PC Resolution-04-12-14-01PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-12-14-1
ORTEGA HIGHWAY GAS STATION
CUP 04-01 AND AC 04-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT, ARCHITECUTAL CONTROL APPLICATION, AND ZONING
EXCEPTION FOR A GAS STATION, MINI -MART WITH OFF-SITE
ALCOHOL SALES, FOOD SERVICE AND CAR WASH ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF ORTEGA HIGHWAY BETWEEN 1-5 AND AVENIDA
LOS CERRITOS (APN 650-151-180)
WHEREAS, Phillip Schwartze of the PRS Group, 31682 EI Camino Real San
Juan Capistrano, CA 92675, representing M&M Petroleum, has filed an application with
the City of San Juan Capistrano for approval of a conditional use permit (CUP 04-01),
architectural control (AC 04-03), and a zoning exception for development of a new gas
station, minimart, car wash, take-out food service, off -premise alcohol sales, and
mezzanine office on a 48,238 sq.ft. site located on the north side of Ortega Highway at
Avenida Los Cerritos (at the old Shell station site, APN 650-151-18); and
WHEREAS, the conditional use permit would allow the gas station and carwash
land uses and the sale of alcoholic beverages at the minimart, and the zoning exception
would allow a standard mode station with gas pumps in front of the site rather than a
"reverse" mode station, with the building in front and the gas pumps in the rear; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
the CEQA Guidelines, the City's planning staff completed an Initial Study for the above -
referenced project and determined that although the proposed project could have a
significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because of the mitigation measures described in the Initial Study and included in the
project or as conditions of project approval. The planning staff has accordingly
recommended that the Planning Commission approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration
and that no environmental impact report be required; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly -noticed public
hearing regarding the proposed land use applications for the project, and considered
evidence presented by the City staff and other interested parties; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to Conditional
Use Permit 04-01:
A. The proposed development is permitted within the subject zone pursuant to
the approval of a conditional use permit, in that it complies with all
applicable provisions of the Land Use Code (Title 9 of the Municipal Code),
the purpose and intent of the zone in which the development is being
proposed, and with the goals, objectives, and policies of the San Juan
Capistrano General Plan.
Ortega Gas Station: Resolution No. 04-12-14-1
Page 2
B. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of development that is
proposed, in that it complies with the type and intensity requirements of the
Land Use Code for the zone in which the development is being proposed,
and with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan.
C. As conditioned, the proposed development will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties and
improvements in the vicinity, nor will it negatively impact surrounding land
uses, in that the land use is consistent with the General Plan and Land Use
Code, and because:
1) The project site is bounded by a freeway, a state highway, and
nonresidential uses on three sides. The single family home on the
fourth side is located over 100 feet from the project boundary. (Also,
the residential use will be replaced by nonresidential development per
the General Plan. An office project proposed for that site is presently
being reviewed by the City).
2) The site is in an area of existing development and will not create a
significant impact on the existing visual character of the surrounding
area.
3) The traffic impacts of the project will be mitigated by required
improvements and fee contributions (see traffic section later in this
report). Moreover, the location of the site and the design of the project
can accommodate any of the alternatives presently under study for
reconstruction of the adjacent 15/Ortega interchange.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to
Architectural Control 04-03:
A. The proposed development is permitted in the "GC" District within which the
development is being proposed in that it complies with all applicable
provisions of the Land Use Code (LUC), with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the San Juan Capistrano General Plan, and with the purpose and
intent of the "GC" District.
B. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of development that is proposed,
in that it complies with the type and intensity requirements of the General
Plan and the LUC.
C. As conditioned, the proposed development will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties and
improvements in the vicinity in that the land use is consistent with the General
Plan and the LUC and is harmonious with the existing and planned land uses
on surrounding properties.
Ortega Gas Station: Resolution No. 04-12-14-1
Page 3
D. As conditioned, the proposed development will not be unsightly or create
disharmony with its locale and surroundings in that the site, landscaping,
architectural, and other plans have been reviewed to ensure design quality
and consistency with applicable City ordinances and policies relating to
design and visual standards.
E. As conditioned, the proposed development will minimize or eliminate adverse
physical or visual effects which might otherwise result from unplanned or
inappropriate development, design or location in that the development is
consistent with the General Plan and LUC relating to land use, development
standards, and other applicable regulations and policies, and because the
mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration will be
implemented in conjunction with the project.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to the Zoning
Exception to allow a standard mode gas station instead of the reverse mode called for
in the Land Use Code:
A. That there are special physical circumstances in areas surrounding the
property which justify granting the exception: Avenida Los Cerritos is no
longer a through street, but only an access drive for the subject site and for
the properties on the east side of Los Cerritos. Therefore, the station will not
be viewed by large numbers of motorists on this street. Also, the property is
unusually deep for a gas station site, which allows for extensive frontage
landscaping to buffer the visual impact of placing the pump islands on the
front portion of the site.
B. That the intent of the requirement is being met in the design of the total
project: The pump canopy design, the low frontage wall, the frontage
landscaping, and the large front setback will serve to meet this requirement's
intent of presenting an attractive appearance from the street. Further, unlike a
reverse mode design, the design as proposed keeps most of the building
mass in the development set substantially back from Ortega Highway. This
arrangement preserves a degree of openness for the streetscape and is
consistent with other development along the Highway.
C. That there is little potential for the exception to create a negative impact on
surrounding areas: The above site and landscape design will mitigate and
buffer visual impacts of the pump islands. Also, the proposed gas station
does not include service bays which would present an unattractive
appearance from the street which is one of the reasons for requiring the
reverse mode design.
Ortega Gas Station: Resolution No. 04-12-14-1 Page 4
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that
Section 1: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, an Initial Study has
been prepared for this project. After reviewing the Initial Study, the proposed
Mitigated Negative Declaration, and all comments received during the public
review process, the Planning Commission hereby:
A. Determines that, with implementation of the identified mitigation
measures, the project will not have a significant impact upon the
environment and an environmental impact report shall not be
required.
B. Approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration, attached hereto with
the Initial study as "Exhibit C", reflecting the independent judgment
of the City of San Juan Capistrano. Records relating to the Initial
Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are retained in the
Planning Division of the City of San Juan Capistrano.
C. Determines, pursuant to Title 14, California Code of Regulation
Section 753.5(c)(1), that, after considering the record as a whole,
there is no evidence that the proposed project will have the
potential for any adverse effect on wildlife resources of the habitat
upon which the wildlife depends. Furthermore, on the basis of
substantial evidence, the Planning Commission finds that any
presumption of adverse impact has been adequately rebutted, and
therefore, pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.2 and
Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 753.5(a)(3),
determines that the project shall not be required to pay Fish and
Game Department filing fees.
Section 2: Based on the preceding findings, the Planning Commission of the
City of San Juan Capistrano hereby approves CUP 04-01, AC 04-03 and the
accompanying Zoning Exception for the Ortega Highway Gas Station, shown in
concept in the site plan attached hereto as Exhibit "A", subject to the conditions
of approval attached hereto as Exhibit "B".
Ortega Gas Station: Resolution No. 04-12-14-1 Page 5
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of December, 2004 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Drey and Ratcliffe and Chairman Neely
NOES: Commissioner Cohen
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSED: Commissioner Cardoza
T' ely, Chairman
Moll gh, ommission Secretary
RESOLUTION EXHIBIT A:
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
WP
VND KA:IME
KWM
grATION TPASH BKXMFE
www Dom
ht
A101A
J 7.
Q,
'flf�� i I � � b �1oLi L�"ter° � . , .'`..Ir! 11 SII ca
W=um
VAMN COMAR STOWOF FIEURDONS, OFFICE AFEA
im 02
4Y -r GUM-8EFNECON60AME GONVEMENCE
FOOD 3MMAErJUL MMASTAL.
IVACOM
EMEMElir
O
WDRANE
TAM
it
SPU cANrwASHrIlLo"PADE
An" TANIM
0 a a
fir -w
cm
ffmi I
+SW LANDICAPE WALL
04
AlMff Ll*ff
FKnm 0 wocl
LANDSCAPE
BERMS
��,� v-- - � - - - it Q /r i �\\ `\\\
,-V
--------------------------------1-----'._._.-- _
ORTEGA
---------- --------------
ORTEGA HIGHWAY
------s----------------------------xa
—
malmlTLM LANE
TO BE RNWMD
— — — — — --------------- — -- -
- — — — — — — — — — — — — -- I/ - — — — — — — — — — — — — —
0 10 20 40 -------
RESOLUTION EXHIBIT B:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
EXHIBIT B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 04-01, ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL 04-03
AND ZONING EXCEPTION ORTEGA HIGHWAY GAS STATION
Approval Date: December 14, 2004
Effective Date: December 14, 2004
Expiration Date: December 14, 2005
These conditions of approval apply to Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 04-01 and Architectural
Control (AC) 04-03, and associated zoning exception an application to construct a 5,267 -square
foot gas station building with mini -mart, take-out food service and off -premise beer and wine
sales, and 98 -square foot mezzanine office, along with free-standing car -wash structure and
one canopy covering six two-sided gasoline dispensers. Any proposed change of use or
expansion of the area, or modifications to the site plan or structures, shall be submitted to the
city Planning Department, along with the required application and fee, for review. For the
purpose of these conditions, the term "applicant" shall also mean the developer, the owner, or
any successor(s) in interest to the terms of this approval.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE ONGOING UNTIL SATISFIED OR UNTIL THE
TIME INDICATED:
A. Establishment of Land Use. In accordance with Sec. 9-2.317 of the City's
Land Use Code (Title 9 of the Municipal Code), this Conditional Use Permit
shall become null and void if the land use is not commenced within one year
from its date of approval. Also, if any one of the project approvals identified in
the resolution of approval expires, all of the project approvals shall be
deemed to have expired. Since the use requires the issuance of a building
permit, the use shall not be deemed to have commenced until the date that
the building permit is issued. Also, the use shall be deemed to have lapsed
and this Conditional Use Permit and related project approvals shall be
deemed to have expired when a building permit has been issued but
construction has not been completed and the building permit has expired in
accordance with applicable sections of the Uniform Building Code, as
amended. The applicant or his/her designee shall have the right to request an
extension of this Conditional Use Permit if said request is filed with the
Planning Department prior to expiration as set forth above. The request shall
be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. (Ping.)
B. Substantial Conformance with Plans. The applicant or designee shall develop
the approved project in substantial conformance with this Conditional Use
Permit, related project approvals, and the associated plans approved by the
Planning Commission. Any deviation from the approved site and other plans
shall require approval of the Planning Director or designee. If the Planning
Director or designee determines that the deviation is significant, the applicant
or designee shall be required to apply for review and obtain the approval of
the Planning Commission. (Ping.)
C. Under -Canopy Lights. Soffit lights under the gas pump canopy shall be
recessed and shall not exceed 50 footcandles, as measured under the
Ortega Gas Station Conditions of Approval Page 2 of 10
Resolution PC 04-12-14-1
December 14, 2004
canopy. Lighting level at the property line shall not exceed one footcandle.
(Ping.)
D. Sale of Alcoholic Beverages. The following on-going conditions of operation
shall be complied with at all times by the business operator with respect to
sale of alcoholic beverages (Ping.):
No alcoholic beverage shall be displayed within five feet of the cash
register or the front door unless it is in a permanently installed cooler.
2. No advertisement of alcoholic beverages shall be displayed at motor fuel
islands or on the building or windows.
3. No sales of alcoholic beverages shall be made from a drive -up window or
walk-up window.
4. No display or sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made from an ice tub.
5. Employees on duty between the hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. shall be at
least 21 years of age to sell alcoholic beverages.
6. Floor area devoted to the sale of alcoholic beverages shall be limited to no
more than 7.5% of the sales floor area of the convenience store. [double -
underlined wording added at 12-14-04 PC meeting].
E. Right-in/Right-Out Access at Los Cerritos. Unless and until a traffic signal is
constructed at Ortega Highway and Avenida Los Cerritos, access to and from
Avenida Los Cerritos shall be right-in/right-out only. (Engr.)
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF
GRADING PERMITS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENT PERMITS:
1.1. Payment of Fees. Prior to issuance of grading and right-of-way improvement
permits, the applicant shall fulfill all applicable fee requirements in accordance
with the City Municipal Code and shall post securities to insure satisfaction
performance. (Engr.).
1.2. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Prior to the issuance of any grading or
building permits for soil disturbance of one or more acres of land, the
applicant shall demonstrate that coverage has been obtained under
California's General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with
Construction Activity by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI)
submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the
subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification
(WDID) Number. The applicant shall prepare and implement a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A copy of the current SWPPP shall be
kept at the project site and be available for City review on request. (Engr.).
1.3. Erosion and Sediment Control. Prior to issuance of any grading and/or right-
of-way improvement permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer
Ortega Gas Station Conditions of Approval Page 3 of 10
Resolution PC 04-12-14-1
December 14, 2004
and Building Official for their review and shall obtain approval for,
Erosion/Sediment Control Plans and programs, prepared by a Registered
Civil Engineer, for the regulation and control of pollutant run-off by using Best
Management Practices (BMP's). These plans shall show all temporary and
permanent erosion control devices, effective planting of graded slopes,
practical accessibility for maintenance purposes and proper precautions and
fences to prevent public trespass onto certain areas where impounded water
may create a hazardous condition. In order to control pollutant run-off, the
applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
Building Official that all water quality best management practices incorporated
into the development of this land subdivision shall be designed in accordance
with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards,
and the requirements of Sections F.1.b(2)(b) and F.1.b(2)(c) of the San Diego
Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R9-2002-0001 and the City's
water quality ordinance and Local Implementation Plan. (Engr.).
1.4. Water Quality Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of any grading or
building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for review and
shall obtain approval for a Water Quality Management Plan that:
a Addresses Site Design BMPs such as minimizing impervious areas,
maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious
areas, creating reduced or "zero discharge" areas, and conserving
natural areas,
b. Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in
the DAMP,
c. Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP,
d. Generally describes the long-term operation and maintenance
requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs,
e. Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and
maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPS; and,
f. Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and
maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs.
1.5. Soils/Geology Report. Prior to issuance of grading and right-of-way
improvement permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer and
Building Official for their review and obtain approval for a Soils
Report/Geotechnical Feasibility Study, prepared by a Registered Geologist
and/or Soil Engineer, to determine the seismic safety and soils stability of all
proposed grading and development improvements within the project as well
as any affected adjacent property. The Report shall also indicate preliminary
pavement sections and substructure bedding/backfill recommendations for
the drive way and parking lot areas. (Engr.)
1.6. Grading Plan. Prior to issuance of grading and right-of-way improvement
permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer and Building Official
for their review and obtain approval for grading plans prepared by a
Registered Civil Engineer. These plans shall show a radius curve on the
retaining wall at the northwest corner of the site and shall show the limits of
grading, existing overhead utility poles to be removed, drainage, sewer, water
Ortega Gas Station Conditions of Approval Page 4 of 10
Resolution PC 04-12-14-1
December 14, 2004
and driveways. The extent of the topography shall be extended enough to
determine the drainage impacts to adjacent properties. The elevations shall
correspond with the Orange County benchmark datum. Unless determined
otherwise by the City Engineer, runoff must be filtered with Best Management
Practices (BMP's) methods then conveyed to the street or to a City approved
drainage facility. (Engr.)
1.7. Street Frontages — Restriction of Access to Right -Turn Only, Prior to
issuance of right-of-way improvement permits, the applicant shall submit to
the City Engineer for review, and shall obtain approval for, street frontage
improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. These plans
shall be in compliance with the Master Plan of Arterial Highways and
consistent with the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways Standards.
Said plans shall show all existing and proposed improvements on Ortega
Highway and Avenida Los Cerritos. Any encroachment into adjoining
properties shall require applicant to provide, in writing, the authorization from
said affected property owners. The plans shall provide for, but not be limited
to, the following:
a. Improvements necessary to restrict access to Avenida Los Cerritos to
right -turn only in and out.
b. Submission of a cash deposit, bond, or other financial security acceptable
1
to the City Engineer sufficient to cover 100% of the City -
approved estimated cost of future construction of an additional lane
and all related appurtenances on Ortega Highway from Avenida Los
Cerritos to the 1-5 Northbound on-ramp in accordance with City and
Caltrans standards and specifications.
c. An improved entry driveway from Avenida Los Cerritos, with sight distance
at the project access in accordance with Orange County Standard Plan
No. 1117 in conjunction with the preparation of precise grading and
landscape plans.
d. No utility boxes shall be installed within the Ortega Highway right-of-way.
Above -ground utility boxes and pedestals shall be placed on-site within
their proper corresponding easements.
e. Sidewalk, curb and gutter and street lights, with Mission Bell fixtures on
marbelite poles.
The undergrounding of existing overhead utilities on Ortega Highway and
Avenida Los Cerritos along the property frontages. The overhead power
lines on the Ortega frontage extend westward across the freeway.
Therefore, the City Engineer is given the discretion to modify the
undergrounding requirement if he determines that it is infeasible to
underground the entire Ortega frontage. If undergrounding is not required
concurrent with development of the site, the City Engineer may require the
granting of a utility easement for future undergrounding.
Ortega Gas Station Conditions of Approval Page 5 of 10
Resolution PC 04-12-14-1
December 14, 2004
Any exceptions to, or deviation from the above requirements shall be subject
to review and approval by the City Engineer. (Engr.)
1.8. Sewer. Water and Trash. Prior to issuance of grading and right-of-way
improvement permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for
review, and shall obtain approval for, a site plan prepared by a Registered
Civil Engineer showing the sewer and water service lines and their
corresponding points of connection with the City's existing and proposed
public main lines. The trash enclosures shall be covered with a solid roof, and
their floor surfaces shall be connected to the sewer system through an inlet in
the center with a traffic -rated grate. A concrete apron shall be constructed in
front of the trash enclosure. The site plan shall be specific to the project and
shall reflect consistency with the City's sewer and water standards. Any
exceptions to, or deviation from these requirements shall be subject to review
and approval by the City Engineer (Engr.)
1.9. Construction Mitigation Program. Prior to issuance of grading and right-of-way
improvement permits, the applicant shall prepare and implement a
construction mitigation program, approved by the Planning Director and
Engineering and Building Director and containing the controls specified below,
and shall post a $2,000 cash deposit with the City for roadway cleaning
purposes. Said deposit shall remain with the City for the entire duration of the
project's construction phase (Engr & Planning).
a. Grading:
1. Worker controlled access to site, including hours of work, limits on
noise sources, and dust and soil import/export.
2. Compliance with environmental mitigation measures.
3. Construction waste and materials management.
b. Enforcement:
1. The Planning Director and Engineering and Building Director may
modify the construction mitigation program standards if on-site
observations indicate that construction activities are creating a
nuisance to adjacent property developments.
2. The applicant shall hire a project enforcement person approved by
the Engineering and Building Director to ensure compliance with the
Construction Mitigation Program.
3. If it is determined that the applicant is in violation of the approved
construction mitigation program, the Planning Director and/or the
Engineering and Building Director are authorized to shut down the
project by reason of said violation.
1.10. Sign Program. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a sign program shall be
submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Commission. The
use shall be considered as a single -tenant project for the purpose of
determining sign number and area under Section 9-3.543 of the Land Use
Code. [double -underlined wording added at 12-14-04 PC meeting]. (Ping.)
Ortega Gas Station Conditions of Approval
Resolution PC 04-12-14-1
December 14, 2004
Page 6 of 10
1.11. DRC Followup Review. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits,
the Design Review Committee shall approve detailed site, architectural,
landscape, grading, lighting, and architectural detail plans (such as trash
enclosures, etc.). The landscape plan shall show the crape myrtle trees
replaced with a canopy -type species such as gold medallion (cassia
leptophylla). The final site and landscape plans shall show some of the
parking spaces on the west project boundary replaced with landscape
planters, with the total parking on site to be a minimum of 17 spaces. [double -
underlined wording added at 12-14-04 PC meeting]. (Ping.)
WATER INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITIONS:
1.12. Water Improvement Agreement. Prior to the issuance of grading and right-of-
way improvement permits, the applicant shall execute a Agreement for
Construction of Water Facilities with the City, shall pay all applicable domestic
and non-domestic Water Development Charges in accordance with the Water
Division Schedule of Rates and Charges, as last revised, and shall post the
required securities to insure satisfactory performance of proposed public
water improvements in compliance with City water standard specifications.
(PW)
1.13. Fire Flow Demands. Prior to the issuance of grading and right-of-way
improvement permits, the applicant shall obtain from the Orange County Fire
Authority (OCFA) the required fire flow demands and fire protection
requirements to serve the subject project and shall provide evidence of
satisfactory fire flow. (PW)
1.14. Dedication of Water Facilities. Prior to the issuance of grading and right-of-
way improvement permits, the applicant shall dedicate, at no cost to the City,
all public water facilities, water rights, and any required easements to the City
for related project improvements. (PW)
1.15. Water Improvement Plans. Prior to the issuance of grading and right-of-way
improvement permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer and the
Public Works Director for review, and shall obtain approval for, sewer and
water plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. These plans shall be
specific to the project and shall reflect consistency with the City's Sewer and
Water Master Plans, City municipal codes, standards, specifications, and City
water standard specifications. The sewer plans shall indicate that all proposed
sewer manholes shall be lined with polyurethane, or equal approved material,
at the applicant's cost to the satisfaction of the City Engineer (PW)
2. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE
OF A BUILDING PERMIT:
2.1 Traffic Circulation Impact Fees and Improvements.
a. Capistrano Circulation Fee Program (CCFP).
Ortega Gas Station Conditions of Approval Page 7 of 10
Resolution PC 04-12-14-1
December 14, 2004
The applicant shall pay a CCFP fee based on the current fee schedule in
effect at the time of issuance of the first Building Permit.
b. Off -Site Circulation Improvement Requirements Subject to
Reimbursement.
1. Non-CCFP Improvements. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Use
for the first building, the applicant shall design and construct and be
initially responsible for all the cost of the off-site improvements listed
below to their ultimate standard configurations in accordance with the
City of San Juan Capistrano Master Plan of Streets and Highways
and to the satisfaction the City Engineer. All easements, right-of-way
acquisitions, dedications and permits needed from any agency to
accommodate said improvements listed below shall be processed by
the applicant at no initial cost to the City.
The City, upon a written request from the applicant, will enter into a
reimbursement agreement to partially repay the applicant for the work
of improvement in accordance with the City approved engineer's cost
estimate. However, if any improvements identified below are
constructed by another party, the applicant shall pay for the project's
pro -rata share of the cost of the design and construction of the
circulation improvements and all related appurtenances to their
ultimate respective widths and configurations in accordance with the
City of San Juan Capistrano's Master Plan of Streets and Highways,
including any applicable right-of-way acquisition, base on the
proportion of traffic generated by the project, as determined in a City -
approved traffic study.
Non-CCFP IMPROVEMENTS I Obligation %
Ortega Highway & Rancho Viejo Road
* Construct a northbound left turn lane 3.9%
L------------
-O - -rt - ega - - -High - - - - -a - -& - 1 -- -5 -South - - - - -boun- - - - -Ra - - - -pis
- ---------
-------- - - - - - - wd m
* Construct a southbound left turn lane 6.5%
-------------
----------
-----------
---------------------------'
Ortega Highway &Avenida Los Cerritos
* Construct a traffic signal. Until such a signal is constructed, 100%
access to and from Avenida Los Cerritos shall be right -in right -
out onlv.
* (The estimated cost of improvement shall be submitted by the
applicant's Civil Engineer, subject to review and approval by the
City Engineer.)
The applicant shall provide performance bonds/securities for 100
percent of each estimated improvement cost as prepared by a
- ; Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer and City
i Attorney. In addition, the applicant shall provide labor and materials
bonds/securities for 100 percent of the above estimated improvement
Ortega Gas Station Conditions of Approval Page 8 of 10
Resolution PC 04-12-14-1
December 14, 2004
costs as determined by the City Engineer. Any exception to or
deviation from this condition shall be subject to review and approval
by the City Engineer. (Engr.)
C. Non-CCFP Fair -Share Circulation Improvement Participation. Prior to
issuance of the first Building Permit, the applicant shall pay for the
project's pro -rata share of the cost of the design and construction of the
street and street intersection improvements listed below to their ultimate
respective widths and configurations in accordance with the City of San
Juan Capistrano's Master Plan of Streets and Highways, including any
applicable right-of-way acquisition, base on the proportion of traffic
generated by the project, as determined in a City -approved traffic study.
Any exception to, or deviation from this condition shall be subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer: (Engr.)
"FAIR SHARE" PARTICIPATION Obligation %
Ortega Highway & 1-5 Northbound Ramps o
* Construct a northbound left turn lane 11.9 /o
* (The estimated cost of improvement shall be submitted by the
applicant's Civil Engineer, subject to review and approval by the
City Engineer.)
2.2. Right-in/Right-Out Access at Los Cerritos. Unless and until a traffic signal is
constructed at Ortega Highway and Avenida Los Cerritos, access to and from
Avenida Los Cerritos shall be right-in/right-out only. (Engr.)
2.3. Dry Utilities (Elect.. Street liahts. Telephone. Cable TV. Gas). Prior to
issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer
for review, and shall obtain approval for, electrical, gas, telephone and cable
television installation plans and appurtenant pedestals to ensure compatibility
with existing and proposed improvements. Any exception to or deviation from
this condition shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
(Engr.)
2.4. Drainage Improvement Plans. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the
applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for review, and shall obtain
approval for, drainage improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil
Engineer. Any exception to or deviation from this condition shall be subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer. (Engr.)
2.5. Traffic Circulation Impact Fees. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the
applicant shall pay the Capistrano Circulation Impact Fee in accordance with
the Capistrano Circulation Fee Program (CCFP). (Engr.)
2.6. Historic Depiction Program. In accordance with City Council Policy 606, new
non-residential development projects are required to provide artistic
interpretations of the City's heritage in the form of historic depiction programs
(HDP). Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare and
Ortega Gas Station Conditions of Approval Page 9 of 10
Resolution PC 04-12-14-1
December 14, 2004
submit an HDP to the Cultural Heritage Commission for review and approval
in conformance with Policy 606. (Ping.)
WATER INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITIONS:
2.7. Completion of Water Systems. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the
applicant shall complete the construction of all domestic water system, non-
domestic (recycled) water system improvements, and irrigation facilities
required to serve the subject project in compliance with City municipal codes,
standards, specifications, the Rules and Regulations for Users of Non-
domestic Water and the City's water standard specifications. (PW)
2.8. Non -Domestic Water For Irrigation. Prior to the issuance of building permits,
the applicant shall be responsible to design all landscaping and irrigation that
are identified as a non-domestic (recycled) water use in accordance to the
City water standard specifications, the Rules and Regulations for Users of
Non-domestic Water, and the City Municipal Code 9-3.617. (PW)
FIRE PROTECTION CONDITIONS:
2.9. Fire Hydrant Location. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant
shall submit a fire hydrant location plan to the Fire Chief for review and
approval. (Fire)
2.10. Water for Fire Flow - Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant
shalI provide evidence of water for adequate fire flow. The "Orange County
Fire Authority Water Availability for Fire Protection" form shall be signed by
the applicable water authority and submitted to the Fire Chief for approval.
(Fire).
2.11. Water Availability - Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant
shall submit a letter on company letterhead stating that water for fire -fighting
purposes and all-weather fire protection access roads shall be in place and
operational before any combustible material is placed on site. Building permits
will not be issued without Orange County Fire Authority approval obtained as
a result of an on-site inspection. (Fire)
2.12. Fire Sprinklers. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall
submit plans for the required automatic fire sprinkler system in all applicable
structures to the Fire Chief for review and approval. (Fire)
3. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A
CERTIFICATE OF USE AND OCCUPANCY:
3.1. Installation of Landscaping. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy,
the applicant shall install all landscaping and irrigation. The applicant shall
provide a certification from a licensed landscape architect stating that the
landscape materials and irrigation systems (tested for full coverage) have
been planted and installed in compliance with the approved landscape plans.
(Planning & Engr.).
Ortega Gas Station Conditions of Approval Page 10 of
10
Resolution PC 04-12-14-1
December 14, 2004
3.2. Water Quality Implementation. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy,
the applicant shall:
A Demonstrate that all structural best management practices (BMPs)
described in the project's WQMP have been constructed and installed in
conformance with approved plans and specifications;
B Demonstrate that applicant is prepared to implement all non-structural
BMPs described in the project's WQMP;
C Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the project's
approved WQMP are available onsite;
D Submit for review and approval by the City Engineer an Operations and
Maintenance (O&M) Plan for all structural BMPs. (Engr.)
3.3. Complete Improvements to City's Satisfaction. Prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy and release of sureties, the applicant shall complete
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, all facility improvements necessary to
serve the development, including, but not limited to all frontage improvements
listed in Condition No. 1.7 above, in accordance with the approved plan and
approved exceptions. (Engr.)
3.4. Provide As -Built Molars/Digital Format. Prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy, the acceptance of water, sewer, storm drain, and street
improvements, and the release of performance securities, the applicant shall
submit to the City Engineer and the Public Works Director for review and
obtain approval for reproducible "Record Drawing" mylar plans that call out
any deviations from the signed plans for all the domestic water system, non-
domestic (recycled) water system, the landscape irrigation system, and
sewer, storm drain, and street improvements. These Record Drawings shall
also be provided to the City in digital format, in accordance with the "City of
San Juan Capistrano Digital Submission Standards". (PW & Engr.)
FIRE PROTECTION CONDITIONS:
3.5. Completion of Sprinkler System. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate that the required sprinkler system
is operational in a manner meeting the approval of the Fire Chief. (Fire)
RESOLUTION EXHIBIT C:
INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ro°Y' ate►
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NI961
city of san Juan capistrano, california
Project:
2. Lead Agency:
3. Contact Person & Phone:
4. Project Location:
DATE POSTED: 9/6/04
REMOVE POSTING:
[x] 20 days, or
[ ] 30 days for SCH review
CUP 04-01, AC 04-03: Ortega Highway Gas Station
City Of San Juan Capistrano
Larry Lawrence, 949-661-8175
North Side of Ortega Highway at Avenida Los Cerritos
5. Applicant: Phillip Schwartze for M & M Petroleum
31682 EI Camino Real
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
949-240-1322
8. Project Description:
Development of a new gas station, minimart, car wash,
and mezzanine office at the old Shell station site on
Ortega Highway at Avenida Los Cerritos
ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATOR (EA) DETERMINATION: This project has been evaluated by the
Environmental Administrator of the City of San Juan Capistrano in accordance with the Section 21080(c) of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Environmental Administrator has determined that this project
will not have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment and issued a Mitigated Negative
Declaration. The basis for the Environmental Administrator's determination is the Initial Study prepared pursuant
to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Copies of the Initial Study may
be reviewed or obtained from the Planning Department in City Hall located at 32400 Paseo Adelanto. All public
comments on the negative declaration must be provided in writing to the Planning Department on or before the
"Posting Removal Date" cited above.
The City Council has delegated authority for making environmental determinations to the Environmental
Administrator by Resolution 94-7-5-1 adopting the City's Environmental Review Guidelines. Pursuant to Section
9-2.311, Appeals of the Land Use Code, any person may file an appeal of the Environmental Administrator's
determination including issuance of a Notice of Exemption, issuance of a Negative Declaration (ND) or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, issuance of a Notice of Preparation or issuance of a Notice of Completion. Appeals must
be filed in writing with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) days of the posting of the official notice. The filing of an
appeal stays the issuance of an environmental determination until a decision by the City Council on the appeal.
cc: County Clerk
Project applicant
CEQA file, Planning Secretary
Posting: City Hall; Public Library; project site
Jwn
INITIAL STUDY
city of san juan capistrano California
1. Project: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 04-01, Architectural Control 04-03, Ortega
Highway Gas Station
2. Lead Agency: City of San Juan Capistrano
3. Contact Person & Phone: Larry Lawrence, 949-661-8175
4. Project Location: North Side of Ortega Highway at Avenida Los Cerritos
5. Applicant: Phillip Schwartze, Representative for M & M Petroleum
6. General Plan Designation: General Commercial
7. Zoning: GC (General Commercial)
8. Project Description: Development of a new gas station, minimart, car wash, and mezzanine office at
the old Shell station site on Ortega Highway at Avenida Los Cerritos. The
minimart is proposed to be 5,267 sq.ft. and the office is 980 sq.ft. The site is
48,238 sq.ft.
9. Surrounding Land Use(s) North: Single family dwelling
& Project Setting: East: Avenida los Cerritos, nursery storage, and Mission Cemetary
South: Ortega Highway and Chevron station
-' West: NB onramp and 1-5 freeway
10. Other Agency Approvals: CalTrans for any work in Ortega Hwy R.O.W.
11. Previous CEQA: None
12. Consultation:
A. Federal, State, and Local Agencies:
■ Judy Hutain, Orange County Fire Authority
■ California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS)
B. City of San Juan Capistrano
■ Molly Bogh, Planning Director
■ Dan McFarland, Building Official
■ Sam Shoucair, Senior Engineer
■ Alan Oswald, Traffic Engineer
■ Ziad Mazboudi, Senior Engineer
■ Craig Harris, Assistant Engineer, Water
■ Ray Holland, Director of Engineering and Building
■ Douglas Dumhart, Principal Management Analyst
■ Erin Gettis, Historic Preservation Manager
■ Tony Foster, Engineering Assistant
C. Documents & Resources:
--, ■ City of San Juan Capistrano, General Plan.
■ City of San Juan Capistrano, Title 9, Land Use Code.
■ City of San Juan Capistrano, General Plan Environmental Impact Report.
0 City of San Juan Capistrano, Environmental Review Guidelines.
■ Darnell & Associates, "Traffic study for Ortega Highway Gas Station", August 27, 2004
13. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors
potentially affected by this project, consisting of "Potentially Significant Impacts Unless Mitigated", include:
• HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
• HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
• TRANSPORTATION
14. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The Environmental Checklist provides a preliminary analysis of the proposed project's potential for
significant environmental impacts. Sources of information for all responses are specified immediately
following the checklist. In all cases, the Checklist response was the product of review of the data sources
listed, followed by careful consideration of potential impacts from the project under the definitions and
procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant Unless Significant Impact SOURCES*
IMPACT CATEGORY Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
* See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
I. AESTHETICS.
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
1. AESTHETICS. In addition to the questions in the preceding environmental checklist, City -adopted
significance thresholds provide that aesthetic impacts may be deemed significant if the project would
result in the following adverse impacts::
• 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 following discussion addresses both the preceding City adopted significance thresholds
and the questions in the Environmental Checklist:
a) Will the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No impact. Ortega
Highway is a General Plan -designated scenic highway. However, the project will only provide for
Initial Study
Page 2
redevelopment of a previously -developed site in a developed portion of Ortega Highway which is
not a scenic vista area. Unscreened outdoor storage will be prohibited and no towers or antennas
are proposed. Also, the project is located such that there will be no obstruction of views of
General Plan -designated ridgelines.
b) Will the project substantially damage scenic resources? No impact. The existing trees on site
which will be removed for the new construction will be more than replaced by a larger number of
new trees, as shown on the preliminary landscape plan.
c) Will the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings? Less than significant impact. The site is in an area of existing development
and will not create a significant impact or change to the existing visual character of the
surrounding area. A new retaining wall will extend the existing wall along the freeway onramp to
the northwest corner of the property. The visual impact of this wall will be mitigated to a less -than -
significant impact by the use of keystone blocks and the planting of vines at the top and bottom of
the wall.
Also, the project is generally consistent with the City's Architectural Guidelines. The City's Design
Review Committee and Planning Commission are responsible for ensuring that project details are
consistent with the Guidelines.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? Less than significant impact. Although the project will introduce
new nighttime lighting, the project site is bounded by a freeway, a state highway, and
nonresidential uses on three sides. The single family home on the fourth side is located over 100
feet from the project boundary and will be shielded from the more intense canopy lighting by the
minimart building and carwash tunnel. (Also, the residential use will be replaced by nonresidential
development per the General Plan. An office project proposed for that site is presently being
reviewed by the City). Because of the buffering effect of the streets and the existing ambient light
from the streets, there will be no significant impact on offsite areas.
The submitted photometric plan shows maintained illuminance as shown in the following table:
The above lighting values are in conformance with the standards in applicable Section 9-3.529
of Title 9 (Land Use Code), as reproduced below:
"(A) General Parking and Pedestrian Areas. Unless determined by the Planning
Director, as stated in subsection (B) of this subsection, parking lot lighting within non-
residential districts shall meet the General Parking and Pedestrian Areas lighting
standards contained in Table 3-22. Maximum allowable lighting level shall be
determined by applying the uniformity ratio (maximum -to -minimum) contained in Table
3-22 to the minimum illuminance required by Table 3-22..."
Initial Study
Page 3
Maintained Illumination
fc
Average (fc)
4.7
Maximum (fc)
21.0
Minimum (fc)
1.1
Uniformity`Ratio max./mina
19.1:1
The above lighting values are in conformance with the standards in applicable Section 9-3.529
of Title 9 (Land Use Code), as reproduced below:
"(A) General Parking and Pedestrian Areas. Unless determined by the Planning
Director, as stated in subsection (B) of this subsection, parking lot lighting within non-
residential districts shall meet the General Parking and Pedestrian Areas lighting
standards contained in Table 3-22. Maximum allowable lighting level shall be
determined by applying the uniformity ratio (maximum -to -minimum) contained in Table
3-22 to the minimum illuminance required by Table 3-22..."
Initial Study
Page 3
"Table 3-22
Maintained Horizontal Illuminance for Parking Lots
Open Parking Facilities
❑
General Parking & Pedestrian Areas
Enhanced Security Areas
❑ ❑
Minimum
Uniformity
Minimum ^
Minimum
Uniformity
Minimum
Horizontal
Ratio
Vertical
Horizontal
Ratio
Vertical
Illuminance
(Maximum-
Illuminance***
Illuminance'
(Maximum-
Illuminance***
(lux)*
to-
(lux)*
to -
Minimum)"
Minimum)**::
Minimum)**',
aintained
2 lux/0.2 fc
20:1
1 lux/0.1 fc
5 lux/0.5 fc'
15.1
2.5 lux/0.25 fc'
luminance
[Va
lues
fc=footcandle
*Measured
on the parking surface, without any shadowing effect from parked vehicles
or trees/columns at the points of measurement.
** 'The
highest horizontal illuminance point divided by the lowest horizontal illuminance
point
or area should not be greater than the values shown.
r'___[Measured
at 5 feet above parking surface at the point of lowest horizontal
illuminance, excluding facing outward along boundary."
The above information shows that the project will not exceed significance thresholds with
respect to light and glare impacts.
Thus, the project will not exceed significance thresholds and will not have a significant impact on the
environment with respect to aesthetics.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant Unless Significant Impact SOURCES*
IMPACT CATEGORY Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
* See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the Calif. Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1,2
❑ ❑
❑
0
1,2
❑ ❑
❑
0
1,2
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. The City's adopted significance thresholds and the Environmental
Checklist provide that an agricultural resource impact may be deemed significant if the project would
result in the following:
Initial Study
Page 4
a) Will the project convert farmland to non-agricultural use? No impact. The project site is not
located within an agricultural area.
b) Will the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act
contract? No impact. See (a) above.
c) Will the project involve other changes which could result in conversion of farmland, to
non-agricultural use? No impact. See (a) above.
Thus, the project will not exceed significance thresholds and will not have a significant impact on the
environment with respect to agricultural resources.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant Unless Significant Impact SOURCES*
IMPACT CATEGORY Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
* See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
111. AIR QUALITY.
Would the project:
a)
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
❑
❑
❑
Q
2,4
the applicable air quality plan?
b)
Violate any air quality standard or contribute
❑
❑
❑
0
2,4
to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c)
Result in a cumulatively considerable net
❑
❑
❑
0
2,4
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is in non -attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d)
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
❑
❑
Q
❑
2,4
pollutant concentrations?
e)
Create objectionable odors affecting a
❑
❑
0
❑
2,4
substantial number of people?
III. AIR QUALITY. 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 regulated air emissions (e.g. carbon monoxide) in close
proximity to schools, hospitals, senior housing, senior assisted living/congregate care facilities or
similar land uses; or
• involve animal storage, manure stockpiling, industrial processes, food processing or, similar uses
which consistently produce detectable, offensive odors.
The following discussion addresses both the preceding City adopted significance thresholds
and the questions in the EnvironmentalChecklist:
Initial Study
Page 5
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No impact. The
project will not cause significant air quality impacts because all impacts are below SCAQMD's
(Southern California Air Quality Management District) threshold of significance for all emission
categories (see table below).
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality
violation? No impact. See (a) above.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is in non -attainment? No impact. See (a) above.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than significant
impact. The proposed project will not cause significant short-term construction related air quality
impacts because standard dust control, watering, and other construction controls will be imposed.
Also, see (a) above.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than significant
impact. Vapor recovery nozzles on gas dispensers and other standard requirements will limit the
creation of objectionable odors to a less than significant level. Also, See (a) and (d) above.
Staff evaluated the project using the Urbemis 2002 program, 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, compared to SCAQMD's thresholds of significance:
Estimated Project Emissions; Mobile Assessment for Air Qualit Im
acts MAAQI
Pollutant
Emissions Ibs
Threshold lbs
% Threshold
Carbon monoxide (CO)
546.1
550
99.2%
Reactive Organic Comp.
(ROC)
37.7
55
68.5%
Nitrogen oxides (NOx)
50.2
55
912%
Sulphur oxides (SOx)
0.4
150
0.2%
Particulate matter (PM10)
39.1
150
26.0%
Lead
0.000
550
n.a.
The above table shows that the project will not result in significant impacts to air quality.
Thus, the project will not exceed significance thresholds and will not have a significant impact on
the environment with respect to air quality.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant Unless Significant Impact SOURCES*
IMPACT CATEGORY Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
* See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 1,2,4
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations or
by the California Dept. of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Initial Study
Page 6
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of ❑
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impeded the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted ❑
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
0
n
❑ 0 1,2,4
❑ 0 1,2,4
❑ 0 1,2,4
IV. 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 following discussion addresses both the preceding City adopted significance thresholds
and the questions in the EnvironmentalChecklist:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
"~ identified species? No impact. The proposed project is not located on a site or in an area with
significant biological resources. Further the project is proposed on a previously -developed site
with no existing natural vegetation which serves as primary habitat for animal species protected by
the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA).
Initial Study
Page 7
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less than
No
Significant
Unless
Significant
Impact
SOURCES*
IMPACT CATEGORY
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
* See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
❑
❑
❑
D 1,2,4
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
❑
❑
❑
0 1,2,4
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of ❑
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impeded the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted ❑
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
0
n
❑ 0 1,2,4
❑ 0 1,2,4
❑ 0 1,2,4
IV. 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 following discussion addresses both the preceding City adopted significance thresholds
and the questions in the EnvironmentalChecklist:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
"~ identified species? No impact. The proposed project is not located on a site or in an area with
significant biological resources. Further the project is proposed on a previously -developed site
with no existing natural vegetation which serves as primary habitat for animal species protected by
the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA).
Initial Study
Page 7
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other identified sensitive
natural community? No impact. See (a) above.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands? No impact. See (a)
above. Nor does the site contain areas under jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers
pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No impact. See (a) above. Nor will the
project 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.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance? No impact. See (a) above.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No impact. See (a) above.
Thus, the project will not exceed significance thresholds and will not have a significant impact on the
environment with respect to biological resources.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant Unless Significant Impact SOURCES*
IMPACT CATEGORY Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
I * See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1,3,4
significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1,3,4
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1,3,4
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1,3,4
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. City -adopted significance thresholds provide that cultural resource impacts
may be deemed significant if the project would:
• disturb paleontological resources; or,
• disturb archeological resources; or,
• 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
Initial Study
Page 8
• effect a site of City -documented historical significance to the Juaneho Band of Mission Indians; or,
• restrict existing religious or sacred uses.
The following discussion addresses both the preceding City adopted significance thresholds
and the questions in the EnvironmentalChecklist:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined
in Section 15064.5? No impact. The proposed project is not located on a site with significant
historical or cultural resources.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5? No impact. See (a) above.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature? No impact. See (a) above.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No
impact. See (a) above.
Thus, the project will not exceed significance thresholds and will not have a significant impact on the
environment with respect to cultural resources.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant Unless Significant Impact SOURCES*
IMPACT CATEGORY Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
* See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
❑
❑
Q
❑
1,2,4
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
❑
❑
Q
❑
1,2,4
iii) Seismic -related ground failure,
❑
❑
Q
❑
1,2,4
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
❑
❑
Q
❑
1,2,4
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
❑
❑
❑
Q
1,2,4
of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ❑ ❑ Q ❑ 1,2,4
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Initial Study
Page 9
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant Unless Significant Impact SOURCES*
IMPACT CATEGORY Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
* See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the project:
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in ❑ ❑ El ❑ 1,2,4
Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately ❑ ❑ ❑ Q n/a
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
VI. GEOLOGY & SOILS. The City's adopted significance thresholds provide that geologic impacts may be
deemed significant if the project would:
• be situated in an area of moderate or high risk potential for seismic ground shaking per the
General Plan Safety Element; or,
• be situated in an area of moderate or high risk potential for liquefaction per the General Plan
Safety Element; or,
• be situated within the potential area of effect associated with seiche, tsunami, or volcanic events;
or,
• be situated in an area of moderate or high risk potential for landslides per the General Plan Safety
Element; or,
• grade erosion -prone soils in areas subject to high winds or water flow (channel or sheet); or,
• bore, grade, cut, or construct on an otherwise stable land mass resulting in a reduction of bearing
capacity below minimum accepted engineering limits; or,
• be situated in an area of moderate or high risk potential for expansive/erosive soils per the
General Plan Safety Element; or,
• grade or develop within a General Plan -designated "major ridgeline", or a canyon, drainage swale,
steep slopes, floodplain, or significant rock outcropping.
The answer to all of the preceding questions, except liquefaction potential, is "no". The
following discussion addresses that potential and the questions in the
EnvironmentalChecklist:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects? Less than significant
impact. The proposed project is not located within a known or delineated earthquake fault zone. It
is, however, located in an area identified as having liquefaction potential. Building footings will be
designed to Uniform Building Code standards and will be engineered to compensate for potential
expansive soils. The new construction is not anticipated to cause increased adverse geological
exposure or risk to people or structures.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No impact. With standard dust and
erosion control methods during construction and the new landscaping, the new buildings and
hardscape will have no impact on soil erosion or loss of topsoil.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less than significant impact. See (a) above.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less than significant impact. The
Initial Study
Page 10
proposed project is located in an area identified as having moderate to high expansive soils.
Building footings will be designed to Uniform Building Code standards to compensate for potential
expansive soils. The project will not create a substantial risk to life or property.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No
impact. No septic tanks or alternate waste water disposal systems will be used.
Thus, the project will not exceed significance thresholds and will not have a significant impact on the
environment with respect to geology and soils.
Initial Study
Page 11
IMPACT CATEGORY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
SOURCES*
* See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
VII.
HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
Would the project:
a)
Create a significant hazard to the public or
❑
0
❑ ❑ 1,2,4
the environment through routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b)
Create a significant hazard to the public or
❑
0
❑ ❑ 1,2,4
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
c)
Emit hazardous emissions or handle
❑
0
❑ ❑ 1,2,4
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d)
Be located on a site which is included on a
❑
❑
❑ 0 1,2,4
list of hazardous materials sites which
complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e)
For a project within an airport land use plan
❑
❑
❑ 0 1,2,4
or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area?
f)
For a project within the vicinity of a private
❑
❑
❑ 0 1,2,4
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g)
Impair implementation of or physically
❑
❑
❑ 0 1,2,4
interfere with an adopted emergency
-
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Initial Study
Page 11
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant Unless Significant Impact SOURCES*
IMPACT CATEGORY Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
* See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
VII. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
Would the project:
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
❑ ❑ ❑ Q 1,2,4
VII. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. The City's adopted significance thresholds provide that
hazard impacts may be deemed significant if the project would:
• 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,
• be inconsistent with the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) emergency evacuation
plan; or,
• 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,.
• 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,
• not comply with the City's adopted fuel modification ordinance provisions.
The answer to all of the preceding questions, except that relating to service stations, is "no".
The following discussion addresses that potential and the questions in the
Env! ronmentalChecklist:
a) Create a significant hazard through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? Potentially significant impact unless mitigation incorporated. The proposed gas station
will include the dispensing of gasoline and other petroleum products within 300 feet of one
residence. The underground fuel tanks from the previous gas station on the site have been
removed and soil monitoring is being conducted. Therefore, the impact could be significant unless
the following mitigation measure is imposed:
Mitigation Measure VII -1: The new gas station shall incorporate the latest
Federal/State-approved and/or industry -approved
technology for petroleum delivery, storage,
handling and dispensing facilities and procedures
consistent with current state regulations.
b) Create a significant hazard involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment? Potentially significant impact unless mitigation incorporated. The proposed gas
station will include the dispensing of gasoline and other petroleum products which could result in
the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The same mitigation condition as
required under a) above shall apply.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous material,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Potentially
significant impact unless mitigation incorporated. The proposed gas station will include the
dispensing of gasoline and other petroleum products within one quarter mile of a potential
Initial Study
Page 12
preschool location (at South Coast Christian Assembly Church). The same mitigation condition as
required under a) above shall apply.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites? No impact.
-- The proposed project site is not included on a list of hazardous material sites.
e) Project within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport? No impact. The proposed project site is not located within an airport land use plan or
within two miles of an airport, public or private.
f) Project within the vicinity of private airstrip? No impact. The proposed project site is not
located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
evacuation plan? No impact. The proposed project will not impact nor be inconsistent with the
SONGS or other emergency response or evacuation plan.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires? No impact. The project site is not located within a wildland fire risk area.
With the mitigation measure identified above, the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment with respect to hazards and hazardous materials.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant Unless Significant Impact SOURCES*
IMPACT CATEGORY Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
* See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 1,2,4
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1,2,4
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1,2,4
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1,2,4
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of a course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on or off-site?
Initial Study
Page 13
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant Unless Significant Impact SOURCES*
IMPACT CATEGORY Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
* See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
e) Create or contribute runoff water which ❑ ❑ ❑ E l 1,2,4
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1,2,4
quality?
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1,2,4
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1,2,4
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1,2,4
risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1,2,4
VIII. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY. The City's adopted significance thresholds provide that water
resource impacts may be deemed significant if the project would:
• 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,
• be located in a designated 100 year special flood hazard area per FEMA Flood Insurance Rate
Maps or the project would obstruct or interfere with stream flows in such areas; or,
• 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,
• change the water surface elevations of ponds/lakes by at least one foot or the quantity (Q) of
water by at least 10%; or,
• move the alignment or modify the channel geometrics of existing an "blueline" stream.
• change the quantity of groundwater, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or by
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations; or,
• alter the direction or rate of flow of groundwater; or,
• likely result in conditions which violate groundwater quality standards established by the San
Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB); or,
• use at least 5% of existing estimated groundwater capacity as determined by the San Diego
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB); or,
• result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters considering water quality
parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical stormwater
pollutants (e.g. heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment,
nutrients, oxygen -demanding substances, and trash); or,
• result in significant alternation of receiving water quality during or following construction; or,
• result in increased erosion downstream; or,
Initial Study
Page 14
• result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff; or,
• change in runoff flow rates or volumes; or,
• tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list,
and increase any pollutant for which the water body is already impaired; or,
• tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas, and exacerbate already existing sensitive
conditions; or,
• have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water quality to either marine, fresh,
or wetland waters; or,
• have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality; and,
• cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality
objectives or degradation of beneficial uses; and,
• impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat; or,
• impact stormwater runoff from construction or post construction; or,
• result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle
or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling,
hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work
areas; or,
• result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving
waters; or,
• create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff; or,
• create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas?
The following discussion addresses both the preceding City adopted significance thresholds
and the questions in the Environmental Checklist:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Significant impact
unless mitigation incorporated. The proposed project will adhere to all water quality standards and
discharge requirements. More specifically, in order to ensure that all water quality impacts are
reduced to a less -than -significant level, the following condition shall be imposed:
Mitigation Measure VIII -1: A Water Quality Management Program; in
conformance with state and federal requirements
shall be prepared by the applicant, approved by the
City, and implemented.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge? No impact. The project site is not in a groundwater recharge area. Moreover, the site
was previously used as a gas station and is therefore already substantially paved. The amount of
additional impermeable surface due to the present project will be minor.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, resulting in erosion or
siltation? No impact. The site will continue to drain to Ortega Highway and, due to the carwash
recycling facilities and the required Water Quality Management Program, increases in runoff will
be minimal.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, resulting in flooding on -
or off-site? No impact. See (c) above.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
No impact. See (c) above.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No impact. See (a) above.
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area?
J No impact. The proposed project does not include housing and is not within a 100 -year flood
hazard area.
Initial Study
Page 15
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
No impact. The project site is not within a 100 -year flood hazard area.
Q Expose people of structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
No impact. The project site is not within a 100 -year flood hazard area nor in an area which could
be affected by the failure of a levee or dam.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No impact. The project site is not located within an area susceptible to seiche, tsunami or
mudflow.
With the mitigation measure identified above, the project will not have a significant impact on
the environment with respect to hydrology and water quality.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant Unless Significant Impact SOURCES*
IMPACT CATEGORY Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
* See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING.
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 1,2,3
community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 1,2,3,4,5
policy, or regulation of an agency, with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 1,2,3
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
IX. LAND USE. The City's adopted significance thresholds provide that a land use impact may be deemed
significant if the project would:
• not be a permitted or conditional use within the Zoning classification or proposes a General Plan,
or Zoning Map designation which is inconsistent with the General Plan or Land Use Code
consistency matrix; or,
• conflict with adopted environmental plans/policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project; or,
• include a General Plan Amendment or zone change to change the designation of a parcel from
one major category to another (major categories include residential, open space and recreation,
commercial, industrial, and institutional); or,
• convert an amount of agricultural acreage so that less than 20 acres or 50% of the original
acreage remained; or,
• propose a physical barrier including an arterial street, utility corridor, open drainage way, or similar
feature.
The answer to all of the preceding questions is "no". The following discussion addresses the questions
in the EnvironmentalChecklist:
Initial Study
Page 16
a) Physically divide an established community?
No impact. The project is on an existing site and no roads or other barriers are proposed which
would divide an established community.
- b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation?
No impact. The project is consistent with the existing "General Commercial" land use designation
and, if the conditional use permit is approved, will be consistent with the "GC" (General
Commercial) Zoning Map/Land Use Code designation.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan?
No impact. The project site is not located within an area subject to habitat conservation or natural
community conservation plans.
Thus, the project will not exceed significance thresholds and will not have a significant impact
on the environment with respect to land use.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant Unless Significant Impact SOURCES*
IMPACT CATEGORY Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
* See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 1,2
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 1,2
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. 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.
The following discussion addresses both the preceding City adopted significance thresholds
and the questions in the Environmental Checklist:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource?
No impact. The project site is not located within an area of known mineral resources. Also, the
project will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans or use non-renewable resources in
an inefficient manner and will incorporate "green" energy design features where practicable.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site?
No impact. See (a) above.
Thus, the project will not exceed significance thresholds and will not have a significant impact
on the environment with respect to mineral resources.
Initial Study
Page 17
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant Unless Significant Impact SOURCES*
IMPACT CATEGORY Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
* See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
XI. NOISE.
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 1,2,3,4
❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 1,2,4
❑ ❑
0
❑
1,2,4
❑ ❑
Q
❑
1,4
❑ ❑ ❑ 0 n/a
XI. NOISE. The City's adopted significance thresholds provide that noise impacts may be deemed
significant if the project would:
• 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,
• result in noise levels which exceed the standards established by the General Plan's Noise
Element.
The following discussion addresses both the preceding City adopted significance thresholds
and the questions in the Environmental Checklist:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of established standards?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project will not produce, or cause to be produced,
noise levels in excess of the standards established by the City of San Juan Capsitrano General
Plan. Construction noise will be confined to the limited construction period. Also, construction
noise impacts on the nearest sensitive receptors, the home to the north, will be overridden by the
exisiting ambient noise produced by the freeway.
Initial Study
Page 18
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive goundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
Less than significant impact. Any vibration produced by construction activity will be relatively small
and transitory because of the small scale of the project .
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels without the project?
Less than significant impact. Any noise generated by the operation of the new gas station will be
overridden by the ambient noise from the freeway.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing
without the project?
Less than significant impact. See (a) above.
e) Project within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport?
No impact. The project is not located within an airport planning zone or within two miles of a public
or private airport.
f) Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip?
No impact. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Thus, the project will not exceed significance thresholds and will not have a significant impact
on the environment with respect to noise.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant Unless Significant Impact SOURCES*
IMPACT CATEGORY Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 1,2,3
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 1,2,3
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ❑ RI 1,2,3
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
XII. POPULATION & HOUSING. The City's adopted significance thresholds provide that population and
housing impacts may be deemed significant if the project would:
exceed population projections established by the General Plan Land Use Element.; or,
exceed population projections for a project site based on General Plan designations; or
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.
Initial Study
Page 19
The following discussion addresses both the preceding City adopted significance thresholds
and the questions in the Environmental Checklist:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly?
Less than significant impact. The project will re-establish a gas station on the property and will
add a minimart and carwash. The small number of employees associated with these uses will not
measurably increase population in the area, either directly or indireclty.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing?
No impact. No housing will be displaced by the proposed project.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
No impact. The proposed project will not displace people.
Thus, the project will not exceed significance thresholds and will not have a significant impact on the
environment with respect to population and housing.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant Unless Significant Impact SOURCES*
IMPACT CATEGORY Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
* See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
government facilities, need for new or
physically altered government facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the
following public services:
Fire protection? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 1,2,4
Police protection? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 1,2,4
Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1,2,4
Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1,2,4
Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1,2,4
XIII. 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 following discussion addresses both the preceding City adopted significance thresholds
and the questions in the Environmental Checklist:
a) Fire Protection?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project will re-establish a gas station on the site, which
will cause an incremental increase in demand for fire protection. The site is within one mile of an
existing fire station.
Initial Study
Page 20
b) Police protection?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project will re-establish a gas station on the site, which
will cause an incremental increase in demand for police protection.
c) Schools?
No impact. The proposed project is not residential and will not increase population or school
enrollment in the area.
d) Parks?
No impact. The proposed project will not induce population increases in the area. Therefore, park
facilities and services will not be impacted.
e) Other public facilities?
No impact. The proposed project will not induce population increases in the area. Therefore, other
public facilities will not be impacted.
Thus, the project will not exceed significance thresholds and will not have a significant impact
on the environment with respect to public services.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant Unless Significant Impact SOURCES*
IMPACT CATEGORY Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
* See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction of or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
XIV. RECREATION.
The following discussion addresses the questions in the Environmental Checklist:
1,2
1,2
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities?
No impact. The project will not induce population increases. Therefore, demand for and use of
park facilities and services will not increase.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion
of recreational facilities? No impact. The project does not include recreational facilities nor will it
require an expansion of recreational facilities.
Thus, the project will not exceed significance thresholds and will not have a significant impact
on the environment with respect to recreation.
Initial Study
Page 21
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1,2,4
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1,2,4
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1,2,4
programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bike racks)?
XV. TRANSPORTATION. The City's adopted significance thresholds provide that transportation
impacts may be deemed significant if the project would:
• generate traffic resulting in at least a 1% increase in peak hour ICU at signalized intersections;
and/or, a 1.0 second delay increase at un -signalized intersections; and/or, a 1 % increase in street
link average daily traffic (ADT) vehicle -capacity (v/c) ratio; or,
• reduce intersection levels of service on primary/secondary arterials to a level below the minimum
established by the General Plan Growth Management Element; or,
• 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,
• increase traffic in areas with statistically -significant, higher than average accident rates; or,
• convert existing parking to an alternate use or requires additional parking and does not meet Title
9 parking standards; or,
• create barriers to non -motorists (e.g. pedestrians, bikes, etc.); or,
• conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation; or,
• create rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts?
The following discussion addresses both the preceding City adopted significance thresholds
and the questions in the Environmental Checklist:
Initial Study
Page 22
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less than
No
Significant
Unless
Significant
Impact
SOURCES*
IMPACT CATEGORY
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
* See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
XV.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project:
a)
Cause an increase in traffic which is
❑
0
❑
❑ 1,2,4,6
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b)
Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a
❑
❑
0
❑ 1,2,4,6
level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c)
Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
❑
❑
❑
0 1,2,4
including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d)
Substantially increase hazards due to a design
❑
❑
0
❑ 1,2,4
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1,2,4
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1,2,4
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1,2,4
programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bike racks)?
XV. TRANSPORTATION. The City's adopted significance thresholds provide that transportation
impacts may be deemed significant if the project would:
• generate traffic resulting in at least a 1% increase in peak hour ICU at signalized intersections;
and/or, a 1.0 second delay increase at un -signalized intersections; and/or, a 1 % increase in street
link average daily traffic (ADT) vehicle -capacity (v/c) ratio; or,
• reduce intersection levels of service on primary/secondary arterials to a level below the minimum
established by the General Plan Growth Management Element; or,
• 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,
• increase traffic in areas with statistically -significant, higher than average accident rates; or,
• convert existing parking to an alternate use or requires additional parking and does not meet Title
9 parking standards; or,
• create barriers to non -motorists (e.g. pedestrians, bikes, etc.); or,
• conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation; or,
• create rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts?
The following discussion addresses both the preceding City adopted significance thresholds
and the questions in the Environmental Checklist:
Initial Study
Page 22
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system? Potentially significant impact unless mitigated. Based on the
traffic analysis/trip generation analysis completed by Darnell & Associates, the City's traffic
consultant for the project, the City found that the project would generate vehicle trips as shown in
the following table from the traffic report:
TABLE 1
MITIGATED NEAR TERM INTERSECTION SUMMARY
HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL HCM METHODOLOGY
TRIP GENERATION RATES & CALCULATIONS
Existing+Project Near Term Cumulative
(With Project Mitigation) ith Cumulative Mitigation)
Rates
PM
In Out
HCM 34.5 46.8 45.0
46.1
Gas Station w/Convenience and
D
Direct: NBL
Cumulative: NBL, EBT, EBL
Ra UUMN
Carwash
ADT 162.78_
43.5
0.5 0.5
D
Direct: SBL
AM 10.06
s.,
0.5 0.5
(Code 945)
HCM n/a n/a
42.3
PM 13.38
LOS n1a n/a
D
D
Direct: (None)
Cumulative: WBT, NBL
Pass -by Reduction
ADT Less
Ortega Highway/Ave. Cerritos
50%
9.7
24.8
LOS 8 C
AM _(Less)_
_
61%
Cumulative: Signalize
PM Less
56
NBL=Northbound left; EBT=Eastbound through; WBR=Westbound right; SBL=Southbound left etc.
The Growth Management Element establishes a minimum intersection LOS of D
AM
PM
Land Use
Densi ADT Total
In
Out Total
In
Out
DRIVEWAY TOTALS
Gas Station wlConv. and Carwash 12 1 1953 1 121
61
60 161
81
80
PASS -BY REDUCTION
Gas Station w/Conv, and Carwash 12 1 �9771 1 g4
37)37
90
45
45
NET TRAFFIC INCREASE
Gas Station wlConv. and Carwash 12 1 977 1 47
24
23 71
36
35
Number rounding may occur in spreadsheet background
Trip Generation Rates p2r ITE 7th Edition
Based on the estimated trip generation, the traffic report determined that there would be
significant traffic impacts at four intersections. However, with traffic mitigation improvements
which will be required of the project (and of other projects determined to have impacts at the
same locations), the impacts will be reduced to a level below significance. These findings are
summarized in the following table from the report:
TABLE 7
MITIGATED NEAR TERM INTERSECTION SUMMARY
HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL HCM METHODOLOGY
Existing+Project Near Term Cumulative
(With Project Mitigation) ith Cumulative Mitigation)
intersection AM PM AM
PM
Ortega HwylRancho Viejo
HCM 34.5 46.8 45.0
46.1
LOS D D D
D
Direct: NBL
Cumulative: NBL, EBT, EBL
Ra UUMN
Ortega Hwy/1-5 SB
HCM 37.3 49.0 36.5
43.5
LOS D D D
D
Direct: SBL
Cumulative: SBL, WBL, EBR
s.,
Ortega Hwy/1-5 NB
HCM n/a n/a
42.3
43.5
LOS n1a n/a
D
D
Direct: (None)
Cumulative: WBT, NBL
Ortega Highway/Ave. Cerritos
HCM 14.7 20.4
9.7
24.8
LOS 8 C
A
C
Direct: Signalize
Cumulative: Signalize
HCM=Highway Capacity Manual value (using SYNCHRO); LOS=Level of Service per SYNCHRO
Direct --Analysis with Direct project improvements; Cumulative=Analysis with Cumulative improvements
NBL=Northbound left; EBT=Eastbound through; WBR=Westbound right; SBL=Southbound left etc.
The Growth Management Element establishes a minimum intersection LOS of D
Initial Study
Page 23
Mitigation Measure XV -1: The project shall provide for the direct traffic
improvements listed in the table above and shall
pay its fair -share toward improvements to mitigate
the project's contribution to cumulative traffic
impacts in accordance with the Traffic Study for
the project (Darnell & Associates).
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less than
significant impact. The proposed project does not impact any County-designatied congestion
management intersections.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns that result in substantial safety risks? No impact.
The proposed project will not affect air traffic patterns or levels.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? Less than
significant impact. The proposed project will not change the existing street pattern and the use is
compatible with the location and street access. Also, access will be taken from Avenida Los
Cerritos and not directly to Ortega Highway. Los Cerritos will be signalized and/or restricted to
right turn only to ensure safe ingress and egress.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No impact. The proposed project will provide safe
emergency and other access to the site via Avenida los Cerritos and Ortega Highway.
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No impact. The proposed project will provide sufficient
parking in accordance with the City's Land Use Code.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation?
No impact. The proposed project will not conflict with transportation plans and will not affect
alternative transportation access via Ortega Highway, such as public bus transportation and
bicycle access.
With the mitigation measure identified above, the project will not have a significant impact on
the environment with respect to transportation and traffic.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant Unless Significant Impact SOURCES*
IMPACT CATEGORY Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
* See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements ❑ ❑ E1 ❑ 1,4
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new ❑ ❑ El ❑ 1,4
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 1,4
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
effects?
Initial Study
Page 24
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to ❑ ❑ ❑ El 1,4
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 1,4
treatment provider, which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1,4
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 1,4
and regulation related to solid waste?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
The following discussion addresses the questions in the Environmental Checklist. Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project will incorporate water recycling system for the
carwash. It will therefore incrementally increase wastewater generation and will not exceed the
wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board nor
generate a need for additional wastewater treatment capacity, sewer facilities, water supplies, or
solid waste landfill capacity.
b) Require or result in the construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment
facilities? Less than significant impact. See (a) above.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project will marginally increase water runoff by the
replacement of landscaped open area with impermeable building roofs and hardscape. The small
increase will not require the construction of new storm drainage facilities.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources,? No impact. See (a) above.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
No impact. See (a) above.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's
solid waste disposal needs?
No impact. See (a) above.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste?
No impact. See (a) above.
Initial Study
Page 25
Thus, the project will not exceed significance thresholds and will not have a significant impact
on the environment with respect to utilities and service systems.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than No
Significant Unless Significant Impact SOURCES*
IMPACT CATEGORY Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
* See Source References at the end of this Checklist.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to ❑ ❑ ❑ R1 1-4
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of a
major period of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 1-4
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1-4
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more
effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (CEQA Guidelines Section
15063). For the present project, no significant impacts have been identified and no earlier analyses apply.
XIX. SOURCE REFERENCES.
The following enumerated sources of information were utilized in the preparation of the environmental analysis
and are available either at the locations cited below. (Note: Reference No. 1 denotes a physical inspection and
therefore is not in the form of a written document).
1. Visits to project site by Larry Lawrence, consulting project planner for the City of San Juan Capistrano.
2. Preliminary project site, landscaping, architectural, and grading plans.
3. City of San Juan Capistrano: General Plan (December 1999).*
4. City of San Juan Capistrano: General Plan Environmental Impact Report (December 1999).*
5. City of San Juan Capistrano: Land Use Code (Title 9 of Municipal Code) and Official Zoning Map.*
6. Darnell & Associates: "Traffic study for Ortega Highway Gas Station".
*Available at City of San Juan Capistrano City Hall, 32400 Paseo Adelanto, San Juan Capistrano,
CA 92675.
Initial Study
Page 26
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Potentially significant impacts were found in the areas of "Hazards and Hazardous Materials" and
"Hydrology and Water Quality". However, these potential impacts will be reduced to a level below
significance by the mitigation measures identified. Otherwise, "No Impact' and "No Significant Impact"
responses were given in all categories, as supported by the findings in each category under "Discussion of
Enviironmental Evaluation". The information given shows that the project will not have impacts under any of
the Mandatory Findings of Significance above.
15. PREPARATION. The initial study for the subject project was prepared by:
b
aryl en6e, Consulting Project Planner f to
16. DETERMINATION. On the basis of this initial evaluation:
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 on the attached sheets have been added to the
project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
- I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the
environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described
on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑
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
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project. ❑
17. DE MINIMIS FEE DETERMINATION (Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990 -AB 3158)
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.
Initial Study
Page 27
18. ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINATION (Section 9-2.201 of SJC Municipal
Code): The initial study for this project has been reviewed and the environmental determination,
preceding, is hereby approved:
Date: b 00ET
Willf6m Ramsey, AICP, Environmen dministrator
CADocuments and Settings\SJC - Ortega Gas\Environmental Documents\ac0403-CEQA-IS-2004septl5-fiinal.doc
Initial Study
Page 28
INITIAL STUDY ATTACHMENT A: VICINITY MAP
PROJECT LOCATION
o
,DEL o Btspo
VICII TY MAP
INITIAL STUDY ATTACHMENT B: SITE/GRADING PLAN
N74- 416- E 231 6''\'6a
Jt VAR1ES`,+2:1 MAX
6.6
1 7.0 BW 1 �Ag 30'
�� •� ��G ( / ;: •� ,.151 ; �G1 � .� , f I
15$, 5a✓
FF,z 149.5
�\ ! 15-
p \cp
46.0�TW
29.0 4� t
w "' �, no Iff
All !
r
00
Aa v - ,o
1�. ���•. � ice. :, � .t.j.\ ..:,t v
\
EXISTIN� p" WAiE
'PIPELINE SEMENT
r EXISTING 14'WATER
G RETAIN! WALL l
_ N 69°45'53' E 137.12'
LIMITS OF GRADING
EXISTIN9 8" WATER
-N 691, 53" -------_
-PROPOSED STORM DRAIN 3 .01'
- EXISITING INLET
r
EXISTING 12"WATER
ORTEGA HIGHWAY
EXISTING 4" WA T0
,
- - ,
�- - - ----- EXISTING 8" SEWER