99-1116_NEELY, JERRY W. & NANCY C._Initial Study0 0
e INITIAL STUDY
city of san Juan capistrano california
PROJECT TITLE: Development Agreement (Neely/City of San Juan Capistrano)
2. LEAD AGENCY: City of San Juan Capistrano, Planning Services Department
3. CONTACT PERSON & PHONE: Thomas Tomlinson, (949) 443-6323
4. PROJECT LOCATION: The property that is subject to this development agreement
is located on the private road extension of Valle Road and is more specifically
identified as Orange County Assessor's Parcel Nos. 675-331-18, 19, and 20, and
675-341-6 and 7 in an area commonly known as "McCracken Hill".
5. APPLICANT'S NAME & ADDRESS: Jerry W. and Nancy C. Neely, Trustees of
Neely Family Trust, P.O. Box 507, San Juan Capistrano, California 92693
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: 1.1 Very Low Density Residential, 1.2 Low
Density Residential, and 2.0 General Open Space.
7. ZONING: ES (Small Estate) District.
8. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Development Agreement between the property
owner and City is design to assure the property owner for a development
application, that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the
project in accordance with the existing policies, rules and regulations, subject to
conditions of approval for a subdivision consistent with the residential land uses
and density levels as presently authorized under existing City zoning for the
property, in return for the City receiving assurances from the property owner as to
City legal exposures from landslide activity in and about the property and property
owner's cooperation at no cost to the City with regard to the provision of public
improvements for the benefit of all residents of McCracken Hill. Physical changes
to the project site will require submission of future development applications that will
require further environmental analysis based upon actual improvement designs.
9. SURROUNDING LAND USE(S) & PROJECT SETTING: The project is presently
developed with a single family residence, a private avocado grove surrounds the
residence and encompasses the remainder of the property. Surrounding land uses
are residential to the west and north at two units per acre. Property to the east and
south has received tentative tract map approval for residential. This latter property
is currently under a mass grading permit.
0 0
Initial Study/Envirownental Checklist -2- City of San Juan Capistrano California
10. OTHER REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS: None required.
11. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: None.
12. CONSULTATION:
A. Individuals and Organizations:
Thomas Tomlinson, Planning Department, City of San Juan Capistrano
Sam Shoucair, Senior Engineer, Engineering and Building Services
Department, City of San Juan Capistrano
B. Documents & resources:
1. City of San Juan Capistrano, General Plan.
2. City of San Juan Capistrano, Title 9, Land Use Code.
3. City of San Juan Capistrano, Environmental Review Guidelines.
4. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate
Maps.
5. Geotechnical Report SunCal, prepared by Leighton and Associates
with technical review by Cotton/Shires.
6. Biological Mapping for South Orange County NCCP
7. U.S.G.S. Topographic Quadrangle, San Juan Capistrano.
8. City of San Juan Capistrano, Street Tree Master Plan.
9. City of San Juan Capistrano, Architectural Design Guidelines.
10. Traffic Report prepared by RKJK, dated 4130/99
0 0
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -3- City of San Juan Capistrano California
13. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (Explanations are required in Section 14)
A.
Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Impact Impact
X]
4.
Unless
I [X] []
5. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the community? [ ]
Mitigated
I [X]
2.
LAND USE & PLANNING. Would this proposal
1. Conflict with the General Plan designation or zoning? [ ] X]
2. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted
X]
projections? [] []
by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? [] I p(]
3. Be incompatible with existing land use in the area? [ ] X]
4. Affect agricultural resources or operations? [] I [X] []
5. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the community? [ ] X]
B. POPULATION & HOUSING. Would this proposal:
Change absorption rates, drainage patterns, or runoff ? I I]
1. Cumulatively exceed official regionalflocal population
Expose people/property to water -related hazards (e.g. flooding)[?] [ ] X]
projections? [] [] I [X]
2. Induce substantial growth In an area either directly or indirectly?] [ I X]
3. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? [ ] [ ] X]
C. GEOLOGIC. Would this proposal result in or expose people to:
5.
1. Fault rupture? [ ] [ ] I [X]
2. Seismic ground shaking? [ ] [ ] pq
3. Seismic ground failure including liquefaction? [ ] [ ] X]
4. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? [ ] [ ] X]
5. Landslides or mudflows? I ] [ ] X]
6. Erosion, topographic changes, or unstable soils from grading? [ ] [ ] X]
7. Subsidence of land? [ ] [ ] X]
8. Expansive soils? [ ] [ ] X]
9. Unique geologic or physical features [ ] [ ] X]
D. WATER. Would this proposal
1. Change absorption rates, drainage patterns, or runoff ? I I] I] IX]
2. Expose people/property to water -related hazards (e.g. flooding)[?] [ ] X]
3. Discharge into surface waters, or alteration of surface water
quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? [ ] [ ] X]
4. Change the amount of surface water in any body of water? [ ] [ ] X]
5. Change currents, or the course or direction of water movement*? [ ] X]
6. Change the quantity of groundwater, either through direct additions
or withdrawals, or by interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations,
or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability?[ ] [ ] X]
7. Alter the direction or rate of flow of groundwater? [ ] [ ] X]
6. Impact groundwater quality? I1 I] I] IN
9. Substantially reduce the amount of groundwater otherwise
available for public water supplies? [ ] [ ] VI
E. AIR QUALITY. Would this proposal:
1. Violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing
or projected air quality violation? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
2. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
3. Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change
in climate? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
4. Create objectionable odors? [ ] [ 1 11 [X]
0 0
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -4- City of San Juan Capistrano California
Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Impact Impact
IN
4.
Unless
j IN
5. Create barriers to non -motorists (e.g. pedestrians, bikes, etc.) [ j [ ]
Mitigated
6. Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
F. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would this proposal
1. Increase vehicles trips or traffic congestion? [ ] [ ] IN
2. Create hazards to safety from design features (e.g. blind curves,
intersections), or incompatible traffic? [ J [ ] Xj
3. Result in inadequate emergency access? [ ] [ ] IN
4. Create insufficient parking capacity, on-site or off-site? [ ] [ ] j IN
5. Create barriers to non -motorists (e.g. pedestrians, bikes, etc.) [ j [ ] Xj
6. Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation? [] [] I IN
7. Create rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts? [ ] [ ] X]
G. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would this proposal:
1. Impact endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats? [ ] [ ] IN
2. Effect locally designated species (animal or plant)? [ } [ ] X]
3. Effect locally designated natural (biotic) communities? [ ] [ ] X]
4. Effect wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian, or vernal pool)? [ j [ ] X]
5. Effect wildlife dispersion/migration corridors? [ ] [ ] X]
H. ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES. Would this proposal:
1. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? [ j [ ] Xj
2. Use non-renewable resources in an inefficient manner? [ ] [ ] X}
3. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be a future value to the region and State's residents? [ ] [ ] IN
HAZARDS. Would this proposal:
1. Create a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (e.g. oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? [ ] [ ] [ ] IN
2. Result in possible interference with an emergency response plan,
or emergency evacuation plan? [ ] [ ] [ } [X]
3. Create an actual or potential health hazard, excluding mental
health? [ } [ ] [ } [X]
4. Expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards? [ ] [ j [ ] [X]
5. Increase fire hazards in areas with flammable vegetation? [ ] [ ] [ ] IN
J. NOISE. Would this proposal
1. Increase existing noise levels? I I I IN
2. Expose people to severe noise levels? [ j [ ] [ ] [X]
K. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would this proposal effect or result in new or
altered services for:
1. Fire protection? [ ] [ ] [ ] [XJ
2. Police protection? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
3. Schools? [j [j [] IN
4. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
5. Other governmental services? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xj
Ll
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -5- City of San Juan Capistrano California
O. RECREATION. Would this proposal::
1. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities? [ ] [ ] [ ] IN
2. Affect existing recreational opportunities? [ ] [ j [ ] [X]
P. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to decrease below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of
California history or prehistory? [ ] [ j [ ] [X]
2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? [] [j [] [Xj
3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable ("Cumulatively considerable" means the
project's incremental effects are considerable when compared to the
past, present, and future effects of other projects)? [] [] [] [X]
4. Does the project have environmental effects which will have
substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirecQ3? [ ] [ ] [X]
Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Impact Impact
Unless
Mitigated
L. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would this proposal effect or
result in new or altered services for:
1. Power or natural gas? [ ] X]
2. Communication systems? [ ] j [X]
3. Local and regional water treatment and distribution? [ ] j Xj
4. Sewer or septic tanks? [j j I [Xj
5. Storm water drainage? [ ] j [X]
6. Solid waste and disposal? [ ] j [X]
7. Local and regional water supplies? [ ] X]
M. AESTHETICS. Would this proposal:
1. Affect a designated scenic vista or scenic highway? [ ] j [X]
2. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? [ ] IN
3. Create new light and glare? [ ] X]
N. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would this proposal:
1. Disturb paleontological resources? [I I I [XI
2. Disturb archeological resources? I I I [X]
3. Affect historic resources? [ j j [X]
4. Result in a physical change effecting unique ethnic/cultural
values? I j I [xj
5. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses? [ ] j X]
O. RECREATION. Would this proposal::
1. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities? [ ] [ ] [ ] IN
2. Affect existing recreational opportunities? [ ] [ j [ ] [X]
P. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to decrease below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of
California history or prehistory? [ ] [ j [ ] [X]
2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? [] [j [] [Xj
3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable ("Cumulatively considerable" means the
project's incremental effects are considerable when compared to the
past, present, and future effects of other projects)? [] [] [] [X]
4. Does the project have environmental effects which will have
substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirecQ3? [ ] [ ] [X]
10 J
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -6- City of San Juan Capistrano California
14. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
A. LAND USE: The City's adopted significance thresholds provide that a land use impact may be deemed
significant if the project would:
o not be a permitted or conditional use within the Zoning classification or proposes a General
Plan, or Zoning Map designation which are inconsistent with the General Plan or Land Use
Code consistency matrix; or,
o conflict with adopted environmental plans/policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project; or,
o include a General Plan Amendment or zone change to change the designation of a parcel
from one category to another (categories include residential [1.0], open space and recreation
2.0], commercial [3.0], industrial [4.0], and institutional [5.01); or,
o convert an amount of agricultural acreage so that less than 20 acres or 50% of the original
acreage remained; or,
o propose a physical barrier including an arterial street, utility corridor, open drainage way, or
similar feature.
The area covered by the development agreement is currently being cultivated as an avocado grove.
However, the property does not contain either class I or II soils. The total site area is approximately 20±
acres. Based on the significance thresholds, the project would not result in a significant land use
impact.
B. POPULATION & HOUSING: The City's adopted significance thresholds provide that population and
housing impacts may be deemed significant if the project would:
o exceed population projections established by the General Plan Land Use Element.; or,
o exceed population projections for a project site based on General Plan designations; or
o eliminate existing very -low or low income dwellings (based on Housing & Urban Development
HUD) or Housing & Community Development (HCD) criteria); or, proposes five or more
lots/dwellings with no provision for very -low or low income dwellings.
Based on the significance threshold, the project would not result in significant population and housing
impacts.
C. GEOLOGIC: The City's adopted significance thresholds provide that geologic impacts maybe deemed
significant if the project would:
o be situated in an area of moderate or high risk potenfial for seismic ground shaking per the
General Plan Seismic Safety Element; or,
o be situated in an area of moderate or high risk potential for seismic ground shaking per the
General Plan Seismic Safety Element; or,
o be situated in an area of moderate or high risk potential for liquefaction per the General Plan's
Geotechnical Land Use Capabilities Map; or,
o be situated within the potential area of effect associated with seiche, tsunami, or volcanic
events; or,
o be situated in an area of moderate or high risk potential for landslides per the General Plan's
Geotechnical Land Use Capabilities Map; or,
o grade erosion -prone soils in areas subject to high winds or water flow (channel or sheet); or,
o bore, grade, cut, or construct on an otherwise stable land mass resulting in a reduction of
bearing capacity below minimum accepted engineering limits; or,
o be situated in an area of moderate or high risk potential for expansive/erosive soils per the
General Plan's Geotechnical Land Use Capabilities Map; or,
0
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -7- City of San Juan Capistrano, California
o grade or develop within a General Plan -designated "major ridgeline", or a canyon, drainage
swale, steep slopes, floodplain, or significant rock outcropping.
The project would not exceed significance thresholds and therefore will not have significant geologic
impacts.
D. WATER: The City's adopted significance thresholds provide that water resource impacts may be
deemed significant if the project would:
o increase the impervious surface coverage more than 20%, or increase the quantity of
stormwater runoff by greater than 20%, or discharge new stormwater to existing storm
drainage facilities; or,
o be located in a designated 100 year special flood hazard area based on the FEMA Flood
Insurance Rate Maps or the project would obstruct or interfere with stream flows in such areas;
or,
o consist of power plant operation, industrial/manufacturing processes, or automotive
repair/service subject to NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) standards
which would involve the discharge of cooled/heated water, or pollutant laden runoff into surface
waters; or,
o change the water surface elevations of ponds/lakes by at least one foot or the quantity (Q) of
water by at least 10%; or,
o move the alignment or modify the channel geometries of existing an "blueline" stream.
o change the quantity of groundwater, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or by
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations; or,
o alter the direction or rate of flow of groundwater; or,
o likely result in conditions which violate groundwater quality standards established by the San
Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB); or,
o use at least 5% of existing estimated groundwater capacity as determined by the San Diego
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
The project would not exceed significance thresholds and therefore will not result in significant water
resource impacts.
E. AIR: The City's adopted significance thresholds provide that air resource impacts may be deemed
significant if the project would:
exceed advisory project emission thresholds established by the SCAQMD using the Mobile
Assessment of Air Quality Impacts (MAAQI) model or other air quality assessment method(s)
recognized or established by the California Air Resources Board; or,
result in locally elevated levels of carbon monoxide (CO) exceeding Federal and State
standards; or
involve animal storage, manure stockpiling, industrial processes, food processing or similar
uses which consistently produce detectable, offensive odors.
Staff evaluated the project using the Mobile Assessment for Air Quality Impacts (MAAQI) which
analyzes both mobile source and stationary source emissions. The model, developed by the
SCAQMD, provides a fair estimate of projected emissions. Based on that analysis, staff found that
project related daily emissions would be as follows:
0
Initial Study/Environarental Checklist -8- City of San Juan Capistrano, Califomia
i,lu;s<itit8.f,}x;eCf.E'C{11SSWkYSt,nitbi4fe ASS@.SStt18f1t:,ifIf'i tltlf f SpCtS(MAQI,i
Residential
PafflfaDt.rnis ttns. dbs 7 hreshnfd lbs fftrshnEd
Carbon monoxide (CO) 80.0 550 14.5%
Reactive Organic Comp. 6.6 55 12.0%
ROC)
0.21 0.55 0.76
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 8.9 55 16.2%
Sulphur oxides (SOx) 0.6 150 0.4%
Particulate matter (PM10) 0.9 150 0.6%
Lead 0.001 550 n/a
While the property after development will generate measurable daily emissions, such emissions would
not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the project would not result in have significant air quality
impacts.
F. TRANSPORTATION: The City's adopted significance thresholds provide that transportation impacts
may be deemed significant if the project would:
o generate traffic resulting in at least a 5% increase in ADT on adjoining public streets; or,
o reduce intersection levels of service on primary/secondary arterials to a level below the
minimum established by the General Plan Growth Management Element; or,
o provide no frontage improvements to attain a geometric section consistent with that established
by the General Plan Circulation Element and Master Plan of Streets & Highways; or,
o increase traffic in areas with statistically -significant, higher than average accident rates; or,
o not meet emergency access requirements of the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA).
o convert existing parking to an alternate use or requires additional parking and does not meet
Title 9 parking standards; or,
o create barriers to non -motorists (e.g. pedestrians, bikes, etc.); or,
o conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation; or,
o create rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts?
Based upon the review of traffic studies for the roadways serving this project neighborhood the trip
generation analysis completed by staff, the City found that the project would generate vehicle trips as
follows:
Project Trip Generation Analysis
Land Use 1000 GSF
Residential 36.00
ITE Trip Generation Factors
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ADT
In out Tot In Out Tot
ITE Trip Factors 0.21 0.55 0.76 0.63 1 0.37 1 1.00 10.00
Project Peak Hour and ADT Trip Generation
0 E
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -9- City of San Juan Capistrano, California
Project Trip Generation Analysis
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ADT
In Out Tot In Out Tot
Project Trip Generation 8 20 27 23 13 1 36 360
The project would not exceed significance thresholds and therefore will not have a significant
transportation or circulation impacts.
G. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: The City's adopted significance thresholds provide that biological
resource impacts may be deemed significant if the project would:
clear areas, previously undeveloped, of existing natural vegetation which serves as primary
habitat for animal species protected by the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and
Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA); or,
alter or remove areas under jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to
Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act; or,
block/develop over established wildlife corridors (streams and valleys) which link major habitat
areas or introduce livestock or unrestricted domestic pets to previously undeveloped areas.
The project would not exceed significance thresholds and therefore will not have a significant biologic
resource impact.
H. ENERGY & MINERAL: The City's significance threshold provides that energy & mineral resource
impacts may be deemed significant if the project would conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans; or use non-renewable resources in an inefficient manner; or result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be a future value to the region and State's residents. The project
will not exceed thresholds and therefore will not result in significant energy & mineral resource impacts.
1. HAZARDS: The City's adopted significance thresholds provide that hazard impacts may be deemed
significant if the project would:
o consist of a service station, commercial nursery, agriculture, electroplating, or similar use which
uses, stores, dispenses, and/or transports hazardous materials (per California Government
Code) within 300 feet of sensitive receptors including residential areas, daycare centers,
hospitals, convalescent homes, etc.; or,
o be inconsistent with the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) emergency
evacuation plan; or,
o include the use, processing, and/or transport of solid waste (landfill), household hazardous
waste (facilities), manufacture of explosives or flammables, hazardous waste processing,
radioactive materials (medical) or similar uses; or,.
o develop residential uses in close proximity to a solid waste landfill, household hazardous waste
facilities, manufacturing of explosives or flammables, hazardous waste processing, radioactive
materials or similar uses; or,
o not comply with the City's adopted fuel modification ordinance provisions.
The project would not exceed significance thresholds and therefore will not have significant hazard
impacts.
J. NOISE: The City's adopted significance thresholds provide that noise impacts may be deemed
significant if the project would:
Initial Study/Snvironmental Checklist -10- City of San Juan Capistrano, California
o include outdoor recreation, amplified sound, industrial processes, automotive repair or similar
activities and/or is situated next to noise sensitive land uses including hospitals, convalescent
homes, or schools; or,
o result in noise levels which exceed the standards established by the General Plan's Noise
Element.
The project would not exceed significance thresholds and therefore will not have significant noise
impacts.
K. PUBLIC SERVICES: The City's adopted significance thresholds provide that public service impacts
may be deemed significant if the project would exceed the General Plan Growth Management Element
service standard for police, fire, parks, roads, and government services; or in the case of schools,
Capistrano Unified School District (CUSD) service standards. The project would not exceed
significance thresholds and therefore will not have significant public service impacts.
L. UTILITIES: The City's adopted significance thresholds provide that utility impacts may be deemed
significant if the project would exceed standards of San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) Company for
gas and electric, Pacific Bell Telephone for telephone, Capistrano Valley Water District (CVWD) for
water, Southeast Regional Reclamation Authority (SERRA) for sanitary sewer, City Master Plan of
Drainage for storm drainage, and the California Integrated Water Management Board/Agency for solid
waste. The project would not exceed significance thresholds and therefore will not have significant
utility impacts.
M. AESTHETICS: City -adopted significance thresholds provide that aesthetic impacts may be deemed
significant if the project would:
result in visually offensive structures/uses (outdoor storage, towers/antenna, etc.) or
development within view of General Plan -designated scenic highways, or obstructs views of
General Plan -designated ridgelines; or,
be substantially inconsistent with the City's Architectural Design Guidelines; or,
the installation of outdoor lighting including lighted athletic fields/courts, commercial/ industrial
parking lots, automobile sale display areas in excess of lighting standards established by Title
9.
The project would not exceed significance thresholds and therefore will not have significant aesthetic
impacts.
N. CULTURAL RESOURCES. City -adopted significance thresholds provide that cultural resource impacts
may be deemed significant if the project would:
o disturb paleontological resources; or,
o disturb archeological resources; or,
o demolish/alter a site/structure, or alter the context of a site/structure listed on the City's
Inventory of Historic and Cultural Landmarks or the State or National Register of Historic
Places (CEQA, Appendix "K'); or the project is on a recorded sensitive site or adjoins such a
site; or
o effect a site of City -documented historical significance to the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians;
or,
o restrict existing religious or sacred uses.
The project which is the development agreement will not impact any cultural resources. However, the
ultimate residential subdivision that would occur based upon the provisions of the development
agreement may significantly impact either or both archaeological and paleontongical resources. The
formal review of future development applications will be subject to future CEQA review and will have to
0
Initial Study/Enviromnental Checklist -11- City of San Juan Capistrano, California
comply with City regulations regarding on-site monitoring and reporting provisions. Based upon this
finding potential impacts are reduced to a level of insignificance for this project (development
agreement).
O. RECREATION. The City's adopted significance thresholds provide that recreation impacts may be
deemed significant if the project would:
o develop residential uses which do not comply with the parkland dedication requirement or in -
lieu fee requirements of the City's Land Use Code; or,
o eliminate a public/private park site, or convert a significant amount of public/private park land to
an alternate use without a replacement site or improvements.
The project would not exceed significance thresholds and therefore will not have significant recreation
resource impacts.
IV. PREPARATION The initial study for the subject project was prepared by:
y—
Thomas Tomlinson, Planning Director
V. DETERMINATION (To be completed by the lead agency) Based on this initial
evaluation:
X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described herein have been included in this project. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
VI. DE MINIMIS FEE DETERMINATION (Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990 -AB 3158)
X] It is hereby found that this project involves no potential for any adverse effect,
either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources and that a "Certificate of
Fee Exemption" shall be prepared for this project.
It is hereby found that this project could potentially impact wildlife, individually or
cumulatively, and therefore fees shall be paid to the County Clerk in accordance
with Section 711.4(d) of the Fish and Game Code.
0 0
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -12- City of San Juan Capistrano, California
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINATION (Section 9-2.201 of
SJC Municipal Code): The initial study for this project has been reviewed and
the environmental determination, contained in Section V. preceding, is hereby
approved:
Thomas Tomlinson, Environmental Administrator
C:\WPWIN60\WPDOCStENV.DOC W EELY.IS)