final environmental impact report tirador … ser… · final environmental impact report tirador...

May 2020

F I N A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

T I R A D O R R E S I D E N T I A L D E V E L O P M E N T P R O J E C T

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AND ERRATA

CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO

SCH NO. 2019110154

This page intentionally left blank

May 2020

F I N A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

T I R A D O R R E S I D E N T I A L D E V E L O P M E N T P R O J E C T

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AND ERRATA

CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO

SCH NO. 2019110154

Submitted to:

City of San Juan Capistrano Development Services, Planning Division

32400 Paseo Adelanto San Juan Capistrano, California 92675

Prepared by:

LSA 20 Executive Park, Suite 200

Irvine, California 92614 (949) 553-0666

Project No. JCA1802

F I N A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T M A Y 2 0 2 0

T I R A D O R R E S I D E N T I A L D E V E L O P M E N T P R O J E C T S A N J U A N C A P I S T R A N O , C A L I F O R N I A

\\vcorp12\projects\JCA1802\CEQA\Final EIR\Final EIR.docx (05/28/20) i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Index of Comments Received ............................................................................................ 1-2 1.2 Format of Responses to Comments .................................................................................. 1-3

2.0 COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES ............................................................... 2-1 2.1 State Agencies ................................................................................................................... 2-3

California Department of Fish and Wildlife ..................................................................................... 2-5 California Department of Transportation ...................................................................................... 2-17

2.2 Local Agencies ................................................................................................................. 2-29 City of San Clemente ..................................................................................................................... 2-31 Orange County Public Works (Letter 1 of 2) .................................................................................. 2-33 Orange County Public Works (Letter 2 of 2) .................................................................................. 2-35

2.3 Interested Parties ............................................................................................................ 2-43 Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation ................................................................. 2-45

3.0 ERRATA ............................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Chapter 3.0, Project Description ....................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................ 3-1 3.3 Section 4.11, Transportation ............................................................................................. 3-1

4.0 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ....................................................... 4-1

TABLE Table A: List of Comments Received ................................................................................................... 1-3

FIGURE Figure 3.18: Proposed Conservation Area ........................................................................................... 3-3



\\vcorp12\projects\JCA1802\CEQA\Final EIR\Final EIR.docx (05/28/20) ii




\\vcorp12\projects\JCA1802\CEQA\Final EIR\Final EIR.docx (05/28/20) 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This document comprises the Comments and Responses and Errata volume of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Tirador Residential Development Project (proposed project) for the City of San Juan Capistrano (City). The purpose of this document is to respond to all comments received by the City regarding the environmental information and analyses contained in the Draft EIR. As noted in some of the responses, corrections and clarifications to the Draft EIR have been provided where necessary. These corrections are intended to clarify information already provided in the Draft EIR and do not constitute new information or require recirculation of the document. These changes are reflected in Chapter 3.0, Errata, of this document and should be considered part of the Final EIR for consideration by the City Council prior to certification of the Final EIR.

As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (State CEQA Guidelines) Section 15087, a Notice of Completion (NOC) of the Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse on March 4, 2020, and a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the proposed project was filed with the County of Los Angeles (County) Clerk on March 4, 2020.

The Draft EIR was circulated for public review for a period of 45 days, from March 4, 2020, to April 17, 2020. The NOA and copies of the Draft EIR were distributed to all Responsible Agencies and to the State Clearinghouse in addition to various public agencies, citizen groups, and interested individuals. Copies of the Draft EIR were also made available for public review at the City Development Services Department, the San Juan Capistrano Public Library, and on the City’s website.

A total of six letters commenting on the proposed project were received during the public review period or immediately thereafter. Comments were received from State and local agencies, as well as interested parties. Three of the six letters state that the respective commenting agencies and interested parties do not have comments on the Draft EIR, but nonetheless, these letters have been included in the Final EIR as part of the administrative record.

Comments that address environmental issues are responded to thoroughly in this document. Comments that (1) do not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; (2) do not raise environmental issues; or (3) request the incorporation of additional information not relevant to environmental issues do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. However, the City has attempted to provide a response to each comment.

Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines, Evaluation of and Response to Comments, states:

(a) The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead agency shall respond to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments.




(b) The lead agency shall provide a written proposed response, either in a printed copy or in an electronic format, to a public agency on comments made by that public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying an environmental impact report.

(c) The written response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, the major environmental issues raised when the lead agency’s position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail giving the reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. The level of detail contained in the response, however, may correspond to the level of detail provided in the comment (i.e., responses to general comments may be general). A general response may be appropriate when a comment does not contain or specifically refer to readily available information, or does not explain the relevance of evidence submitted with the comment.

(d) The response to comments may take the form of a revision to the Draft EIR or may be a separate section in the Final EIR. Where the response to comments makes important changes in the information contained in the text of the Draft EIR, the lead agency should either:

1. Revise the text in the body of the Draft EIR; or

2. Include marginal notes showing that the information is revised in the responses to comments.

Information provided in this Final EIR clarifies, amplifies, or makes minor modifications to the Draft EIR. No significant changes have been made to the information or analysis contained in the Draft EIR because of the responses to comments, and no significant new information has been added that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR document.

1.1 INDEX OF COMMENTS RECEIVED Table A consists of an index list of the state and local agencies and interested parties that commented on the Draft EIR prior to the close of the public comment period or immediately thereafter. The comments received have been organized by date received and in a manner that facilitates finding a particular comment or set of comments. Each comment letter received is indexed with a number below.




Table A: List of Comments Received

State Agencies S-1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) April 17, 2020 S-2 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) April 17, 2020 Local Agencies L-1 City of San Clemente March 10, 2020 L-2 Orange County Public Works (OCPW) (1 of 2) April 2, 2020 L-3 Orange County Public Works (OCPW) (2 of 2) April 9, 2020 Interested Parties I-1 Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation April 17, 2020

1.2 FORMAT OF RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Responses to each of the comment letters are provided on the following pages. The comment index numbers are provided in the upper right corner of each comment letter, and individual points within each letter are numbered along the right-hand margin of each letter. The City’s responses to each comment letter immediately follow each letter and are referenced by the index numbers in the margins. An Errata section, with text revisions, has been prepared to provide corrections and clarifications to the Draft EIR where required.




2.0 COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES




2.1 STATE AGENCIES

State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 467-4201 www.wildlife.ca.gov

Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870

April 17, 2020 Laura Stokes Housing Supervisor/Associate Planner City of San Juan Capistrano 32400 Paseo Adelanto San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 [email protected] Subject: Tirador Residential Development Project (PROJECT) DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) SCH# 2019110154 Dear Ms. Stokes: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Notice of Availability of a DEIR from the City of San Juan Capistrano for the Project pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1 CDFW previously submitted comments in response to the Notice of Preparation of the DEIR. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code. CDFW ROLE CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the state. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a).) CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. (Id., § 1802.) Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY Proponent: City of San Juan Capistrano (City)

1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

S-1

S-1-1

S-1-2

S-1-3

Laura Stokes City of San Juan Capistrano April 17, 2020 Page 2 of 7 Objective: The Project will develop 132 residences, consisting of 43 single-family units and 89 townhomes, on 16.1 acres. A 20-foot wide multi-purpose (pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian) trail is proposed along the southern boundary of the project. The Project would provide 44,131 square feet of common recreational open space. Most of the project site has a General Plan land use designation of Planned Community. Additionally, portions of the southernmost and easternmost segments of the project site are designated as General Open Space and Community Park, respectively. The land uses proposed by the project within each designated area are consistent with the applicable land use designations, and the proposed Project would not require a General Plan Amendment. Location: The Project site is within the City of San Juan Capistrano, bounded by the Interstate 5 freeway to the west, San Juan Creek to the south, Calle Arroyo to the north, and Paseo Tirador to the east. The Project is also located within CDFW-designated Fishing District 4, in the County of Orange. Biological Setting: The project site is mostly unvegetated ground, with some areas of non-native vegetation. The eastern portion of the project site is adjacent to San Juan Creek, El Horno Creek, associated riparian vegetation, and trails. Although no special-status species were observed in an initial general biological site survey in January 2019, numerous special-status species are known to occur in the San Juan Creek habitat adjacent to the Project site. Special-status species that occur in the vicinity include Southern California steelhead (steelhead; Oncorhynchus mykiss; federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed endangered), Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentate; California Species of Special Concern (SSC)), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus; California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and ESA listed endangered), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus; a state Fully Protected species), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; SSC), coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica; ESA listed threatened), western spadefoot toad (Spea hammondii; SSC), and arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus; ESA listed- endangered and SSC). Timeframe: Construction of the proposed Project is anticipated to take approximately 20 months, concluding in May 2022. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. I. Environmental Setting and Related Impact Shortcoming Would the Project 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 CDFW or USFWS? DEIR, Biological Resources Assessment COMMENT #1: Species-specific surveys for least Bell’s vireo, burrowing owl, and coastal California gnatcatcher

S-1-3

S-1-4

S-1

Laura Stokes City of San Juan Capistrano April 17, 2020 Page 3 of 7 Issue: A general biological survey conducted in the winter and a literature review are inadequate to identify multiple sensitive species with the potential to occur on site. Focused species-specific surveys should be conducted for least Bell’s vireo and coastal California gnatcatcher, and a Habitat Assessment should be conducted for burrowing owl (per the 2012 Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Staff Report) Specific Issue: In compiling data for the environmental baseline, the CNDDB was utilized by the applicant as a primary source to identify previously reported occurrences of special species and sensitive habitats in the project vicinity. The CNDDB is a statewide inventory, managed by CDFW, and is routinely updated with the location and condition of the state’s rare and declining species and habitats. Although the CNDDB is a valuable tool for tracking positive occurrences of special status species, it contains only those records that have been reported to the CDFW and does not replace the need for timely physical surveys. We consider general biological surveys such as those conducted in January 2019 insufficient to determine the fauna on site. Why impact would occur: Table C-2 in the DEIR indicates that least Bell’s vireo are “not expected” due to lack of suitable riparian nesting habitat on the project site; however, the DEIR indicates that suitable nesting habitat is present within San Juan Creek and the species is known to occur in the project vicinity (Biological Resources Report, p. C-12). Burrowing owl are identified to have a ‘low probability of occurrence’ due to marginal habitat on the Project site and no observed active burrows (Biological Resources Report, p. C-11). Coastal California gnatcatcher are identified as ‘not expected’ and the DEIR indicates that, while there are known occurrence records in the project vicinity, suitable nesting habitat is absent from the Project site and suitable foraging habitat is largely absent from the Project site (Biological Resources Report, p. C-11). Although habitat is described as marginal for these species, any potential to occur directly on the Project site or within 500 feet of the Project boundary can result in direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to them. Focused, species-specific surveys need to be conducted to adequately analyze potential impacts. While this data is unavailable in the DEIR, CDFW cannot determine as to whether impacts to these species are less than significant with mitigation. While CDFW agrees that preconstruction surveys, as required in Mitigation Measure BIO-5, are appropriate to supplement data collected through surveys whose results are disclosed, we consider the reliance upon future biological surveys inadequate to determine whether project impacts will be less than significant with mitigation. We therefore request that the Final EIR be amended to include seasonally appropriate surveys. Recent, focused, species-specific surveys, conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of day when sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable, should be included in the impact analysis for least Bell’s vireo, burrowing owl, and coastal California gnatcatcher. The Habitat Assessment and following pre-construction surveys for burrowing owl should adhere to the Staff Report. Surveys for least Bell’s vireo and coastal California gnatcatcher should adhere to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protocols. Species-specific surveys, in combination with Mitigation Measure BIO-5, will minimize significant impacts to sensitive avian species with the potential to occur on site. CDFW requests copies of all biological surveys, including forthcoming focused or species-specific surveys. Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s) (Regarding Project Description and Related Impact Shortcoming)

S-1-4

S-1

Laura Stokes City of San Juan Capistrano April 17, 2020 Page 4 of 7 Mitigation Measure #1: To minimize significant impact: Focused surveys shall be conducted for least Bell’s vireo and coastal California gnatcatcher (per U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protocols) prior to the start of construction. Results shall be shared with CDFW. If these species are observed within the project area and/or will be impacted by project activities, CDFW will be consulted as to appropriate next steps, which may include nest avoidance, visual screens and markers, establishment of buffers deemed appropriate by the qualified on-site biologist, or notification under CEQA Guidelines section 15381 (CESA; Fish & G. Code § 2050 et seq.). Mitigation Measure #2 To minimize significant impact: A Habitat Assessment shall be conducted for burrowing owl (per the CDFW 2012 Staff Report). Results shall be shared with CDFW. If there was no potential for this species then full surveys will not be needed; however, if potential for burrowing owl presence is found, then full surveys per the Staff Report will be conducted. CDFW will be consulted as to appropriate next steps, which may include burrow avoidance, visual screens and markers, and establishment of buffers deemed appropriate by the qualified on-site biologist. II. Mitigation Measure or Alternative and Related Impact Shortcoming COMMENT #2: Compliance Measure Bio-1 Equestrian Trail Maintenance DEIR Volume II, p. 471 Issue: Additional language is needed for Regulatory Compliance Measure Bio-1 regarding trail maintenance to sufficiently address concerns related to equestrian impact. Specific impact: In 2019, CDFW issued a letter in response to the NOP of a DEIR for the Tirador Residential Development Project. Specific Comment #2 addressed the proposed 20-foot-wide equestrian trail, indicating that equestrian use is often associated with brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater), a brood parasite (a species that lays its eggs in nests of other species). CDFW requested that the EIR incorporate appropriate mitigation measures including a manure management receptacle/ maintenance plan and a cowbird trapping plan, and that all mitigation measures should identify the entity that will be responsible for incorporating this guidance into any applicable homeowner’s association Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. The DEIR states, “[g]iven that the site is adjacent to horse stables and existing equestrian uses, and pursuant to Section 9-4.505, Bicycle and Equestrian Trails, of the City’s Municipal Code (as stated in Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO-1), requiring that the HOA provide regular maintenance of the proposed trail, including the removal of horse manure, pet waste, and debris, the proposed project is not expected to substantially increase the amount brown-headed cowbird in the area. Additionally, because there is already a high degree of equestrian use along San Juan Creek, impacts to water quality from fecal contamination greater than existing conditions in the community are not anticipated. Therefore, with implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO-1, potential impacts associated with brown-headed cowbirds would remain less than significant (Section 4.3, p. 16).”

S-1-4

S-1-5

S-1

Laura Stokes City of San Juan Capistrano April 17, 2020 Page 5 of 7

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s) (Regarding Environmental Setting and Related Impact Shortcoming)

Mitigation Measure #3:

To reduce impacts to less than significant: As required by Section 9-4.505, Bicycle and Equestrian Trails, of the [City] Municipal Code, the [HOA] (or equivalent body) associated with the proposed development on the site would be required to provide regular maintenance of the proposed trail, including the removal of horse manure, pet waste, and debris. Management of this waste will be codified by the HOA in its Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions.

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA

CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a data base which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be found at the following link: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/CNDDB_FieldSurveyForm.pdf. The completed form can be mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address: [email protected]. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/plants_and_animals.asp.

FILING FEES

The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.)

CONCLUSION

CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIR to assist the City of San Juan Capistrano in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources.

Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Jessie Lane, Environmental Scientist at (858) 636-3159 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

David A. Mayer Environmental Program Manager South Coast Region

S-1-5

S-1-6

S-1-7

S-1

Laura Stokes City of San Juan Capistrano April 17, 2020 Page 6 of 7 Attachments A. Draft MMRP (CDFW 2020) ec: Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento REFERENCES Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83843) California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019. Comments on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Tirador Residential Development Project, San Juan Capistrano, CA SCH# 2019110154. Attachment A: CDFW Draft Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan and Associated Recommendations

Biological Resources

Mitigation Measures Timing Responsible Party

MM BIO-1 Focused surveys shall be conducted for least Bell’s vireo and coastal California gnatcatcher (per U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protocols) prior to the start of construction. Results shall be shared with CDFW. If these species are observed within the project area and/or will be impacted by project activities, CDFW will be consulted as to

Prior to Construction

City of San Juan Capistrano

Attachment 1

S-1

Laura Stokes City of San Juan Capistrano April 17, 2020 Page 7 of 7

appropriate next steps, which may include nest avoidance, visual screens and markers, establishment of buffers deemed appropriate by the qualified on-site biologist, or notification under CEQA Guidelines section 15381 (CESA; Fish & G. Code § 2050 et seq.).

MM BIO-2 A Habitat Assessment shall be conducted for burrowing owl (per the CDFW 2012 Staff Report). Results shall be shared with CDFW. If there was no potential for this species then full surveys will not be needed; however, if potential for burrowing owl presence is found, then full surveys per the Staff Report will be conducted. CDFW will be consulted as to appropriate next steps, which may include burrow avoidance, visual screens and markers, and establishment of buffers deemed appropriate by the qualified on-site biologist.

Prior to Construction

City of San Juan Capistrano / HOA

MM BIO-3 As required by Section 9-4.505, Bicycle and Equestrian Trails, of the [City] Municipal Code, the [HOA] (or equivalent body) associated with the proposed development on the site would be required to provide regular maintenance of the proposed trail, including the removal of horse manure, pet waste, and debris. Management of this waste will be codified by the HOA in its Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions.

Post Construction

City of San Juan Capistrano / HOA

Attachment 1

S-1




CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

LETTER CODE: S-1

DATE: April 17, 2020

RESPONSE S-1-1

The comment states that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received the Notice of Availability (NOA) for a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Tirador Residential Development Project (proposed project). The comment also states that the CDFW previously submitted comments in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Draft EIR. The comment thanks the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) for the opportunity to comment on the proposed project.

This comment is introductory in nature and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. No further response is necessary.

RESPONSE S-1-2

The comment states that the CDFW is the Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources, and therefore, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for the biologically sustainable populations of those species. The comment states that for purposes of CEQA, the CDFW must provide biological expertise during environmental review efforts, specifically on projects that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife.

This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The comment has been noted. No further response is necessary.

RESPONSE S-1-3

The comment provides a summary of the Project Description, including the project components, location, biological setting, and timeframe.

This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary.




RESPONSE S-1-4

The comment states that a general biological survey and a literature review conducted for the proposed project are inadequate to identify multiple sensitive species with the potential to occur on the project site. Specifically, the comment identifies the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) as an inadequate tool to identify previously reported occurrences of special species and sensitive habitats in the project vicinity because it contains only those records that have been reported to the CDFW and does not replace the need for timely physical surveys. The comment states that species-specific, protocol-level surveys should be conducted for least Bell’s vireo and coastal California gnatcatcher, and a Habitat Assessment following CDFW guidelines should be conducted for burrowing owl. The comment requests that the Final EIR be amended to include two new mitigation measures requiring focused, seasonally appropriate surveys for least Bell’s vireo and coastal California gnatcatcher, as well as a Habitat Assessment for burrowing owl, respectively. The comment requests that copies of all biological surveys be sent to the CDFW.

The commenter incorrectly assumes that the Biological Resources Assessment prepared for the project relied solely on the CNDDB. To the contrary, the Biological Resources Assessment reviewed relevant species occurrence database records (including the CNDDB, the California Native Plant Society’s Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s [USFWS] Information for Planning and Consultation [IPaC] Online System), as well as existing environmental reports prepared for projects in the vicinity of the proposed project. These reports included prior biological resources survey reports prepared for the project site by multiple independent surveyors (Glen Lukos Associates 2007, SMEA 2007, and Cadre Environmental 2007). The analysis also utilized prior survey work conducted for various construction and transportation projects located near and adjacent to the project site (LSA 2011–2019). The Biological Resources Assessment is thus based on relevant species database records, a prior biological resources survey, additional prior survey work, and extensive biological resources experience in the region. These sources provide substantial evidence to demonstrate that focused surveys and a species-specific Habitat Assessment are not necessary. No regulations require focused surveys or species-specific Habitat Assessment under the circumstances presented by the proposed project. All habitats within the project site and surroundings were assessed for their potential to support special-status species that occur in the region. Based on the evidence reviewed for the Biological Resources Assessment, burrowing owl have not been reported nesting or overwintering within the project vicinity. Further, the January 2019 fieldwork for the project did not identify any nesting or overwintering within the project vicinity. Notably, the 2019 fieldwork took place when known Orange County populations of overwintering owls were present and detectable, yet none were found on the project site or in the survey area which covered adjacent areas. The species is not known to nest in the project vicinity. No suitable burrow habitat was recorded during any of the aforementioned survey efforts. For these reasons, the species was determined to have a low probability of nesting/ overwintering on the project site. Successful implementation of existing project mitigation measures as identified in the Draft EIR, including a springtime botanical survey (Mitigation Measure BIO-1) and pre-construction nesting bird surveys and avoidance of direct and indirect disturbance to active nests (Mitigation Measure BIO-5), would adequately detect and avoid impacts to this species. The springtime botanical survey would cover the entirety of the project site during the typical burrowing owl




nesting season, and pre-construction nesting bird surveys would be conducted prior to any ground disturbance during the typical burrowing owl nesting season. Per Mitigation Measure BIO-5, direct and indirect impacts to nesting birds, including burrowing owls, will be avoided.

Least Bell’s vireo has been documented as occurring adjacent to the project site (during seasonal migrations) within riparian habitat associated with San Juan Creek. The Biological Resources Assessment prepared for the project states that the species is not expected to occur within the direct project disturbance limits due to the absence of suitable habitat within the project development limits. Similarly, no suitable coastal sage scrub habitat occurs on site for coastal California gnatcatcher (a year-round/resident species not detected on site during multiple survey efforts). In sum, there is no evidence that any suitable habitat occurs within the project development limits for either least Bell’s vireo or coastal California gnatcatcher. It is clearly noted on page 11 of the Biological Resources Assessment and page 4.3-9 of the Draft EIR that suitable nesting habitat for a variety of common and special-status bird species occurs adjacent to the site within the mature riparian woodland associated with San Juan Creek, as well as ornamental trees to the west of the project site. Indirect impacts to any active nests of sensitive birds within this area would be avoided through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5 and, therefore, no incidental take would occur. Furthermore, no suitable nesting habitat or habitat containing the physical and biological features necessary for least Bell’s vireo or coastal California gnatcatcher recovery would be removed or modified by project implementation; additionally, over 5 acres of suitable least Bell’s vireo habitat would be preserved under the proposed project within the conservation area that is a part of the proposed project. Likewise, no designated critical habitat for either species would be affected by the project. Most importantly, successful implementation of the project mitigation measures would ensure that no incidental take of either of these species would occur. Therefore, information regarding the existing environmental baseline and mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR are considered adequate to cover potential impacts on these species. The City is committed to ensuring consistency with applicable requirements related to State and federally-listed species.

The applicable regulations for least Bell’s vireo and California gnatcatcher are the State and federal Endangered Species Acts, which prohibit the “take” of listed species. There is no mandate to conduct specific surveys/habitat assessments; protocol-level surveys are relied on by the USFWS during permitting consultations to determine the level of “take” that would occur. Typically, protocol-level surveys are conducted when highly suitable habitat would be modified and there is a moderate-to-high potential that a listed species would be “taken.” Since there is no take anticipated and no permit is being sought, such surveys are not necessary. Additionally, least Bell’s vireo is presumed “present” within San Juan Creek during seasonal breeding migrations. USFWS and CDFW permits would only be required if a “take” were to occur. There is no suitable habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher within the project site, so there is no need to conduct protocol-level surveys to determine whether “take” would occur. As such, the protocol-level surveys are not necessary. Further, no habitat supporting the species would be removed or adversely impacted, and therefore, no “harassment” would occur. As stated previously, the City is committed to ensuring consistency with applicable requirements related to State and federally-listed species.




RESPONSE S-1-5

The comment requests that Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO-1, as identified in the Draft EIR, should be revised in order to sufficiently address concerns related to equestrian impacts. Specifically, the comment requests that Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO-1 be converted to a mitigation measure by adding the following sentence: “Management of this waste will be codified by the HOA in its Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions.”

The measures outlined in Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO-1 are mandatory and codified in Section 9-4.505, Bicycle and Equestrian Trails, of the City’s Municipal Code. Because the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) (or equivalent body) associated with the proposed development on the project site would be required by the Municipal Code to provide regular maintenance of the proposed trail (including the removal of horse manure, pet waste, and debris), the City believes that this Regulatory Compliance Measure is enforceable and that it is not necessary to redefine it as a mitigation measure.

RESPONSE S-1-6

The comment acknowledges the CEQA requirement to incorporate information developed in EIRs into a database that may be used to make subsequent or supplement environmental determinations. The comment also requests that any special-status species and natural communities detected during project surveys be reported to the CNDDB.

This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Comment is noted. No further response is required.

RESPONSE S-1-7

The comment summarizes the requirement to pay applicable CDFW fees at the time of filing a notice of determination in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. The comment also provides contact information for personnel at CDFW should future coordination efforts be necessary.

The City acknowledges the requirement to pay applicable CDFW fees. This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is required.

ATTACHMENT 1

Attachment 1 includes a table providing a recommended draft Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan. Two of the three mitigation measures recommended by CDFW would require focused surveys for least Bell’s vireo and coastal California gnatcatcher, as well as a Habitat Assessment for burrowing owl, respectively. The third recommended mitigation measure would convert Regulatory Compliance Measure BIO-1 (as identified in the Draft EIR) to a mitigation




measure by adding the following sentence: “Management of this waste will be codified by the HOA in its Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions.”

For the reasons stated in Responses to Comments S-1-4 and S-1-5, above, these mitigation measures will not be incorporated into the Final EIR. No further response is required.

“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”

STATE OF CALIFORNIA------- CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM., Governor

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 1750 EAST FOURTH STREET, SUITE 100 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 PHONE (657) 328-6267 FAX (657) 328-6510 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov

Making Conservation

a California Way of Life.

April 17, 2020 Laura Stokes City of San Juan Capistrano 32400 Paseo Adelanto San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

File: IGR/CEQA SCH#: 2019110083 12-ORA-2019-01343 I-5, PM 9.223 SR 74, PM 0.274

Dear Ms. Stokes, Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the review of the Notice of Preparation for the proposed Tirador Residential Development project in the City of San Juan Capistrano. The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability. The proposed project includes the construction of a 132-unit residential development consisting of 43 two-story detached units and 89 three-story attached townhome units, a 20 ft wide multi-purpose pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian trail, and various recreational amenities throughout the development. Regional access to the plan area is provided by State Route 74 (SR 74) and Interstate 5 (I-5). Caltrans is a commenting agency for this project and upon review, we have the following comments: Transportation Planning

1. Caltrans encourages the City of San Juan Capistrano and the Tirador Residential Development Project to address the availability of the OCTA bus stops for Bus Route 91 which runs near the project vicinity.

2. The San Juan Capistrano Metrolink Station is in close proximity to the

proposed project. Consider promoting sufficient transportation connection to and from the station to the project site with wayfinding/signage. Providing rail connectivity will add multi-modal options to residents leading to decreased VMT and improved air quality.

S-2

S-2-1

S-2-2

S-2-3

City of San Juan Capistrano April 17, 2020 Page 2

3. The San Juan Creek Trail (SJCT) provides a local east/west bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. The westward portion of SJCT from the project passes through the I-5. Please coordinate with Caltrans regarding any improvements that might be needed to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety. Some features may include improved lighting and railing on the San Juan Creek side.

4. Coordinate with Caltrans for possible creation of green walls on the project side by I-5. These green walls are vegetative sound walls that will serve the dual purpose of reducing noise impacts to residents and filter some pollutants in the air.

Traffic Operations

5. The queue analysis in the report states that there is sufficient storage on the Southbound I-5 off-ramp during the PM peak hour, which our analysis as well as reports from CHP (California Highway Patrol) indicate differently.

6. Based on our analysis, Caltrans is currently developing project plans to

address the traffic queuing on I-5 main lines from the Southbound off-ramp. There is heavy traffic exiting the I-5 off-ramp approaching both Westbound and Eastbound directions to Ortega Highway. The intersections of Ortega Highway and Southbound I-5 as well as Rancho Viejo Road both have existing V/C ratios that are greater than 1 with a LOS F (Level of Service F) during the PM peak hour.

7. Adding vehicles to the left turning movement to the Southbound I-5 off-ramp during PM peak hour as indicated in the report will have an impact to the current operations of the facility.

8. The ICU and HCM Tables show that there would be an impact at Rancho Viejo/Ortega Highway, known as hot spot intersection. Project increase in ICU and the resulting LOS is F. The proposed project will generate 890 ADT, 64 trips in AM peak hour and 82 trips in pm peak hours, which will cause significant delays throughout the area.

9. In the report under Queue analysis – Table 4.11.L considers “the storage length of the dual westbound turn lanes at the I-5 southbound ramps.” However, the access to the project is through eastbound direction. Please clarify the statement.

S-2

S-2-4

S-2-5

S-2-6

S-2-7

S-2-8

S-2-9

S-2-10


10.Caltrans Traffic Operations would like to have the existing operations of the intersections on Ortega Highway between Del Obispo Street and Rancho Viejo Road revised in the report to better reflect the current operations to address what operational impacts may need to be addressed as a result of the proposed development.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

11.On page 1004 of the Appendices document, the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) states: “Just outside the property limits, an existing earthen swale, located along the western edge of the subject site, running along the 5 Freeway collects any potential stormwater run-on from the westerly areas and conveys storm flows to an existing 27” RCP, which leads to San Juan Creek. The proposed project may take advantage of this existing storm drain that currently conveys onsite storm flow to San Juan Creek.”

As stated in our comments for the Notice of Preparation (dated December 6, 2019) and as referenced in the PWQMP, the Tirador Residential Development project will affect Caltrans Right of Way. An Encroachment Permit will be required and should be routed to the NPDES unit for review including the final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the development showing calculations of the proposed post construction treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs) especially those proposed to be discharged to Caltrans Right of Way.

Encroachment Permit Process

12.All existing Caltrans drainage facilities should be protected during construction and existing flow patterns shall be maintained. Therefore, no diversion flow shall be allowed.

13.Final construction plans, hydrology/hydraulics calculations and maps

need to be reviewed and approved by Hydraulics branch during Encroachment Permit process.

14.Any project work proposed in the vicinity of the State Right-of-Way (ROW)

would require an encroachment permit and all environmental concerns must be adequately addressed. If the environmental documentation for the project does not meet Caltrans’s requirements for work done within State ROW, additional documentation would be required before approval of the encroachment permit. Please coordinate with Caltrans to

S-2

S-2-11

S-2-12

S-2-13

S-2-14

S-2-15


meet requirements for any work within or near State ROW. For specific details for Encroachment Permits procedure, please refer to the Caltrans’s Encroachment Permits Manual at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/permits/

Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to contact Joseph Jamoralin at (657) 328-6276 or [email protected] Sincerely, SCOTT SHELLEY Branch Chief, Regional-IGR-Transit Planning District 12

Sincerely,

SCOTT SHELLE

S-2

S-2-15

S-2-16




CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

LETTER CODE: S-2


RESPONSE S-2-1

This comment thanks the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the proposed project and states Caltrans’ mission statement. The comment also briefly summarizes the primary project components.

This comment is introductory and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR); does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary.

RESPONSE S-2-2

The comment recommends that the Draft EIR address the availability of bus stops for Route 91 near the project site, which is operated by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA).

Description of the availability of bus stops for Route 91 near the project site has been incorporated into Section 3.0, Errata, of this Final EIR, as indicated below. Deletions are shown with strikethrough and additions are shown with underline.

These minor revisions do not constitute “significant new information,” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. The revisions do not identify any new significant impacts or any increase in the severity of any impacts discussed in the Draft EIR. Therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.

Section 4.11, Transportation

Section 4.11.3.1, Existing Circulation System, Draft EIR Page 4.11-7

Transit Facilities. An OCTA bus stop Route 91 is provided approximately 1 mile west of the project site I-5 on Camino Capistrano north of Ortega Highway. Route 91 northbound and southbound bus stops are located immediately north of Camino Capistrano’s intersection with Ortega Highway. OCTA Route 91 provides transportation to/from the Laguna Hills Transportation Center and the San Clemente Metrolink Station with a stop at the San Juan Capistrano Train Depot. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, bus frequency has been reduced to




temporarily reflect Sunday schedules every day of the week until further notice. Current bus schedules can be found on the OCTA website.1

RESPONSE S-2-3

The comment states that the San Juan Capistrano Metrolink Station is in close proximity to the project site and recommends incorporation of wayfinding signage in project design.

The project applicant has agreed to incorporate wayfinding signage in the project design directing residents to the Metrolink Station location. Incorporation of wayfinding signage in project design would not impact the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR, and therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required. This additional project component does not constitute “significant new information,” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, and therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.

RESPONSE S-2-4

The comment states that the San Juan Creek Trail provides local bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and requests coordination from the City regarding any improvements that could be needed to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety, including lighting and railing.

The project applicant is currently coordinating with Caltrans regarding project components and is considering the implementation of bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements. The trail improvements proposed as part of the project do not extend into the Caltrans’ right-of-way (ROW). If upon project implementation, the trail improvements extend into the Caltrans’ ROW, the project applicant would coordinate with Caltrans to obtain an Encroachment Permit as required. This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary.

RESPONSE S-2-5

The comment requests coordination regarding the potential establishment of green walls on the proposed wall adjacent to Interstate 5 (I-5) facing the interior of the project site. The comment states that the green walls are vegetative sound walls that would also reduce noise impacts to residents and filter some pollutants in the air.

The project applicant is currently coordinating with Caltrans regarding project components and is considering the implementation of green walls. This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not

1 Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Routes and Schedules. Website: https://octa.net/

OCTA2015/BusTools/schedules/index.aspx (accessed April 28, 2020).




require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary.

RESPONSE S-2-6

This comment states that the queueing analysis prepared for the project in the Traffic Impact Report (TIA) (LSA 2020) (included as Appendix H of the Draft EIR) indicates that there is sufficient storage on the southbound I-5 off-ramp during the p.m. peak hour, which differs from the Caltrans’ analysis and California Highway Patrol (CHP) reports.

This comment is noting a difference in the analysis but does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Although no further response is necessary, the City requested additional information and clarification on Caltrans’ comment letter (dated April 17, 2020). Caltrans provided the Supporting Traffic Engineering Analysis for the Traffic Operations Review Comments to the Tirador Residential Development IGR memorandum (dated May 8, 2020). Based on review of this memorandum, Caltrans prepared an analysis of the I-5 Southbound (SB) Ramps/Ortega Highway intersection with a different data set and observations. Therefore, the results of this analysis were different than those presented in the LSA TIA. See Response S-2-8 for further information related to this comment.

RESPONSE S-2-7

The comment states that Caltrans is currently developing plans to improve traffic queueing on the I-5 southbound off-ramp due to heavy traffic exiting I-5 to Ortega Highway.

This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The comment has been noted. No further response is necessary.

RESPONSE S-2-8

The comment states that adding vehicles to the southbound I-5 off-ramp during p.m. peak hours would result in impacts to the current operation of this facility.

As described previously in Response S-2-6, Caltrans prepared its own analysis of the I-5 SB Ramps/Ortega Highway intersection and summarized its findings in a memorandum (dated May 8, 2020). A conference call was held on May 14, 2020, between Caltrans, the City, the City’s attorney, and LSA, to discuss this comment and the Caltrans’ memorandum. During this call, it was agreed by all participants that LSA would test Caltrans’ assumptions to provide an acknowledgement of Caltrans’ findings and confirm that the proposed project would not result in a significant impact, as concluded in the project TIA (LSA 2020).




To confirm the findings in the project-specific TIA (LSA 2020), LSA re-ran the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis of the I-5 SB Ramps/Ortega Highway intersection using the Synchro software. More specifically, a level of service (LOS) and queueing analysis was conducted for existing and existing plus project p.m. peak-hour conditions for the I-5 SB Ramps/Ortega Highway intersection based on input from Caltrans’ staff during the May 14, 2020, conference call.

The I-5 SB Ramps/Ortega Highway intersection was re-evaluated with the following adjustments and assumptions:

50-vehicle southbound left (SBL) Initial Queue (as opposed to 0) 30-vehicle eastbound through (EBT) Initial Queue (as opposed to 0) Peak-hour factor of 0.92 (as opposed to 0.95) Signal timing modifications as used by Caltrans in its Synchro analysis

Two alternatives were run:

With the Existing and Existing Plus Project volumes from the LSA TIA With the Existing volumes from the Caltrans’ report and with the manual assignment of

the project trips from the LSA TIA to represent Existing Plus Project volumes

The results of this analysis are summarized below:

With LSA TIA volumes:

Existing p.m. delay: 48.1 seconds (sec), LOS D Existing p.m. SBL queue: 486 feet (ft) Existing Plus Project p.m. delay: 48.6, LOS D Existing Plus Project p.m. SBL queue: 493 ft

o o

With Caltrans volumes:

Existing p.m. delay: 56.3, LOS E Existing p.m. SBL queue: 548 ft Existing Plus Project p.m. delay: 57.4, LOS E Existing Plus Project p.m. SBL queue: 556 ft

o o

As shown above, the I-5 SB Ramps/Ortega Highway intersection operates at LOS D (using the LSA TIA volumes) or LOS E (using the Caltrans volumes) during the p.m. peak hour. The SBL queue is 486 ft (using the LSA TIA volumes) or 548 ft (using the Caltrans volumes). With implementation of the project, the LOS letter grade would remain the same (the delay increase is 1.1 seconds or




fewer) and the SBL queue would only increase by 8 ft or fewer (less than one-third of an assumed vehicle length of 25 ft).

The I-5 SB Ramps/Ortega Highway intersection is a City “hot-spot” location and an Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) location. LOS E is considered acceptable LOS for both hot-spot and CMP locations. Satisfactory LOS E was also confirmed by Caltrans’ staff for this intersection that is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction.

Based on the City’s criteria, a project impact occurs at a hot-spot intersection when the project’s increase in delay is 1 second or greater and the resulting LOS is unsatisfactory LOS F. Based on Caltrans’ criteria, a significant project impact would occur if the addition of project trips causes the LOS to change from an acceptable LOS to an unacceptable LOS, or causes an intersection already operating at an unacceptable LOS to deteriorate to a worse LOS.

Because the I-5 SB Ramps/Ortega Highway intersection would operate at satisfactory LOS with implementation of the project (using either the LSA TIA volumes or the Caltrans volumes), a significant impact would not occur at this intersection. In addition, the addition of less than 1 vehicle (up to 8 ft using the LSA TIA volumes or the Caltrans volumes) to the SBL queue is not considered a significant project impact under the City’s criteria. The results therefore confirm the findings of the Draft EIR that there would not be a significant impact at the I-5 SB Ramps/Ortega Highway intersection, and no changes to the Draft EIR are required.

The above information has been provided to acknowledge Caltrans’ analysis of the I-5 SB Ramps/Ortega Highway intersection, and confirm that the results presented in the project TIA and the Draft EIR remain valid. The results presented above do not indicate a new significant impact would result from the project, and do not indicate that a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would occur. The information confirms the conclusions contained in the Draft EIR, and merely clarifies the analysis using a different set of data assumptions in the modeling. Therefore, this does not constitute “significant new information,” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, and recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.

RESPONSE S-2-9

The comment states that the TIA shows that there would be an impact at Rancho Viejo/Ortega Highway (known as a hot-spot intersection), and the resulting LOS is unsatisfactory LOS F. The comment also states that the proposed project will generate 890 average daily trips (ADT), 64 trips in the a.m. peak hour and 82 trips in p.m. peak hour, which would cause significant delays throughout the area.

The City approved utilization of the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology (which is capacity-based) in the TIA. A project impact occurs at a hot-spot intersection when the project’s increase in ICU is 0.01 or greater and the resulting LOS is F. Using the ICU methodology, the intersection of Rancho Viejo Road/Ortega Highway operates at satisfactory LOS for existing (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours), existing plus project (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours), existing plus project plus cumulative (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours), and buildout conditions (a.m. peak hour




only). During the buildout p.m. peak hour, the project would contribute 0.005 to the deficient ICU, which is not a project impact based on the City’s significance thresholds because the ICU increase is less than 0.01.

It should be noted that Caltrans does not use the ICU methodology for evaluating its intersections; instead, Caltrans utilizes the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology (which is delay-based). A significant project impact would occur at a Caltrans intersection if the addition of project trips causes the LOS to change from an acceptable LOS to an unacceptable LOS, or causes an intersection already operating at an unacceptable LOS to deteriorate to a worse LOS. Based on the HCM analysis, the intersection of Rancho Viejo Road/Ortega Highway operates at satisfactory LOS for existing (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours), existing plus project (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours), and existing plus project plus cumulative (a.m. peak hour only) conditions. Rancho Viejo Road/Ortega Highway would operate at unsatisfactory LOS during the p.m. peak hour under existing plus project plus cumulative conditions, as well as during both peak hours under buildout conditions.

The eastbound and westbound through movements are the two directions of travel with the highest traffic volumes at this intersection. The majority of the project’s trip contributions are to the northbound left-turn movement (21 vehicles in the a.m. peak hour and 14 vehicles in the p.m. peak hour) and the eastbound right-turn movement (7 vehicles in the a.m. peak hour and 22 vehicles in the p.m. peak hour). The project would not add any eastbound or westbound through vehicles at this intersection. Given the existing configuration and signal timing of this intersection, including the eastbound right-turn overlap (which allows for eastbound left turns to be made along with the northbound left turns), the project does not contribute any delay during these scenarios in any peak hour. Therefore, a significant project impact would not occur at this intersection based on the City’s and Caltrans’ significance thresholds.

RESPONSE S-2-10

The comment states that Table 4.11.L in Section 4.11, Transportation, of the Draft EIR incorrectly refers to dual westbound turn lanes at the I-5 southbound ramps. The comment clarifies that access to the project site is through the eastbound direction.

The City requested that LSA prepare a queueing analysis of the left-turn and right-turn movements at the I-5 ramp intersections. As discussed in Section 4.11, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, at the I-5 SB Ramps/Ortega Highway intersection, the proposed project would add vehicles to the southbound left-turn (inbound), eastbound through (inbound), and westbound left-turn (outbound) movements. As such, the evaluation of the westbound left-turn lanes and queues at the I-5 SB Ramps/Ortega Highway intersection includes outbound project vehicles destined for southbound travel on I-5. No revisions have been made to the Draft EIR.

RESPONSE S-2-11

The comment requests revisions to the existing operations of the intersections on Ortega Highway between Del Obispo Street and Rancho Viejo Road to better reflect the current operations in




order to identify any operational impacts that may need to be addressed as a result of the proposed project.

The City discussed this comment from Caltrans on a conference call with the City, LSA, and Caltrans’ representatives on May 14, 2020. Based on that discussion, the City understands that Caltrans’ concerns relate to the intersection of the I-5 SB Ramps/Ortega Highway. As stated and summarized previously in Response S-2-8, the City has provided additional LOS and queueing analysis for this intersection for existing and existing plus project p.m. peak-hour conditions per direction from Caltrans. Based on this analysis, the results and conclusions of the LSA TIA have been re-confirmed. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact.

RESPONSE S-2-12

The comment states that an Encroachment Permit will be required and should be forwarded to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) unit for review with the final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP).

In the existing condition, storm flows on the project site are discharged to San Juan Creek via an existing 27-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) in the southwest corner of the project site and via Horno Creek. The proposed drainage system would continue to convey stormwater runoff to the 27-inch RCP and Horno Creek. As shown in Figure 3.17, Conceptual Utility Plan, in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the proposed drainage system is located completely within the project site boundaries. No drainage improvements are proposed within Caltrans ROW, and therefore, do not require a Caltrans Encroachment Permit.

RESPONSE S-2-13

The comment states that during project construction, existing Caltrans’ drainage facilities should be protected, existing flow patterns should be maintained, and no diversion of flow should be allowed.

As discussed in Response to Comment S-2-12, above, the proposed drainage system is located completely within the project site boundaries. Project construction would not impact existing Caltrans drainage facilities, divert flow within Caltrans ROW, or alter the flow pattern within Caltrans ROW.

RESPONSE S-2-14

The comment states that construction plans, hydrology and hydraulics calculations, and maps should be reviewed and approved by Caltrans’ Hydraulics Branch during the Encroachment Permit process.

As stated in Response to Comment S-2-13, the project applicant will coordinate with Caltrans to obtain an Encroachment Permit for improvements within Caltrans ROW. As stated above in Responses to Comments S-2-12 and S-2-13, drainage improvements are not proposed within Caltrans ROW. Construction plans for improvements within Caltrans ROW will be provided to Caltrans during the Encroachment Permit process. However, the proposed drainage




improvements and hydrology and hydraulics calculations do not require review or approval by the Caltrans’ Hydraulics Branch during the Encroachment Permit process because the drainage improvements will not encroach into Caltrans ROW.

RESPONSE S-2-15

The comment states that any additional work within Caltrans ROW would require an encroachment permit.

The project applicant will coordinate with Caltrans to obtain an Encroachment Permit for any improvements within the Caltrans ROW. The project applicant will coordinate with Caltrans to provide the necessary documentation in order to obtain the Encroachment Permit to cover construction activities within Caltrans ROW.

RESPONSE S-2-16

The comment concludes the letter and provides contact information for Caltrans staff.





2.2 LOCAL AGENCIES

From: Savage, JenniferTo: Laura StokesCc: Perez, GabrielSubject: DEIR for Tirador Residential Development ProjectDate: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 5:11:00 PM

[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or clicklinks from an unknown or suspicious origin.]

Hi Laura, Thank you for the Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR for the Tirador Residential DevelopmentProject. Due to the scope of the project and the distance from the City of San Clemente, we do nothave any comments on the DEIR. Let us know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jennifer Savage, AICP | CTPSenior PlannerCity of San Clemente949.361.6186

L-1-1

L-1




CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

LETTER CODE: L-1

DATE: March 10, 2020

RESPONSE L-1-1

The comment thanks the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) for providing the NOA for the Draft EIR. The comment states that the City of San Clemente does not have any comments on the project due to the scope of the project and the distance from the City of San Clemente.

The comment explicitly states that the City of San Clemente has no comments on the project. The comment has been noted. No further response is necessary.

L-2

L-2-1




ORANGE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS (LETTER 1 OF 2)

LETTER CODE: L-2

DATE: April 2, 2020

RESPONSE L-2-1

The comment states that Orange County Public Works (OCPW) has reviewed the NOA for the Draft EIR and has no comments on the project. The comment requests that OCPW be included on the distribution list for future project-related notifications. The comment concludes with contact information for Steven Giang should any questions about the comments arise.

The comment explicitly states that OCPW has no comments on the project. The comment has been noted. No further response is necessary.

L-3

L-3-1

L-3-2

L-3-3

L-3-3

L-3-4

L-3-5

L-3-6

L-3

L-3-7

L-3




ORANGE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS, FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT (LETTER 2 OF 2)

LETTER CODE: L-3

DATE: April 9, 2020

RESPONSE L-3-1

The comment is introductory in nature and thanks the City for the opportunity to comment on the proposed project.


RESPONSE L-3-2

The comment states that the Draft EIR prepared for the project acknowledges the Orange County Flood Control District’s (OCFCD) previous comment submitted during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) review period; however, the comment states that the Draft EIR relies upon the hydrology study that does not analyze project-related impacts to the existing Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain and/or floodway. As a result, OCFCD provides additional comments stating that the section of San Juan Creek adjacent to the project site may not be capable of conveying the OCFCD approved design discharges for the 100-year storm event, and that the project should ensure the property is protected from flooding during the 100-year storm event.

Impacts to the 100-year floodplain are discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR. As discussed in Section 4.8, a portion of the project would be developed within Zone AE of the 100-year floodplain associated with San Juan Creek and Horno Creek. The proposed project would not encroach on the San Juan Creek floodway. As discussed in Section 4.8, the project would require approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and a Letter of Map Revisions (LOMR) or a Letter of Map Revision based on fill (CLOMR-F) and a Letter of Map Revisions based on fill (LOMR-F) from FEMA. Additionally, the City is requiring the project applicant to obtain a floodplain land use permit, which would require review and evaluation of any potential impacts related to the San Juan Creek and El Horno Creek floodplains. As part of the FEMA and City approval process, the project would be required to demonstrate that the project does not result in an increase in floodplain elevations that would exceed FEMA requirements or affect the ability of San Juan Creek to convey flow. As also discussed in Section 4.8 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would be designed in compliance with the design requirements for developments within the 100-year floodplain specified in Section 8-11.115 of the City’s Municipal Code. In compliance with Section 8-11.115 of the City’s Municipal Code, the proposed project would be required to obtain an Elevation certificate, to demonstrate that the lowest floor of the residential buildings are elevated at least 1 foot above the base flood elevation.




RESPONSE L-3-3

The comment states that the City should review and approve all hydrology and hydraulic analyses to ensure the proposed project does not worsen existing runoff conditions or shift flooding problems upstream or downstream of the project site.

As discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, and detailed in the Preliminary Hydrology Report, the proposed project includes a water quality detention facility and subsurface Modular Wetland System. After implementation of these Best Management Practices (BMPs), total stormwater discharge from the project site would be below existing conditions. Specifically, peak flow would decrease by 1.4 cubic feet per second (cfs) during a 25-year storm and by 2.3 cfs during a 100-year storm). Discharge to El Horno Creek would increase by 5.6 cfs during a 25-year storm event and by 7.1 cfs during a 100-year storm; however, there is sufficient capacity within El Horno Creek to accommodate the increased runoff. The Preliminary Hydrology Report, which includes a hydrology and hydraulics analysis, was reviewed and approved by the City. Additionally, as a standard condition of approval, a Final Hydrology Report would be required to be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of any grading permits to ensure that the project meets all City drainage requirements.

RESPONSE L-3-4

The comment states that the City should ensure that the impacted FEMA 100-year floodplain and/or floodway are revised per FEMA regulations and the City’s floodplain ordinances. The comment elaborates that the encroachment should not result in any increase in flood levels within the FEMA floodway during the occurrence of the base flood discharge.

As stated in Response to Comment L-3-2, the proposed project would result in development in the 100-year floodplain associated with San Juan Creek and El Horno Creek. However, the proposed project would not encroach on a floodway. The City is requiring the applicant to have a floodplain land use permit, which would require review and evaluation of any potential impacts related to the San Juan Creek and El Horno Creek floodplains. Additionally, a CLOMR and LOMR or LOMR-F and LOMR-F would be processed through FEMA to revise the floodplain maps to reflect any changes to the floodplain resulting from the proposed project. As part of the coordination with FEMA, it would be required to be demonstrated that the encroachment does not result in an increase the floodplain elevation that exceeds FEMA requirements.

RESPONSE L-3-5

The comment requests an exhibit depicting the exact limits of the conservation area proposed as part of the project so that OCFCD is able to determine whether the location of the conservation area would impact any existing agreements and/or future flood control activities. The comment also notes that due to COVID-19, OCFCD is still in the process of researching documents within the project’s vicinity.




On April 17, 2020, the City provided OCFCD with two more detailed plans identifying the location of the proposed conservation area.2 The identified conservation area is a part of the project; however, at this time, it is undetermined if the area will be restricted through an easement or be deeded to a conservation organization.

Figure 3.18, Proposed Conservation Area, and the following minor text addition have been included in Section 3.0, Errata, of this Final EIR. Additions are shown with underline. This minor revision does not constitute “significant new information,” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, and therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.

Chapter 3.0, Project Description

Section 3.3.9, Conservation and Sustainability Features, Page 3-11

As part of the project, approximately 5.6 acres of the project site adjacent to San Juan Creek would be dedicated as a conservation area, as shown in Figure 3.18, Proposed Conservation Area.

RESPONSE L-3-6

The comment states that Section 4.8.3.2, Stormwater Drainage, of the Draft EIR, incorrectly states that the Horno Creek Channel is owned and maintained by the County of Orange. The comment clarifies that the Horno Creek Channel is instead owned and maintained by the City. The comment requests that Section 4.8.6, Project Impacts, also be revised accordingly.

These minor revisions have been incorporated in Section 3.0, Errata, of this Final EIR, and are included below. Deletions are shown with strikethrough and additions are shown with underline. These minor revisions do not constitute “significant new information,” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, and therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.

Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality

-

Horno Creek Channel is a 16-feet-wide by 8.5-feet-tall reinforced concrete box which bisects the project site in a north/south direction, and is a County-owned City-owned and maintained facility.

- -

El Horno Creek is a City-owned and maintained facility of the County of Orange, and if flows to the creek are to be increased or if alterations are made to the facility, the project will be required to obtain County City approval for the alterations.

2 Email correspondence. Laura Stokes, City of San Juan Capistrano, to Steven Giang, Orange County Flood

Control District. Sent April 17, 2020.




RESPONSE L-3-7

The comment concludes the letter and provides contact information for OCFCD staff. This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary.




2.3 INTERESTED PARTIES

From: Joyce PerryTo: Laura StokesSubject: Triador Residential Development ProjectDate: Friday, April 17, 2020 12:25:37 PM

[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or clicklinks from an unknown or suspicious origin.]

Good afternoon Ms Stokes,

I am responding oh behalf of the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation-Belardes regarding the DEIR for the Triador Residential Development Project. We are inagreement with the proposed mitigation measures and treatment plan, and we support the needfor both archaeo and native monitoring during all ground disturbing activities.

Húu'uni 'óomaqati yáamaqati.Teach peaceJoyce Stanfield PerryPayomkawichum Kaamalam - PresidentJuaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen NationTribal Manager, Cultural Resource Director

I-1

I-1-1




JUANEÑO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS, ACJACHEMEN NATION

LETTER CODE: I-1


RESPONSE I-1-1

The comment states that the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation are in agreement with the proposed mitigation measures and treatment plan included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Tirador Residential Development Project (proposed project) and support the need for both archaeological and native monitoring during all project-related ground-disturbing activities.

The comment explicitly states that the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation are in agreement with the aforementioned project components. The comment has been noted. No further response is necessary.

final environmental impact report tirador … ser… · final environmental impact report tirador...

Documents