance for Administration of the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (October 2012) 5V/C Increase is the difference between Existing Plus Project and Existing Project V/C Ratios. 6Project impact considered significant if Existing Plus Project V/C Ratio minus Existing Project V/C Ratio is 1.0 or greater and Existing Plus Project LOS is E or F for major, primary, secondary or limited secondary arterials. 7 Hot Spot project impact considered significant if Existing Plus Project V/C Ratio minus Existing Project V/C Ratio is 1.0 or greater and Existing Plus Project LOS is F. SOURCE: Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers, Inc. (June 2016) Inn a the Mission San Juan Capistrano San Juan Capistrano, CA July

153 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Table 16 8 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Ortega Highway Synchro Operations Method of Analysis Key Study Intersection El Camino Real/Ortega Highway Del Obispo Street/Ortega Highway I 5 SB Ramps/Ortega Highway I 5 NB Ramps/Ortega Highway Hot Spot Designation 1 Traffic Operation Traffic Operation Traffic Operation Minimum Acceptable LOS 2 D E E E Time Period AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Existing Traffic Conditions Delay (Sec/veh) LOS 18.8 B 16.0 B 18.4 B 23.6 C 33.2 C 31.0 C 40.1 D 30.7 C Existing Plus Project Traffic Delay (Sec/veh) LOS 18.8 B 16.3 B 18.7 B 24.1 C 33.5 C 31.3 C 40.5 D 30.9 C Project Significant Impact w/planned Improvements 6 Delay Increase 3 Yes/No 4,5 ICU LOS 0.0 No 0.3 No 0.3 No 0.5 No 0.3 No 0.3 No 0.4 No 0.2 No Sec./veh. Intersection Capacity Utilization LOS Level of Service BOLD ICU/LOS values indicate adverse serve levels based on City of San Juan Capistrano LOS Standards 1San Juan Capistrano General Plan Circulation Element (December 14, 1999) 2San Juan Capistrano Administrative Policy 310, Preparation and use of Traffic Studies (April 7, 1998) 3ICU Inrease Colum(5) minus Column (4) 4Project Impact considered significant if Column (5) minus Column (4) is or greater and LOS Column (5) is E or F. 5 Hot Spot project impact considered significant if Column 5 minus Column (4) is 0.01 or greater and LOS Column (5) is F. 6Recommended improvements for project impacts. SOURCE: Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers, Inc. (May 2016) San Juan Capistrano, CA July

154 4.16(b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact. The Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP), which requires that a traffic impact analysis be conducted for any project generating 2,400 or more daily trips, or 1,600 or more daily trips for projects that directly access the CMP Highway System (HS). As reflected in Table 16 4, the Revised Project, which is located on and takes direct access from Ortega Highway, is forecast to generate only 1,318 trips per day. As such, a CMP analysis is not required. Nonetheless, the TIA has been prepared in accordance with and pursuant to the City of San Juan Capistrano Administrative Policy 310 Preparation and Use of Traffic Studies (April 7, 1998). 4.16(c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. Neither the project nor the project environs is located within the limits of a regional airport or general aviation facility. The nearest such facility is the John Wayne Airport (JWA), which is located approximately 15 miles northwest of the project area. The proposed project will neither result in an increase in air traffic levels nor cause a change in air traffic patterns at the JWA or other airport facility in the region. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. 4.16(d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. As indicated in the Project Description, San Juan Elementary School is located immediately north of the Project site. There is concern from the Capistrano Unified School District (CSUD) and the parents of students at San Juan Elementary School that the Revised Project will create potential issues with traffic and safety. San Juan Elementary School uses the north side of Spring Street (i.e. westbound direction) as a vehicle queuing lane for student drop off and pick up east of the school driveway. It should be noted that Revised Project traffic will not conflict with the current student drop off and pick up operation, since the Project driveway along Spring Street is not located adjacent to the queuing area. The school traffic issue related to the flow of traffic on Spring Street currently exists and the addition of Project traffic will not significantly impact Spring Street as the Revised Project only adds 15 AM peak hour trips and 16 PM peak hour trips on Spring Street. These are conservative numbers for the Project trips since repeat patrons of the Revised Project will tend to avoid school traffic on Spring Street and utilize the Project driveways located along Ortega Highway and El Camino Real for access to the site. In reality, the Project will add nominal trips on Spring Street during the peak school traffic hours and the impact will be minimal to the flow of traffic and will not affect the school drop off and pick up. It should be further noted that based on observations in the field, the peak school traffic occurs between 7:30 AM and 7:45 AM. By 8:00 AM there is no school traffic and the student drop off is complete. The intersection of El Camino Real and Spring Street operates at LOS B or better for the AM and PM peak hours during the Existing Plus Project traffic conditions. Similarly, as presented in Table 16 7 under the Existing Plus Project traffic conditions, the roadway segment of Spring Street between El Camino Real and the cul de sac operates at LOS A on a daily basis. Nearby, off site parking is also potentially available for public parking along El Camino Real and in public parking lots located on the south side of Ortega Highway. Based on the detailed analysis presented in the TIA and summarized in Section 4.16(a), above, the development of the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the San Juan Elementary School traffic flow on Spring Street. The loss of the two public parking lots on the project July

155 site will be offset by the potential sharing of the project parking spaces, public parking on El Camino Real, and at the public lots located south of Ortega Highway. Internal Circulation The internal circulation was evaluated in terms of vehicle pedestrian conflicts. Based on the review of the preliminary site plan included in the TIA, the overall layout does not create significant vehicle pedestrian conflict points and the driveway throat lengths are sufficient such that access to parking spaces is not impacted by internal vehicle queuing/stacking. Curb return radii within the Project site have been confirmed and are adequate for passenger cars, service/delivery trucks and trash trucks as well as a tour bus. Project traffic is not anticipated to cause significant queuing/stacking on the Project driveways. The on site circulation is acceptable based on our review of the proposed site plan. The alignment, spacing and throat length of the Project driveways is also deemed adequate noting further that they do now and/or will align to logical connection points on the street system. The circulation around the building is adequate with sufficient sight distance along the drive aisles. The proposed throat lengths at the Project driveways are sufficient for storing potential queuing vehicles. As such, motorists entering and exiting the Project site from these driveways will be able to do so comfortably, safely, and without undue congestion. No significant impacts would occur; no mitigation measures are required. Parking As indicated in the project description, a total of 176 parking spaces will be provided within 109 surface parking stalls and 67 basement parking stalls. The City parking codes were applied to the proposed development. Table 16 9 summarizes the parking requirements for the Revised Project based on the City of San Juan Capistrano Parking Code. As shown, direct application of the City s code to the Project results in a code parking requirement of 184 parking spaces for the proposed hotel and restaurant. With a total proposed parking supply of 176 spaces, a theoretical parking deficiency of 8 parking spaces is forecast when compared to the City of San Juan Capistrano parking code requirement. However, this calculation is considered conservative as it does not reflect any interaction adjustments (shared parking) between the retail/restaurant and hotel components of the Revised Project as allowed by City of San Juan Capistrano Parking Code. Table 16 9 City of San Juan Capistrano Parking Required Parking Land Use Size City of San Juan Capistrano Parking Code Ratio Required No. Of Spaces Hotel 124 Rooms 1.0 off street space/guest unit 124 Restaurant 2,417 sq. ft. 1.0 off street parking space/40 sq. ft of dining or drinking area 60 Total Number of Spaces Required Per City Code 184 Proposed Parking Supply 176 Parking Surplus/Deficiency (+/ ) Per the City s Municipal Code, the parking standards of a hotel may be reduced with a parking study and/or shared parking agreement, for which one was prepared previously for the Original Project. SOURCE: Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers, Inc. (June 2016) Given the mixed use nature of the Project, there is an opportunity to share parking spaces based on the utilization profile of each land use component of the Revised Project. For example, the parking spaces allocated by City Code for the hotel use may be shared with the parking demand generated by the restaurant uses when not utilized by the hotel use and vice versa. According to the Urban Land Institute s (ULI s) Shared Parking 2nd July

156 Edition publication, shared parking is defined as parking space that can be used to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment. The ULI Shared Parking publication provides hourly parking accumulation rates for residential and retail uses, as well as other uses to include office, theatre, restaurant, hotel, etc. expressed as a percentage of the peak demand for the day. It should be noted that a shared parking demand analysis was conducted for the previously approved Plaza Banderas (Original Project), which included the development of a hotel with 124 rooms, and 14,488 SF of retail/commercial space consisting of 6,762 SF of retail, 1,824 SF of private (owner occupied) office space, and a 5,902 SF restaurant, with a total of 185 parking spaces. The Inn at the Mission Hotel development is smaller than the previously approved Plaza Banderas development with the removal of the retail/office component and a reduction in the restaurant floor area. As a result, the Revised Project requires fewer parking spaces from the compared to the Approved Plaza Banderas project, which stated a peak shared parking demand of 156 spaces for a larger project. Based on the shared parking analysis prepared for the Plaza Banderas project, the following conclusions can be drawn regarding the adequacy of the parking provided for the project. The peak joint use/shared parking demand is estimated to be 156 parking spaces. The estimated peak parking demand will occur in June, during the late evening hours (10:00 PM) on a weekday. Both the hotel and restaurant parking requirements are near their maximum during this time frame. The weekend peak demand of 152 parking spaces also occurs during the late evening hours (11:00 PM), with the hotel and restaurant parking requirements as the primary contributors. The current site plan indicates that 176 parking spaces will be provided in conjunction with the Revised Project. This is expected to be adequate under typical conditions. The typical peak demand has been calculated without explicitly considering a concurrent special event using the hotel meeting space. This is consistent with the ULI shared parking research, which indicates that small amounts of event space (consistent with the Revised project) do not need to be considered separately. Based upon the calculated typical peak demand of 156 vehicles on a weekday (occurring at 10:00 PM) and 152 vehicles on the weekend (occurring at 11:00 PM) for the more intense Adopted Project, it can be concluded that the parking supply will be adequate, even with a concurrent special event specifically considered. It is generally desirable to have a surplus parking supply of 5 10%. Given the Project proposes to provide valet operation 24/7, up to 40 additional parking spaces can be provided on site when necessary. Existing on street parking will be available for cars along the south side of Spring Street and should be vacant/underutilized when the Project peak parking demand is projected to occur at 10:00 PM on weekdays or 11:00 PM on weekends. These are times when school is not in session (it is recognized that this parking is likely to be used by parents waiting to pick up students when the school day is ending). This public parking is also currently available to other users, such as those attending special events at the Mission, and it would continue to be available to other users in the future. Additional public parking is also available on El Camino Real, as well as in 2 public parking lots located on the south side of Ortega Highway. Again, this public parking is also currently available to other users, such as those attending special events at the Mission, and it would continue to be available to other users in the future. As stated previously, the Revised Project parking should be adequate and public parking has not been included in the required parking count for the Project. The results of the shared parking evaluation for the more intense Original Project indicate that a substantial reduction in the overall parking requirement for the Project site is possible, due to the mix of on site uses and the location of the Project within the downtown area. The temporal (hourly and seasonal) variations in parking demand will result in approximately a 37 July

157 percent reduction in peak parking compared to conditions if each of the on site uses was an individual/independent use in a suburban setting. Based on the shared parking analysis for the more intense Original Project, the proposed onsite parking supply will be adequate to serve the anticipated parking demand for the less intense Revised Project. Nearby off site parking is also potentially available at San Juan Elementary School, subject to agreement between representatives of the applicant and the school. Public parking will also be available along Spring Street adjacent to the Project site. Additional public parking is also available along El Camino Real and in public parking lots located on the south side of Ortega Highway. Public parking is available to all and is frequently used by people attending events at the Mission and other locations in the downtown area. No public parking has been included in the analysis, which concluded that the amount of proposed parking is adequate to serve the needs of the Project. Therefore, based on the information provided in the Plaza Banderas Mixed Use Development Shared Parking Analysis (Revised), July 19, 2010 report for the more intense Original Project prepared by Urban Crossroads the proposed parking will be adequate to accommodate the less intense project. Potential impacts would be less than significant; no mitigation measures are required. 4.16(e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Three points of ingress/egress are proposed for the project, including one (1) driveway along Spring Street, one (1) driveway on El Camino Real, and one (1) driveway on Ortega Highway. A queuing analysis was conducted to determine if there are potential conflicts during the morning and afternoon peak hours. Stacking/storage requirements at the Project driveways were conducted based on Existing plus Project peak hour driveway traffic volumes and the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 unsignalized methodology using an average vehicle length of 25 feet. Based on the HCM service level calculation, which calculates a critical (95th percentile) queue value in number of vehicles, the AM peak hour and PM peak hour queue length at Driveway No. 1 at Spring Street is not more than one (1) vehicle for the northbound (outbound) movement. Based on the proposed site plan, Driveway 1 provides one outbound lane with sufficient stacking. At Project Driveway 2 (El Camino Real), the AM peak hour and PM peak hour queue length is not more than one (1) vehicle for the westbound (outbound) movement. The proposed site plan indicates that Driveway 2 provides one outbound lane with sufficient stacking. At Project Driveway No. 3 at Ortega Highway, the AM peak hour and PM peak hour queue length is not more than one (1) vehicle for the southbound (outbound) movement. Review of the proposed site plan indicates that this driveway provides one outbound lane with sufficient stacking. The results of the queuing analysis are summarized in Table July

158 Table Project Driveway Peak Hour Levels of Service Key Intersection Project Driveway No. 1 at Spring Street Project Driveway No. 2 at El Camino Real Project Driveway No. 3 at Ortega Highway Time Period AM PM AM PM AM PM Control Type Two Way Stop One Way Stop One Way Stop Delay (sec/veh) LOS B A B B B B sec/veh Seconds per vehicle LOS Level of Service Bold Delay/LOS values indicate adverse service levels. SOURCE: Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers, Inc. (June 2016) As indicated in Table 16 9, the project driveways are forecast to operate at LOS B or better during both peak hours when project related traffic is added to the existing traffic volumes. As a result, adequate access, including emergency access is provided and no potentially significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. Turning movements into and out of the Project site at the three (3) Project driveways are anticipated to operate at an acceptable service level. The proposed throat lengths at the Project driveways are sufficient for storing potential queuing vehicles. As such, motorists entering and exiting the Project site from these driveways will be able to do so comfortably, safely, and without undue congestion. 4.16(f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No Impact. Pedestrian linkages are included between buildings, sidewalks and parking areas within the Revised Project, which are separated from the internal circulation. Sidewalks exist on the north side of Ortega Highway and on the east side of El Camino Real, which allow pedestrian access to the site. Parking areas are physically separated from internal pedestrian walkways and related amenities to avoid conflicts with vehicles. Furthermore, the project site and vicinity as well as the Town Center is well served by commuter and passenger rail service and regional county bus lines; the Revised Project would not conflict with access to nearby transit facilities discussed in the Historic Town Center Master Plan, which include bus stops serving OCTA Routes 91 and 191, and the San Juan Capistrano Amtrak/Metrolink station. The Revised Project would not conflict with policies, plan, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, and it would not decrease the performance or safety of existing transportation facilities. No impact would occur as a result of project implementation. Standard Conditions No standard conditions are required. Mitigation Measures In order to ensure that traffic impacts are reduced to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures required for the Original Project shall be carried forward in the Revised Project and implemented by the project applicant. July

159 MM 16 1a Prior to issuance of the first 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 specify: Traffic control for any street closure, detour or other disruption to traffic conditions. Routes that construction vehicles will utilize for the delivery of construction materials (i.e., lumber, tiles, piping, windows, etc.) to access the site, traffic control and detours and proposed construction phasing plan for the project. Parking needs and parking areas for construction related equipment and workman support. Hours during which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate constructionrelated impacts to adjacent streets. The Traffic Control and Construction Management Plan shall comply with the standards established in the current California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) as well as City of San Juan Capistrano requirements. MM 16 1b The applicant shall be required to keep all haul routes clean and free of debris, including but not limited to gravel and dirt as a result of its operations. The applicant shall clean adjacent streets, as directed by the City Engineer (or representative of the City Engineer) of any material that may have been spilled, tracked or blown onto adjacent streets or areas. MM 16 1c Hauling or transport of oversize loads will be allowed between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. only, Monday through Friday, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Hauling or transport may be permitted/required during the nighttime hours, weekends or on Federal holidays, at the discretion of the City Engineer. All hauling/delivery access to and from the site shall be from the east on Ortega Highway, except during the period of time when the Ortega Highway overcrossing bridge is being reconstructed. During this period, all trucks using the I 5 / Ortega Highway on and off ramps shall be rerouted to other nearby streets. An approved Haul Route Permit will be required from the City. MM 16 1d MM 16 1e MM 16 1f MM 16 1g Haul trucks entering or exiting public streets shall at all times yield to public traffic. If hauling operations cause any damage to existing pavement, street, curb and/or gutter along the haul route, the applicant shall be fully responsible for repairs, which shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. All construction related parking and staging of vehicles shall be kept out of the adjacent public roadways and parking lots and shall occur on site. The applicant shall be required to meet periodically with CUSD and City representatives to review construction schedules and the effectiveness of the Traffic Control and Construction Management Plan for each phase of development. If determined necessary by all parties, modifications to that plan shall be implemented to address issues identified by the CUSD. Completion of the I 5/Ortega Highway interchange impacts has resulted in the elimination of the potentially significant project related cumulative impacts identified in the Plaza Banderas FEIR. Nonetheless, the project applicant will be subject to the payment of fees as stipulated below for the Original Project. MM 16 2 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the proposed project, the project applicant shall pay the required Capistrano Circulation Fee Program (CCFP) fees, as determined by the City of San July

160 Juan Capistrano, based on the improvements included in the I 5/Ortega Highway interchange, which include restriping and/or widening the I 5 NB Ramps to provide a southbound right turn lane only from Avenida Los Cerritos, restriping the second eastbound left turn lane on Ortega highway to a third eastbound through lane and restriping the second eastbound through lane to a shared eastbound through/right turn lane; in addition, widen and/or restripe Ortega Highway to provide an exclusive eastbound free right turn lane, restripe the exclusive right turn lane on Ortega Highway to a shared westbound through/right turn lane, and modify the existing traffic signal. MM 16 3 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the proposed project, the project applicant shall pay the required CCFP fees, as determined by the City of San Juan Capistrano, based on the improvements included in the I 5/Ortega Highway interchange, which includes restriping the southbound shared left/through/right turn lane on the I 5 SB Ramps to a shared left/right turn lane; widen and/or restripe Ortega highway to provide an exclusive eastbound right turn lane and a second westbound left turn lane, and modify the existing traffic signal. Conclusion The Existing Plus Project traffic conditions have been analyzed pursuant to CEQA guidelines as well as the City of San Juan Capistrano criteria. This traffic scenario evaluation would identify the adverse impacts of the Revised Project on the existing circulation system and the roadway improvements necessary to mitigate the direct traffic impacts of the project if impacts to the circulation network are identified in addition to those identified in the FEIR for the Original Project; however, no new potentially significant traffic impacts were identified and no new mitigation are required. Completion of the I 5/Ortega Highway Interchange improvements in 2015 have resulted in the elimination of the of the significant cumulative impacts identified in the Plaza Banderas FEIR at the Ortega Highway/I 5 NB Ramps and Ortega Highway/I 5 SB Ramps. The results of the Existing Plus Project traffic evaluation indicate that none of the intersections will have a direct, significant adverse impact if the Revised Project is implemented, based on the ICU and HCM Method of Analysis undertaken to evaluate the Revised Project. None of the study roadway segments are directly impacted by the Revised Project, and the results of the LOS calculations for the Existing Plus Project traffic conditions are consistent and identical to the Original Project. The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant new transportation/traffic impacts not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project, and would not cause any significant impacts to transportation/traffic previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increase Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of No Impact July

161 Would the project: new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project s projected demand in addition to the provider s existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Information Showing New or Increase Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact FEIR Analysis of Original Project Sewer Facilities and Service Implementation of the Original Project would result in the generation of raw sewage associated with the proposed hotel, retail/office, and residential development. Based on average sewage generation rates for the land uses proposed in the Original Project, a total of 20,960 gallons of raw sewage would be generated by the Original Project. The raw sewage generated by the Original Project would be conveyed from the site via laterals that extend to the existing sanitary sewer located El Camino Real. The project applicant would be required to prepare and submit a sewer study that reflects the design standards prescribed by the City for both laterals and main line sewers, if determined necessary as a result of the sewer study. In addition, all laterals extended to the existing sewer main from the project site would be designed in accordance with the Uniform Plumbing Code. As a result, project implementation will not result in significant impacts; no mitigation measures are required. Water Facilities and Service Water usage would occur during the site preparation and construction phase for the Original Project for dust control and construction vehicle washing to minimize the amount of fugitive dust and the transport of dirt from the site. Combined with other incidental uses, the amount of water to be used for construction activities could not be quantified, but this standard usage of water during construction activities was expected to be less than significant. In addition, it will be necessary to provide an interim supply of water for fire suppression during construction. The applicant was required to prepare a water supply plan that addresses construction needs and, in particular, fire suppression during construction. No significant construction related impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. July

162 Based on the domestic water demand factor of 1,785 gallons per acre for commercial land use, implementation of the Original Project would create a demand for 5,676 gallons per day of domestic water. This demand is consistent with that anticipated for the subject project and reflected in the Water Master Plan Update, based on the adopted General Commercial land use designation for the site. As a result, the Original Project is consistent with the water demand forecast and City has adequate capacity in its domestic water system to provide adequate domestic water to the proposed development. The City had estimated future domestic water demand through buildout anticipated to be 2020 based on the existing sources of domestic water, including imported water, treated groundwater (i.e., GWRP), and well water. These sources were anticipated to be available to the City through 2020 and beyond. However, the EIR revealed that in 2035, the City s domestic water capacity would be reduced by approximately 6.4 mgd because only 1.6 mgd would be available through the GWRP. This system wide loss of domestic water would potentially affect the City s ability to provide adequate domestic water within the service area. Although there would be adequate water supplies to meet the average day demand projected within the service area, with the loss of treated water from the GWRP, the City would not have adequate domestic water capacity to meet the projected maximum month and maximum day demands, necessitating the need to implement the 20X2020 Water Conservation Plan to reduce water demand by 20 percent. In addition, the applicant was required to make provides to extend recycled water to the site to be used for landscape irrigation and in toilets and urinals in the Original Project. With these elements, the City indicated that adequate domestic could be provided through Although existing water distribution facilities exist in Ortega Highway, El Camino Real, and Spring Street, these facilities did not have the ability to deliver the necessary fire hydrant flows for the proposed hotel component. In addition, the available static pressure in the existing water system is too low to provide service to higher floors of the proposed hotel. As a result, the water facilities must be upgraded to ensure that adequate water pressures and fire flow requirements are met. As prescribed in the FEIR, the applicant must prepare a water supply plan that complies with the Utilities Department requirements for domestic and recycled water service. Solid Waste Construction activities associated with the Original Project would not result in the generation of a significant amount of refuse/disposal material. Implementation of the Original Project necessitated demolition of the private office, access roadway, and related features and the removal of the landscaping that exists on the subject property; no other significant demolition activities would be required and only a limited amount of demolition debris would be generated during grading and site preparation. In addition, some construction waste would be generated in the form of excess building materials used in the construction phase; however, no other significant volume of refuse would be generated by construction activities. As a result, construction impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Implementation of the Original Project would result in the generation of approximately 2,699 tons of solid waste per day (i.e., tons/year). The Prima Deshecha Landfill had adequate capacity to accommodate the Original project on both a project specific and cumulative basis. As a result, the Original Project would not result in any significant impacts on landfill capacity and, further, will not adversely affect the ability of the existing facilities operated and maintained by the OCW&R to provide adequate landfill capacity to serve the County. The FEIR identified the following potentially significant impact that could result from implementation of the Original Project: Impact Project implementation includes landscaping that would create an additional demand for domestic water in the short term until recycled water, which currently is not available to the subject property, can be made available to the subject property. July

163 Analysis of Revised Project 4.17(a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Wastewater generated and collected in San Juan Capistrano is conveyed to the South Orange County Wastewater Authority s (SOCWA) Jay B. Latham Regional Treatment Plant in the City of Dana Point, which has a capacity of 13 million gallons per day (mgd) for treatment of locally generated wastewater. The City is allocated 4 mgd, or 30 percent of the total treatment plant capacity. Like the Original Project, the Revised Project will generate municipal raw sewage, which would neither exceed the existing wastewater treatment requirements established for the region nor exceed the unused capacity allocated to the City of San Juan Capistrano. Furthermore, the City is required by law to treat wastewater consistent with the requirements and standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Revised Project could generate as much as approximately 10,813 gallons per day of raw sewage, which would be less than that generated by the Original Project and reflected in the FEIR. The Revised Project would generate additional raw sewage, which would be non residential in nature; however, it would not require additional treatment requirements. The raw sewage generated by the Revised Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements and no significant impacts will occur. 4.17(b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The Jay B. Latham Regional Treatment Plant is currently operating below its design capacity. Furthermore, the City has an allocation of 4 mgd of the total 13.0 mgd capacity. In addition, adequate water supply and distribution facilities are available to accommodate the Revised Project. The generation of 0.01 mgd of raw sewage, which is less than that estimated for the Original Project in the FEIR, is within both the City s allocation of treatment plant capacity and is also within the plant s total capacity. Similarly, the increased demand for domestic water would not require the construction of new water treatment facilities. Consistent with the conclusion presented in the FEIR for the Original Project, implementation of the Revised Project would not result in the construction any new water and/or wastewater facilities. No significant project related impacts will occur. 4.17(c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Implementation of the Revised Project includes the construction of in tract drainage facilities as indicated in the FEIR for the Original Project, which will connect to existing storm drainage and flood control facilities. As previously indicated, changes will occur to surface flows due to the change in impervious surfaces that will be introduced with the proposed development. Although the drainage plan for the Revised Project is different than that analyzed for the Original Project in the FEIR, adequate storm drains and flood control facilities exist in the project area to accommodate the Revised Project. These facilities will collect surface flows and ultimately convey them to El Horno Creek and ultimately to San Juan Creek and the Pacific Ocean as indicated in the FEIR for the Original Project. It is anticipated that no new storm drainage facilities or expansions of existing facilities will be required to accommodate the post development runoff conditions. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. 4.17(d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. As discussed in the FEIR for the Original Project, the City of San Juan Capistrano relies on a combination of imported water, local groundwater, and recycled water to meet its water needs. The City works together with two primary agencies, Metropolitan and Metropolitan Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), to ensure a July

164 safe and high quality water supply, which will continue to serve the community in periods of drought and shortage. The sources of imported water supplies include the Colorado River and the State Water Project (SWP). Metropolitan s 2010 Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP) update describes the core water resource strategy that will be used to meet full service demands (non interruptible agricultural and replenishment supplies) at the retail level under all foreseeable hydrologic conditions from 2015 through The City of San Juan Capistrano adopted an update to the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) was adopted on June 11, The City has invested in the Groundwater Recovery Plant (GWRP) to produce up to 4,800 acre feet per year of potable water from the groundwater basin, roughly half of the annual demand. The construction of the GWRP was completed in December Because of the MTBE and other issues, actual production for FY represents approximately 23 percent of the City s current annual potable water demands. The remainder of the City s local supply was from local groundwater previously pumped from two wells Rosenbaum Well No. 1, and the North Open Space Well. The City will be responsible for providing domestic water service to the site through the City s public water distribution system. Water service to the project site will be from the 350C Pressure Zone, which operates at a maximum hydraulic grade line of 350 feet, resulting in a maximum static pressure on the project site of 100 pounds per square inch (psi) based on the lowest site elevation of 120 feet and a minimum static pressure of 97 psi on the highest site elevation (127 feet). Water distribution piping includes both an existing and future 12 inch 350 Pressure Zone water line in Ortega Highway. The existing 12 inch 350 C Zone water line was constructed as part of the Interstate 5 Ortega Highway Interchange Improvements recently completed by Caltrans. The second 12 inch water main over Interstate 5 is under Caltrans permit to be installed in the new bridge in The FEIR for the Original Project concluded that the City will have adequate supplies and system capacity to accommodate buildout in the Department s service area, including the subject property, based on the Land Use Element projections and has projected that a surplus of domestic water would be available through With the exception of mains and facilities that would be extended to the subject property to serve the Original Project, project implementation would not necessitate any new water infrastructure or facilities. As a result, implementation of the Original Project would not result in a significant impact on the City s ability to provide domestic water. The FEIR noted that in 2035, the City s domestic water capacity would be reduced by approximately 6.4 mgd because only 1.6 mgd would be available through the GWRP, which would potentially affect the City s ability to provide adequate domestic water within the service area. Although there would be adequate water supplies to meet the average day demand projected within the service area, with the loss of treated water from the GWRP, the City would not have adequate domestic water capacity to meet the projected maximum month and maximum day demands. The inability of the City to meet the domestic water demand in 2035 was not the result of the demand created by the Original Project. Nonetheless, the City determined that through water conservation (i.e., 20X2020 Conservation Program) that would result in a 20 percent reduction in domestic water demand and a requirement to utilize recycled water, adequate water would be available to meet future domestic water demands. As a result, the FEIR concluded that potential impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures. Since the preparation of the FEIR for the Original Project, the City prepared and adopted an Urban Water Master Plan. It is required that every urban water supplier assess the reliability to provide water service to its customers under normal, dry, and multiple dry water years. Metropolitan s 2010 RUWMP finds that Metropolitan is able to meet full service demands of its member agencies with existing supplies from 2015 through 2035 during normal years, single dry year, and multiple dry years. The City is, therefore, capable of meeting the water demands of its customers in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years between 2015 and 2035 as indicated in the tables below for the normal year reliability, single dry year reliability, and multiple dry year reliability. As a result, implementation of the Revised Project would not result in potentially significant impacts to the City s ability to provide an adequate level of service. Nonetheless, the mitigation July

165 measures prescribed in the FEIR for the Original Project will be carried forward in the Revised Project and implemented by the project applicant. Normal Year Reliability Comparison At the time the 2010 UWMP Update was prepared, the City had entitlements and/or written contracts to receive imported water from Metropolitan via the regional distribution system. Although pipeline capacity rights do not guarantee the availability of water, per se, they do guarantee the ability to convey water when it is available to the Metropolitan distribution system. All imported water supplies assumed for the City in the Normal Year Reliability scenario are available to the City from existing water transmission facilities. Table 17 1 shows supply and demand under normal year conditions. Although water supplies are projected to be available from Metropolitan; the additional supplies are not included in the table since projected supplies meet projected demands. Table 17 1 Projected Normal Water Supply and Demand Fiscal Year Ending Total Demand 9,400 9,650 9,900 10,150 10,400 San Jun Basin (GWRP) 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 2,957 Recycled Water 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 Imported 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 5,493 Total Supply 9,400 9,650 9,900 10,150 10,400 1 All figures in acre feet per year (AFY) SOURCE: 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (June 11, 2011) Single Dry Year Reliability Comparison The City has documented that it is 100% reliable for single dry year demands from 2015 through 2035 with a demand increase of 7.1 percent using FY as the single dry year. Table 17 2 compiles supply and demand projections for a single dry water year. The available imported supply is greater than shown; however, it is not included because all demands are met. Table 17 2 Projected Single Dry Water Supply and Demand Fiscal Year Ending Total Demand 9,936 10,200 10,464 10,729 10,993 San Jun Basin (GWRP) 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 2,957 Recycled Water 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 Imported 2,536 2,800 3,064 3,329 6,086 Total Supply 9,936 10,200 10,464 10,729 10,993 1 All figures in acre feet per year (AFY) SOURCE: 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (June 11, 2011) July

166 Multiple Dry Year Reliability Comparison The City is capable of meeting all customers demands with significant reserves held by Metropolitan in multiple dry years from 2015 through 2035 with a demand increase of 7.1% using FY as the multiple dry years. This is true even if the demand projections were to be increased by a large margin, as long as local supply remains unaffected. Table 17 3 shows supply and demand projections under multiple dry year conditions. As indicated in the table, domestic water would be available to accommodate the water demand through Table 17 3 Projected Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand First Year Supply Second Year Supply Third Year Supply Fiscal Year Ending Total Demand 9,936 10,200 10,464 10,729 10,993 San Jun Basin (GWRP) 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 2,957 Recycled Water 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 Imported 2,536 2,800 3,064 3,329 6,086 Total Supply 9,936 10,200 10,464 10,729 10,993 Total Demand 9,936 10,200 10,464 10,729 10,993 San Jun Basin (GWRP) 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 2,957 Recycled Water 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 Imported 2,536 2,800 3,064 3,329 6,086 Total Supply 9,936 10,200 10,464 10,729 10,993 Total Demand 9,936 10,200 10,464 10,729 10,993 San Jun Basin (GWRP) 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 2,957 Recycled Water 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 Imported 2,536 2,800 3,064 3,329 6,086 Total Supply 9,936 10,200 10,464 10,729 10,993 1 All figures in acre feet per year (AFY) SOURCE: 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (June 11, 2011) 4.17(e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project s projected demand in addition to the provider s existing commitments? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. As indicated above and in the FEIR for the Original Project, SOCWA operates the Jay B. Latham Regional Treatment Plant, which is a conventional activated sludge wastewater treatment with a secondary treatment design liquid treatment capacity of 12.0 mgd. The City of San Juan Capistrano, which is one of four member agencies that own treatment capacity in the Treatment Plan, owns 4.0 mgd of the total capacity. As estimated in the 2004 Master Plan, the average City wastewater flow to the treatment plant was approximately 3.4 mgd. Implementation of the Revised Project would add approximately 0.01 mgd, which is less than the amount generated by the Original Project. Addition of 0.01 mgd to the City s total flows can be accommodated at the Jay B. Latham Treatment Plant within the remaining City allocated capacity of 4.0 mgd and, furthermore, would not July

167 be required the construction of new wastewater facilities or the expansion of the existing treatment facilities. Therefore, potential impacts will be less than significant; no mitigation measures are required. 4.17(f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The City of San Juan Capistrano contracts with CR&R, a private solid waste hauler, to collect and dispose of the solid waste/refuse generated in the City. Solid waste/refuse collected in the City by CR&R is transported to one of the Class III (i.e., acceptance of municipal solid waste) operated and maintained by the County of Orange OC Waste & Recycling (OCW&R), formerly called Integrated Waste Management Department, or IWMD. The OCW&R is responsible for providing sanitary landfill capacity to the City of San Juan Capistrano and within the County of Orange. At the present time, the OCW&R maintains and operates three Class III sanitary landfills, including Prima Deshecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano, Olinda Alpha Landfill in Brea, and Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in Irvine. Of the three landfills currently operated by the OCW&R, the closest landfill to the site, and the one that would accept refuse generated at the site, is the Prima Deshecha Landfill, located at La Pata Avenue in the City of San Juan Capistrano. The landfill property encompasses 1,530 acres, of which 699 acres are permitted for refuse disposal activities. The landfill was opened in 1976 and is scheduled to close in approximately A General Development Plan is being prepared for Prima Deshecha Landfill, which indicates end use as a regional park. The Prima Deshecha Landfill is permitted to accept up to 4,000 tons of municipal solid waste per day. Table 17 4 provides a comparison of the estimated solid waste generation anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed Revised Project and Original Project. As indicated in the table, the proposed Revised Project would result in the generation of approximately 520 pounds of solid waste per day, or less than 20 percent of the total amount generated by the Original Project. Thus, project related impacts will be less than significant; no mitigation measures are required. Table 17 4 Estimated Solid Waste Generation Comparison Original Project Revised Project Land Use Pounds of Solid Waste Pounds of Rooms/Sq. Solid Generation Rate Rooms/Sq. Ft. Solid Waste Ft. Waste Hotel 4 lbs/room/day 124 Rooms Retail 3.12 lbs/100 sq. 6,509 sq. ft. 203 ft/day Professional 1 lb/sq. ft./day 1,971 sq. ft. 1,971 Office Restaurant lb/sq. ft./day 5,747 sq. ft. 29 4, Total 2, SOURCE: OC Waste & Recycling Plaza Banderas FEIR SCH No As indicated in the FEIR for the Original Project, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (i.e., AB 939) requires that the County must maintain 15 years of available Countywide solid waste disposal capacity. The Prima Deshecha Landfill has adequate capacity to accommodate the Revised Project on both a project specific and cumulative basis. The Orange County landfill system has sufficient capacity to accommodate both the Revised Project and future development within the County. As a result, implementation of the Revised Project will not July

168 result in any significant impacts on landfill capacity and, further, will not adversely affect the ability of the existing facilities operated and maintained by the OCW&R to provide adequate landfill capacity to serve the County. The FEIR for the Original Project also determined that no significant impacts to solid waste collection and/or landfill capacity is anticipated. The Orange County landfill system had sufficient capacity to accommodate both the Original project and future development within the County. Although the Revised Project must comply with the provisions of the City s Source Reduction and Recycling Element, no mitigation measures are required. 4.17(g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Solid waste practices in California are governed by multiple federal, state and local agencies, which enforce legislation, and regulations that ensure landfill operations minimize impacts to public health and safety, and the environment. An important part of OCW&R s mission is to apply sound environmental practices to ensure compliance with these regulations. Additionally, OCW&R has adopted a Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) that requires countywide facilities to meet the 15 year capacity requirement. OCW&R is also obligated to obtain a Solid Waste Facilities Permit, a Stormwater Discharge Permit, and permits to construct and operate gas management systems and meet Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). The Local Enforcement Agency (LEA), SCAQMD, and the RWQ@CB enforce landfill regulations related to health, air quality, and water quality, respectively. The proposed Revised Project would not inhibit OCW&R s compliance with the requirements of each of these regulatory/governing agencies. It should also be noted that the City of San Juan Capistrano complies with all federal, State and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. AB 939 requires that the City diverts at least 50 percent of solid waste from landfills through conservation, recycling, and composting. As indicated in the FEIR for the Original Project, the Revised Project will be required to comply with AB 929 as mandated through applicable City of San Juan Capistrano requirements. Therefore, potential impacts will be less than significant; no mitigation measures are required. Standard Conditions SC Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a sewer plan and submit the plan to the City s Public Works Department for review and approval. The design and construction of sanitary sewers shall be in accordance with the Standard Specifications, as last revised, and prescribed by the City of San Juan Capistrano. SC Sewer laterals serving the proposed project shall be either four (4) inches or six (6) inches in internal diameter and shall be designed in accordance with the Uniform Plumbing Code, as last revised. SC SC SC Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a water supply plan for the proposed project (including water supply during construction) in accordance with City standards and submit the plan to the City for review and approval. The water supply plan shall connect to existing facilities in the 350 water pressure zone and meet all other requirements prescribed by the City related to main size, pressure, etc. The proposed project shall comply with Title 24 and shall incorporate all applicable water conservation measures (e.g., low flow toilets and urinals, etc.) into the proposed project to reduce the project s demand for domestic water to the maximum extent practicable. (Dual plumbing is required to use recycled water for flushing toilets.) Urinals shall use recycled water for flushing or shall be waterless. The project applicant shall comply with the provisions of the Tri Cities (San Juan Capistrano, Dana Point and San Clemente) Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) adopted by the City of San Juan Capistrano to reduce solid waste by 50 percent. July

169 Mitigation Measures In order to ensure that domestic water impacts are reduced to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures required for the Original Project shall be carried forward in the Revised Project and implemented by the project applicant. MM a MM b Prior to the approval of the final map for the project, the applicant shall submit a public improvement plan that includes provisions for extending recycled water service to the project site to meet all landscape irrigation needs as well as those required for the toilets and urinals for the proposed project. The design and construction of on site recycled water service shall meet all applicable State Recycled Water rules and regulations, California Plumbing Code 2009, and City of San Juan Capistrano requirements/standards. The applicant shall connect to the public recycled water service system at such time as it is available at the project boundaries. Project implementation will necessitate the construction of a 12 inch high pressure line connected to the 350C zone starting at the I 5 Freeway and El Horno; traveling to the project site then returning across the freeway to a point at the intersection of Ortega Highway at Avenida Los Cerritos. Construction plans shall be submitted to the City for Review and approval. Conclusion The project changes associated with the Revised Project would not result in any significant new utilities effects not considered in the FEIR for the Original Project, and would not cause any significant adverse effects to utilities previously identified in the FEIR to be substantially more severe MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Would the project: a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Informatio n Showing New or Increase Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact July

170 Would the project: future projects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? d. Does the project have the potential to achieve short term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals. Substantial Change in Project Requiring Major EIR Revisions Substantial Change in Circumstances Requiring Major EIR Revisions New Informatio n Showing New or Increase Significant Effects Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR No Impact Analysis of Revised Project 4.18(a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. As discussed in the analysis of biological resources (refer to Section 4.4), the site has been substantially altered and does not support any sensitive habitat, plants and/or animals. Furthermore, there are neither wetlands nor jurisdictional waters on the project site. As a result, project implementation of the proposed Inn at the Mission San Juan Capistrano project would not resulting in the significant degradation of the quality of the environment and would not reduce the habitat of any native wildlife species or cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels. Furthermore, the Revised Project would not have a significant impact of plant or animal communities. Because the project site is physically detached from large areas of native habitat due to the urbanization that has occurred in the immediate area, it does not facilitate wildlife movement in the region. As a result, potentially significant impacts to biological resources would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. Cultural resources have been identified in prior cultural resources investigations and sub surface testing (refer to Section 4.5). However, as indicated in the Plaza Banderas FEIR, implementation of the project would result in grading the site, which could result in a potentially significant direct project impact to historic and/or prehistoric resources. The Plaza Banderas FEIR project prescribed several mitigation measures to ensure that potentially significant impact would be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. Implementation of the Revised Project would result in similar grading and, thus, the same or similar potential impacts to cultural/historic resources would be expected. Therefore, the same mitigation measures would also be necessary to avoid or mitigate the potential impacts to a less than significant level. 4.18(b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Other development projects located in vicinity of the project includes the Kimpton Hotel Capistrano project, which is located south of the project in the historic downtown area of the City. As previously described, the site has been July

171 extensively altered as a result of prior development. Although project implementation would result in an incremental increase in potential impacts, these potential project related cumulative impacts would be less than significant as described below. Aesthetics Implementation of the Revised Project will not result in potentially significant cumulative visual impacts from any of the public vantage points within proximity of the subject property. Although the property will be highly visible from the nearby and adjacent roadways (i.e., Ortega Highway and El Camino Real, Spring Street.), which are designated as scenic corridors, the potential visual effect of the Revised Project that could contribute cumulatively within the overall viewshed will be minimized through a design that incorporates site and architectural design consistent with the City s adopted Architectural Design Guidelines and with CDP as reflected in the FEIR for the Original Project and in the visual simulations and in the preceding analysis. Distant views to the Santa Ana Mountains and other aesthetic resources in the outlying areas (e.g., designated ridgelines, etc.) identified and acknowledged by the City in the General Plan would not be adversely affected. Therefore, project implementation will not contribute to a cumulatively significant aesthetic impact. This conclusion is consistent with the findings of the FEIR and the General Plan EIR, which indicated that the City will continue to review development proposals, including the Revised Project, and will require mitigation of any aesthetic and light and glare impacts. The Revised Project been reviewed by the City s Design Review Committee and is consistent with the design guidelines adopted by the City. As a result, future development of the site is consistent with the General Plan and will not contribute to a cumulatively significant visual impact. Agriculture and Forestry Resources As indicated in the FEIR and in the preceding analysis, implementation of the Revised Project will not result in the loss of any existing prime agricultural soils or important farmlands, including existing agricultural uses. In addition, the proposed pipeline would not result in any impacts to forests and/or designated forest lands. Project implementation will not result in any significant cumulative to either agricultural resources or forests/forestlands. Air Quality The Revised Project will result in the generation of operational emissions (i.e., those resulting from the operation of automobiles and trucks), which will be emitted into the air basin; however, these project related emissions would be less than the emissions projected by the Original Project and reflected in the FEIR. Furthermore, the emissions of the Revised Project would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. Similarly, the construction of other projects will also contribute to the pollutant burden within the basin, which is identified as a non attainment area for ozone and PM 10 and PM 2.5. Because the project s contribution of construction emissions (primarily fugitive dust) is short term and because adequate mitigation measures will be implemented, these impacts will not be significant on a cumulative basis. Likewise, the reduction in vehicle trips and, therefore, CO emissions would not exceed localized emissions (i.e., CO hot spot ). However, 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. Like the Original Project, the Revised Project is consistent with the City s General Plan and would not change the ultimate findings articulated in the General Plan EIR. Biological Resources As indicated in the preceding analysis and in the FEIR, the project site has been significantly altered as a result of the prior use of the property for urban uses. Implementation of the Revised Project will not result in any potentially significant direct or indirect impacts to biological resources, including sensitive habitat and/or species, wetlands/jurisdictional waters, and wildlife migration corridors. As a result, the Revised Project would also not result in potentially significant cumulative impacts. July

172 Cultural Resources The site is located adjacent to the historic Mission San Juan Capistrano and other nearby historic structures. Therefore, due to its proximity to these features and based on prior surveys conducted on the subject property, it is possible that additional cultural resources may be encountered during grading and site preparation as indicated in the FEIR for the Original Project. Consultation with the Native American representatives has indicated that the subject property is important and care should be taken to ensure that any cultural resources and artifacts are properly managed during grading. Potential impacts to cultural and scientific resources would be the same as previously identified for Original Project. Therefore, mitigation measures that were prescribed at the time the Original Project was approved will also be carried forward in the Revised Project and will be adequate to ensure that potential impacts to potentially significant cultural, historical and/or scientific resources are mitigated. As a result, approval of the Revised Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts to cultural and scientific resources. Geology and Soils Implementation of the Revised Project would expose the proposed structures, visitors and tenants occupying the structures to potential secondary seismic effects, including potential liquefaction and moderate to strong ground shaking. However, these potentially significant impacts were adequately evaluated in the FEIR and would be minimized or avoided through project design as well as compliance with current CBC and City Building Code requirements to ensure that loss of property is minimized. Therefore, implementation of the minimization and/or avoidance measures will ensure that potential cumulative impacts are less than significant. Greenhouse Gas Consistent with the FEIR, the total increase in GHG emissions onsite from the Revised Project would not exceed the emissions threshold established by the SCAQMD. In addition, because the Revised Project would not exceed the regional emissions thresholds for criteria pollutants, GHG emissions are not to be considered substantial enough to result in a significant cumulative impact relative to GHG emissions and climate change impacts. Therefore, the Revised Project s cumulative contribution to GHG emissions would be less than significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Implementation of the Revised Project will not increase the potential for hazards and hazardous conditions to occur. The site was remediated following demolition of the ARCO service station that previously existed on the site. Therefore, the subject property is not contaminated and, furthermore, future land uses proposed for the site will comply with both State and federal regulations to the storage, use and/or transport of any hazardous materials to ensure that potential impacts are minimized. As future development occurs within the City, including the cumulative projects, the population will rise and the number of people exposed to potential hazards related to flooding, fires, hazardous materials, and nuclear power production will increase. However, future development will also be subject to all applicable regulatory requirements to ensure that potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. Consistent with the FEIR, no significant cumulative impacts associated with hazards and/or hazardous materials are anticipated. Hydrology and Water Quality As with the Original Project, site development will result in the addition of impervious surfaces on the site, which would result in increases in the volume and rate of surface runoff occurring on the site. In addition, with the introduction of urban development on the site where none currently exists, the types and quantities of pollutants will increase as a result of that development. However, the site has been designed to retain surface flows on the site and to reduce post development runoff compared to the existing flows emanating from the site as indicated in the FEIR. The existing facilities in the vicinity of the site have adequate capacity to accommodate any increase in surface runoff, which would be less than significant. In addition, the applicant has prepared a storm drain plan that July

173 detains and treats surface runoff generated on the site before its ultimate discharge into San Juan Creek. The applicant will be required to implement best management practices (BMPs) and related measures in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements to ensure that both storm water runoff and quality meet the requisite criteria. The BMPs identified in the WQMP are those that would reduce drainage and hydrology impacts to the maximum extent practicable and would, therefore, minimize potential cumulative impacts. In addition, the Revised Project will be required to implement similar stormwater collection and conveyance facilities and water quality structural and non structural measures (i.e., BMPs) to reduce and avoid water quality impacts. Implementation of these measures, which would be prescribed in the SWPPP and WQMP prepared for the Revised Project (and other projects in the City and watershed), must comply with the requirements established by the City and County of Orange in the Drainage Area Master Plan, which have been developed to address the cumulative impacts of development in the watershed. These measures are intended to ensure that water quality objectives are achieved and/or maintained. Therefore, implementation of the Revised Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts to either hydrology or water quality. Land Use and Planning Development of the subject property is consistent with the long range land use plans adopted by the City of San Juan Capistrano as well as the Comprehensive Development Plan adopted for the project site. Based on that consistency, development of the Revised Project will occur according to the recommended distribution and intensity anticipated for the subject property. Similar to the conclusions presented in the FEIR for the Original Project as well as for the General Plan Update, the Revised Project would not result in any land uses or circulation routes that would physically divide established communities, either within the City or surrounding areas. Furthermore, the Revised Project is consistent with the long ranges goals, policies, and objectives adopted by the City, including policies and implementation programs identified in the City s General Plan and the Historic Downtown Specific Plan intended to ensure that development is compatible with existing development plans and the established Orange County Natural Community Conservation Program. Therefore, no significant cumulative land use and planning impacts are anticipated. The I 5/Ortega Highway interchanges improvements completed by Caltrans have resulted in some property acquisition along the I 5 Freeway and along Ortega Highway and Del Obispo Street in the vicinity of the Revised Project. The intersection improvements have resulted in the realignment of the Ortega Highway/Del Obispo intersection in the vicinity of the subject property. A small remnant parcel has been created between the subject property and Ortega Highway. However, neither the interchange improvements nor the Revised Project address future development of the remnant parcel. As a result, in the short term, the parcel would remain vacant. No potentially significant cumulative land use impacts would occur. Mineral Resources Although the site is undeveloped, no significant impacts to mineral resources are anticipated. No mineral resources are known to exist on the subject property that would be adversely impacted by development of the site as proposed. Furthermore implementation of the Revised Project would not directly impact any existing mineral resource areas either in the City of San Juan Capistrano, the region, or the State of California as reflected in the FEIR for the Original Project. Although the Revised Project would require the use of mineral resources (e.g., sand and gravel, wood, etc.), these are either renewable or are in abundant supply. Development of the site using Green Building Program (GBP) techniques consistent with United States Green Building Council s Green Building Design and Construction Reference Guide practice will reduce overall energy usage/demand, and otherwise reduce demand for renewable energy resources, primarily oil and coal. Noise Although mobile source noise generated by the Revised Project would result in an increase in ambient noise levels in the project area, the increase in noise levels associated with project related traffic would increase ambient noise levels by less than 1 db, which is generally considered to be inaudible. Furthermore, with the July

174 exception of the I 5/Ortega Highway north and southbound ramps, all of the noise levels at the affected intersections are project to be less than 65 dba CNEL. Thus, the potential project related cumulative impact is less than significant. Unlike transportation noise sources, whose effects can extend well beyond the limits of the project site, stationary noise generated by the project only impacts sensitive receptors adjacent to the project site. No substantial stationary noise impacts from project implementation were identified and the City of San Juan Capistrano would restrict stationary noise generated on a property from creating a nuisance to other offsite noise sensitive receptors through implementation of the noise limits in the City s Municipal Code. Stationary source noise generated by the Revised Project would not substantially cumulatively contribute to the ambient noise environment. Population and Housing Implementation of the Revised Project will not result in either the elimination of existing housing and related displacement of residents or, conversely, the addition of residential dwelling units and an increase in population. Therefore, the proposed development of approximately 101,965 square feet of that will encompass a 124 room hotel and a restaurant will not directly adversely affect the housing stock in the City of San Juan Capistrano or population projections estimated for the City. Further, the Revised Project will not adversely affect the jobs/housing balance because the commercial uses have been anticipated since the approval and adoption of the San Juan Capistrano General Plan Update in Therefore, implementation of the Revised Project would not result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to population and housing. Public Services Because implementation of the Revised Project will result in only indirect demands for public school services by new school age children, any impacts on school facilities are adequately mitigated through the payment of the developer fees imposed by the school district as provided by State law. Those capital impacts fees are to be used by the Capistrano Unified School District (CUSD) to construct new schools and/or expand existing schools so as to serve new development which pays the State mandated capital impact fee. All development proposed in the City, including residential, commercial, and industrial development, are required to pay the school fees, which are deemed as adequate to offset both project related and cumulative impacts. Because the Revised Project does not include residential development, there would be no direct demand for park facilities and services; however, the site has been designed to accommodate visitors to San Juan Capistrano and incorporates pedestrian friendly facilities. In addition, the project will also reflect efficient siting, design, and orientation to minimize energy consumption, including transportation energy will also be incorporated into the project as well as the incorporation energy conservation features. As indicated for the Original Project in the FEIR, the Revised Project will also result in increased calls for police and fire protection; however, the service levels are anticipated to be adequate based on General Plan buildout to accommodate the planned uses by the Orange County Sheriff Department and Orange County Fire Authority. Recreation Implementation of the Revised Project does not result in either the direct or indirect generation of residents that would create demands for recreational amenities in the City of San Juan Capistrano. Therefore, implementation of the Revised Project would not contribute to potentially significant impacts to recreation facilities in the City of San Juan Capistrano. Transportation/Traffic Development of the site as proposed for the Revised Project would not result in any potentially significant cumulative traffic impacts. As indicated in the analysis presented in Section 4.16, the project related traffic when added to the existing plus project and cumulative project traffic would not result in potentially significant cumulative impacts at any of the key study area intersections. With the improvements implemented by Caltrans with the Ortega Highway/I 5 interchange in 2015, project related cumulative traffic impacts at the Ortega Highway/I 5 NB Ramps and Ortega Highway/I 5 SB Ramps identified in the FEIR for the Original Project have been eliminated. July

175 Utilities Future regional growth, including that resulting from the Revised Project, will result in increased demands for utilities such as sewer, water, storm drainage, and solid waste facilities as well as natural gas and electricity. The long range plans and programs, previously cited and incorporated by reference, include the provision of adequate utilities, adopted by the City to sufficiently accommodate buildout of the General Plan land uses, including the Revised Project as reflected in the FEIR for the Original Project. As a result, adequate capacities are available in the utility service systems to accommodate both the Revised Project as well as other related projects that have been approved and are identified for future development. Because the project is consistent with the programs adopted by the City, demands for domestic water, sewage generation, storm drainage increases, and landfill capacity demands have been anticipated by the City and the agencies that are responsible for providing utilities and services. Demands for domestic water and the generation of raw sewage are estimated to be less than for the approved land uses for the project site. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts are anticipated through (c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. As assessed in the FEIR, implementation of the Revised Project will result in some potentially significant impacts; however, with only one exception, all of the potential impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of mitigation measures. However, as indicated in the FEIR for the Original Project, and confirmed in the noise analysis conducted for the Revised Project, short term noise impacts associated with construction activities would remain significant, even after the implementation of mitigation measures. Although construction phase impacts would be reduced, the noise levels at the San Juan Elementary School and nearby Mission San Juan Capistrano would exceed interior and exterior noise levels for those sensitive uses. However, the Revised Project would not result in a new noise impact not previously analyzed in the Plaza Banderas FEIR and would also not result in a more severe noise impacts that previously identified. 4.18(d) Does the project have the potential to achieve short term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals. Less than Significant Impact/No Change or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Implementation of the Original Project included mitigation measures to avoid potentially significant environmental effects that would occur as a result of that project. The Revised Project, which proposes minor modifications to the Original Project, would result in the same or reduced potential impacts when compared to the Original Project. Like the Original Project, the Revised Project is consistent with the long term goals and objectives of the San Juan Capistrano General Plan, including environmental goals intended to protect important environmental resources. As a result, implementation of the Revised Project would not compromise long term environmental goals REFERENCES The following references were utilized during preparation of this. These documents are available for review at the City of San Juan Capistrano, Paseo Adelanto, San Juan Capistrano, California San Juan Capistrano General Plan; Adopted December 14, Land Use Community Design Element Safety Element Conservation and Open Space Element Noise Element Cultural Resources Element July

176 San Juan Capistrano General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report; SCH No (Certified December 1999). San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code; Section Plaza Banderas Comprehensive Development Plan. Plaza Banderas Final Environmental Impact Report; October Tree Removal Permit No ; Issued February 4, Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers, LLC; Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum Report, Mission Hotel; June 8, Giroux & Associates; Air Quality and GHG Impact Analysis, Mission Inn; June Giroux & Associates; Noise Assessment Mission Inn; June 2016 GMU Geotechnical, Inc.; Geotechnical Investigation Report, Mission Inn San Juan Capistrano; August 10, Hunsaker & Associates Irvine; Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, Mission Inn; April 19, 2016 (Revised) Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc.; Private Fire Protection System Analysis for the Mission Inn Project; October 12, Federal Emergency Management Agency; Letter of Map Revision Determination Document; July 30, Plaza Banderas Comprehensive Development Plan 10 01; June 2016 (Revised). TetraTech; Analysis of San Juan Capistrano Sewer System to Accommodate Proposed Mission Inn Hotel Development Flows; January 29, Malcolm Pirnie/Arcadis; 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (Final Draft); June REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL City of San Juan Capistrano (Lead Agency) Development Services Department Paseo Adelanto San Juan Capistrano, California (949) Mr. Joel Rojas, Director Mr. David Contreras, Senior Planner Keeton Kreitzer Consulting (Environmental Analysis) P. O. Box 3905 Tustin, CA (714) Mr. Keeton K. Kreitzer, Principal July

177

178 This page left intentionally blank July

179