Appendix B California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNE 2014 SPEIKER CCRC SPECIFIC PLAN CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO

APPENDIX B

CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL LAND EVALUATION AND SITE ASSESSMENT (LESA) MODEL

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SPIEKER CCRC SPECIFIC PLAN JUNE 2014 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO

This page intentionally left blank

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. R I V E R S I D E 703 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD B E R K E L E Y I R V I N E R O C K L I N S U I T E 2 6 0 760.931.5471 TEL FORT COLLINS PALM SPRINGS SAN LUIS OBISPO CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92011 760.918.2458 FAX F R E S N O PT. RICHMOND SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO

April 25, 2014

Mr. David Contreras, Senior Planner City of San Juan Capistrano 32400 Paseo Adelanto San Juan Capistrano, California 92675

Subject: California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment for the Spieker CCRC Specific Plan

Dear Mr. Contreras:

This letter summarizes the analysis prepared by LSA Associates, Inc., (LSA) to evaluate the agricultural value of the project site for the proposed Spieker CCRC Specific Plan ("project"). This analysis was conducted using the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model ("LESA Manual") developed by the California Department of Conservation in 1997 as modified in 2011, and the Soil Survey of Orange County and Western Part of Riverside County, California ("Soil Survey"), published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (now the Natural Resources Conservation Service) in 1974.

The site was evaluated using the California LESA Model to rate the quality and availability of agricultural resources for the proposed project site and to identify whether the proposed project would meet the threshold criteria as a significant impact to Agricultural Resources under the CEQA Guidelines. The LESA evaluates land use and site assessment factors to identify if the project would result in a significant agricultural resources impact.

As illustrated in Figure 1, the project site is bordered on the south by Via Positiva, with the Del Obispo Elementary School, Marco Forster Middle School, Kinoshita Elementary School, Kinoshita Farm, and San Juan Capistrano Community Center and Sports Park located beyond. The Kinoshita Farm is a City-owned agricultural production area that is part of the City’s Public Lands inventory. Figure 2 illustrates the farmland designations of the project site. The entire proposed project site is designated as “Unique Farmland”. The proposed project site abuts “Urban and Built-Up Land” to the north, east, and west and “Prime Farmland” to the south. The project site is currently developed with an active commercial nursery and distribution center consisting of several greenhouses, growing areas, storage sheds, office space for employees, and other associated facilities. The nursery’s plants consist of typical residential landscape plants and are contained in aboveground pots and pallets; no plants are grown in the soil.

LAND EVALUATION FACTORS

The Land Evaluation portion of the LESA Model focuses on two main components that are separately rated:

• The Land Capability Classification Rating : The Land Capability Classification (LCC) indicates the suitability of soils for most kinds of crops. Soils are rated from Class I to Class VIII,

4/25/14 (P:\JCA1301\Spieker CCRC Specific Plan_LESA Memo 04_25_14.doc)

PLANNING | ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES | D E S I G N LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

with soils having the fewest limitations receiving the highest rating. In a general way, these capability groupings show the suitability of soils for most kinds of field crops. They are made according to the limitations of the soils when used for field crops, the risk of damage when they are used, and the way they respond to treatment. The grouping does not take into account major and generally expensive landforming that would change slope, depth, or other characteristics of the soils; does not take into consideration possible but unlikely major reclamation projects; and does not apply to horticultural crops, or other crops requiring special management. In addition to the capability class, there are also identified subclasses and units, which identify the nature of the limitations responsible for placement of the soils in the capability class. • The Storie Index Rating : The Storie Index provides a numeric rating (based upon a 100 point scale) of the relative degree of suitability or value of a given soil for intensive agriculture use. The rating is based only on soil characteristics, such as depth, texture of the surface soil, density of subsoil, drainage, salts and alkali, and relief. Other factors which determine the desirability of growing specific crops, such as availability of water for irrigation, climate, and distance from markets, are not considered in establishing the Storie Index Rating.

The United States Department of Agriculture soil survey identified two types of soil (Sorrento Clay Loam (0 to 2 percent) and Sorrento Clay Loam (2 to 9 percent)) present on the project site. Figure 3 depicts the distribution of soil type on the project site while Table A details the Capability Class and Storie Index rating for the soil present on the project site.

Table A: Project Site Soil Suitability

Map Symbol Mapping Unit Capability Class Storie Index Rating SCL 0-2% Sorrento Clay Loam, 0 to 2 percent I 85 SCL 2-9% Sorrento Clay Loam, 2 to 9 percent IIe-1 75 Notes: I capability rating indicates soils that are suited to a wide range of plants and may be used safely for cultivated crops, pasture, range, woodland, and wildlife. The soils are nearly level and erosion hazard (wind or water) is low. Soils with this rating are deep, generally well drained, and easily worked. II capability rating indicates soils that require careful soil management, including conservation practices, to prevent deterioration or to improve air and water relations when the soils are cultivated. The limitations are few and the practices are easy to apply. The soils may be used for cultivated crops, pasture, range, woodland, or wildlife food and cover. Source: United States Department of Agriculture, 1973, LSA Associates, 2014

The LESA Model assigns ratings to each land capability class and multiplies that number by the proportion of the project area that contains each soil class to find the Land Capability Classification score. A Storie Index score is calculated by multiplying the proportion of the project within each soil type by the soil type’s Storie Index rating. Table B provides a summary of the Land Evaluation (LE) scores. The final LE and Site Assessment (SA) scores are entered into the Final LESA Score Sheet as shown in Table G later in this analysis.

Table B: Land Capability Classification (LCC) and Storie Index Score

A B C D E F G H Proportion LCC LCC Storie Soils Acres of Project LCC Storie Score Rating Score Index Area SCL 0-2% 23.26 67% I 100 67 85 56.95

4/25/14 (P:\JCA1301\Spieker CCRC Specific Plan_LESA Memo 04_25_14.doc) 2 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

Table B: Land Capability Classification (LCC) and Storie Index Score

A B C D E F G H SCL 2-9% 11.54 33% IIe-1 90 29.7 76 25.08 Totals 34.80 100% -- -- 96.7 -- 82.03 Source: California Department of Conservation, 1997, LSA Associates, 2014

SITE ASSESSMENT FACTORS

The California LESA Model includes four Site Assessment factors that are separately rated and are as follows:

• Project Size Rating • Water Resources Availability Rating • Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating • Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating

Project Size Rating

The project size rating recognizes the role that farm size plays in the viability of commercial agricultural operations. In general, larger farming operations can provide greater flexibility in farm management and marketing decisions. Larger operations tend to have greater impacts upon the local economy through direct employment, as well as impacts upon supporting industries and food processing industries (California Department of Conservation, 1997).

In terms of agricultural productivity, the size of the farming operation can be considered not just from its total acreage, but the acreage of different quality lands that comprise the operation. Lands with higher quality soils lend themselves to greater management and cropping flexibility and have the potential to provide greater economic return per acre unit. For a given project, instead of relying upon a single acreage figure in the Project Size rating, the project is divided into three acreage groupings based upon the LCC ratings that were previously determined in the LE analysis. Under the Project Size rating, relatively fewer acres of high quality soils are required to achieve a maximum Project Size score. Alternatively, a maximum score on lesser quality soils could also achieve a maximum Project Size score. Table C summarizes the Project Size score for the proposed project.

Table C: Project Size Score

LLC Class I-II LLC Class III LLC Class IV-VIII Total Acres 34.80 -- -- Project Size Scores 50 -- -- Highest Project Size 50 -- -- Score Source: California Department of Conservation, 1997, LSA Associates, 2014

4/25/14 (P:\JCA1301\Spieker CCRC Specific Plan_LESA Memo 04_25_14.doc) 3 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

Water Resources Availability Rating

Water availability is another factor included in the LESA model site assessment evaluation used to determine the agricultural viability of a project site. During the development of the LESA model, by the California Department of Conservation, it was determined that certain conditions unique to California needed to be represented in the model. Three factors were incorporated into the water resources availability rating. First, it was decided to classify water reliability based upon the effects water limitations had on agricultural production rather than upon the actual types of limitations. Second, the rating was tied to the interrelation of water availability with cost. The LESA manual states that "[t]he historical shortages and unreliability of California water use has led to the establishment of various interconnected and dual systems. Probably more than any other state, reliability is related with cost—a more reliable water supply can sometimes be obtained, but at a greater cost." Therefore, water availability restrictions were classified into two major categories, physical and economic. The greater impact of physical restrictions upon agriculture is reflected in the LESA model. The final factor affecting water resources availability is the effects of the drought cycle in California.

The Water Resources Availability Rating for the project site is based upon identifying the various water sources that may supply the property, and then determining whether different restrictions in supply are likely to take place in years that are characterized as being periods of drought and non- drought. The water availability score for each source of water is determined by using the Water Resource Availability Scoring table found in the LESA Manual. Table D summarizes the Water Resources Availability score for the proposed project.

Table D: Water Resource Availability

Proportion of Water Availability Weighted Project Portion Water Source Project Area Score Availability Score 1 Irrigation 100% 75 75 Total Water ------75 Resource Score Source: California Department of Conservation, 1997, LSA Associates, 2014

Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating

The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating is designed to provide a measurement of the level of agricultural land use for lands within the Zone of Influence (ZOI) of the subject parcel. The definition of a “Zone of Influence” is the amount of surrounding lands up to a minimum of one-quarter mile from the project boundary. Parcels that are intersected by the 0.25-mile buffer are included in their entirety. Based upon the percentage of agricultural land in the ZOI, the project site is assigned a Surrounding Agricultural Land score. The LESA Model rates the potential significance of the conversion of an agricultural parcel that has a large proportion of surrounding land in agricultural production more highly than one that has a relatively small percentage of surrounding land in agricultural production (California Department of Conservation, 1997).

4/25/14 (P:\JCA1301\Spieker CCRC Specific Plan_LESA Memo 04_25_14.doc) 4 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

Lands used for agricultural production is located adjacent to the project site to the south. The Surrounding Agricultural Land Score for the proposed project is provided in Table E. Figure 4 depicts the distribution and amount of land used for urban and agricultural uses within 0.25 mile of the project site.

Table E: Surrounding Agricultural Lands

Total Acres of Percent Surrounding Acreage Acres in Protected Protected Surrounding Protected within “Zone Agricultural Resource Percent in Resources Agricultural Resource of Influence” Production Land Agriculture Land Land Score Land Score 335.06 28.69 0.0 8.5 0.0 0 0 Source: California Department of Conservation, 1997, LSA Associates, 2014

Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating

The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating is essentially an extension of the Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating, and is scored in a similar manner. Protected resource lands are those lands with long-term use restrictions that are compatible with or supportive of agricultural uses of land. Included among them are the following:

• Williamson Act contracted land • Publicly owned lands maintained as park, forest, or watershed resources • Lands with agricultural, wildlife habitat, open space, or other natural resource easements that restrict the conversion of such land to urban or industrial uses. No protected resources are located adjacent to or within 0.25 miles of the proposed project site. Therefore, the Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating score is zero.

WEIGHTING OF FACTORS AND FINAL LESA SCORING

The California LESA Model is weighted so that 50 percent of the total LESA score of a given project is derived from the Land Evaluation factors, and 50 percent from the Site Assessment factors. Individual factor weights are listed below, with the sum of the factor weights required to equal 100 percent. Table F provides the LESA Weighting Factors utilized in the analysis.

4/25/14 (P:\JCA1301\Spieker CCRC Specific Plan_LESA Memo 04_25_14.doc) 5 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

Table F: LESA Weighting Factors

Factor Factor Weight Land Capability Classification 25% Storie Index Rating 25% Land Evaluation Subtotal 50% Project Size 15% Water Resource Availability 15% Surrounding Agricultural Lands 15% Surrounding Protected Resource Lands 5% Site Assessment Subtotal 50% Total LESA Factor Weighting 100% Source: California Department of Conservation, 1997

The project site has been evaluated using the California LESA Model, and each factor's score has been entered into Table G. Each factor was then multiplied by its respective factor weight, and the weighted score entered into the table. The weighted factors are then summed, yielding a Total LESA Score for the project site. These totals are shown in Table G, Final LESA Scoresheet.

Table G: Final LESA Scoresheet

Factor Rating Factor Weighting Weighted Factor (0-100 points) (Total = 1.00) Rating Land Evaluation Factors Land Capability Classification 96.7 0.25 24.2 Storie Index Rating 82.03 0.25 20.5 Land Evaluation Subtotal 44.7 Site Assessment Factors Project Size 50 0.15 7.5 Water Resource Availability 75 0.15 11.25 Surrounding Agricultural Land 0 0.15 0 Protected Resource Land 0 0.05 0 Site Assessment Subtotal 18.75 Total LESA Score 63.45

As identified in Table G, a single LESA score is generated for a given project after all of the individual Land Evaluation and Site Assessment factors have been scored and weighted. The final project scoring is based on a scale of 100 points, with a given project being capable of deriving a maximum of 50 points from the Land Evaluation factors and 50 points from the Site Assessment factors. Scoring thresholds are based upon the total LESA score as well as the component Land Evaluation and Site Assessment subscores. The LESA scoring thresholds are listed below in Table H.

4/25/14 (P:\JCA1301\Spieker CCRC Specific Plan_LESA Memo 04_25_14.doc) 6 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

Table H: LESA Model Significance Determination

Total LESA Score Scoring Decision 0-39 Points Not considered significant Considered significant only if LE and SA subscores are each 40-59 Points greater than or equal to 20 points Considered significant unless either LE or SA subscore is less than 60-70 Points 20 points 80-100 Points Considered significant Source: California Department of Conservation, 1997

As described above in Table H, sites receiving a total LESA score of 60 to 70 points indicate that proposed conversion of the site from agricultural to urban land uses is "Considered Significant" unless either the LE or SA subscore is less than 20 points. As identified in Table H, the project site attained a score of 63.45. While a score of 63.45 would be considered significant, the project site’s SA subscore of 18.75 is less than 20 points. Therefore, pursuant to the LESA model, the proposed conversion of the site from agriculture to non-agricultural uses would not be considered to be significant.

Sincerely,

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

Kelly Czechowski Senior Environmental Planner

Attachment: LESA Model Worksheets & Figures

4/25/14 (P:\JCA1301\Spieker CCRC Specific Plan_LESA Memo 04_25_14.doc) 7

261 Project Vicinity Ã Ã133 405 ¨¦§ Ã241 Orange 55 Ã Ã73 County Ã74 ¨¦§5

Ã1

Project Location San Diego County

LEGEND FIGURE 1 Project Location

Spieker CCRC Specific Plan 0 1000 2000 California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment FEET Project Location SOURCE: USGS 7.5' Quad - Dana Point (1975) and San Juan Capistrano (1981), CA I:\JCA1301\GIS\AgLandEval_Proj_Location_USGS.mxd (4/11/2014) LEGEND FIGURE 2 Project Boundary Prime Farmland Unique Farmland Other Land Spieker CCRC Specific Plan 0 500 1000 California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment FEET Urban and Built-Up Land State Farmland Designations SOURCE: Bing Maps (2013);State of California Department of Conservation - Farmlands (2010) I:\JCA1301\GIS\AgLandEval_Farmland.mxd (4/11/2014) LEGEND FIGURE 3 Project Boundary Chesterton Loam Sand Riverwash Soils Corralitos Loamy Sand Sorrento Clay Loam (0 to 2% Slopes, 23.26 ac within project boundary) Alo Clay Cropley Clay Sorrento Clay Loam (2 to 9% Slopes, 11.54 ac within project boundary) Bosanko Clay Metz Loamy Sand Sorrento Loam Spieker CCRC Specific Plan 0 500 1000 California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment FEET Calleguas Clay Loam Myford Sandy Loam Yorba Cobbly Sandy Loam SOURCE: Bing Maps (2013) Soil Type I:\JCA1301\GIS\Soils.mxd (4/25/2014) LEGEND FIGURE 4 Project Boundary 1/4 Mile Buffer

Spieker CCRC Specific Plan 0 500 1000 California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment FEET Zone of Influence SOURCE: Bing Maps (2013) I:\JCA1301\GIS\ZOI.mxd (4/11/2014)