The URL can be used to link to this page

PC Resolution-14-10-28-01PC RESOLUTION NO. 14-10-28-01 CODE AMENDMENT (CA) 14-004 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE CODE SECTION 9- 3.305 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS "COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURING" DISTRICT TO ALLOW KENNELS SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Whereas, Phillip Schwartze of PRS Group, 31103 Rancho Viejo Rd. D-2260, San Juan Capistrano, CA, representative of Zuri Pet Spa, has requested approval of Code Amendment (CA) 14-004 to amend the to the Land Use Code Section 9-3.305 Industrial Districts "Commercial Manufacturing" district to allow kennels subject to a Conditional Use Permit, and a Conditional Use Permit for a commercial kennel at 32421 Calle Perfecto; Whereas, Calle Perfecto Business Park, 32403 Calle Perfecto, is the owner of real property located at 32421 Calle Perfecto (APN: 668-501-07); and, Whereas, the proposed project has been processed pursuant to Section 9- 2.301, Development Review of the Land Use Code; and, Whereas, the Environmental Administrator has reviewed the initial study prepared pursuant to Section 15063 and 15064 of the CEQA Guidelines, has issued a negative declaration pursuant to Section 15070 of those guidelines; has caused a Notice of Negative Declaration to be posted pursuant to Section 15072 of those guidelines, and has otherwise complied with all applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (1970); and all mitigation measures have been included herein; and, Whereas, the Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Administrator's determination pursuant to Section 1507 4 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has considered all project environmental documentation; and, Whereas, the Planning Commission conducted a duly-noticed public hearing on October 28, 2014 pursuant to Title 9, Land Use Code, Section 9-2.302 to consider public testimony on the proposed project and has considered all relevant public comments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San Juan Capistrano does hereby make the following findings with respect to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Negative Declaration (NO): Whereas, the Planning Commission finds on the basis of the evidence presented and the whole record before it, including the negative declaration, and comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that the proposed project will have a significant effect on the environment; and, PC Resolution 14-10-28-01 2 October 28, 2014 Whereas, the Planning Commission further finds that the recommendation of adoption of the negative declaration reflects the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis; and, Whereas, the record of proceedings on which the Planning Commission's decision is based is located at City Hall for the City of San Juan Capistrano, located at 32400 Paseo Adelanto, San Juan Capistrano, California and the custodian of record of proceedings is the Development Services Department Administrative Specialist; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San Juan Capistrano does hereby make the following findings with respect to Title 9, Land Use Code of the City of San Juan Capistrano with respect to Code Amendment (CA) 14-004: (1) The proposed Land Use Code Amendment conforms with General Plan Policy 1.1 because the amendment assists in providing a balance between the generation of public revenues and the cost of providing public facilities and services, and General Plan Policy 1.2 because the amendment encourages commercial and industrial development that is compatible with existing land uses within the City to improve the generation of sales tax. (2) The proposed Land Use Code amendment is necessary to implement the General Plan and to provide public convenience because the locations which a commercial kennel can be located are limited and in many cases inappropriate for the use, where as the Commercial Manufacturing district locations offer more appropriate opportunities for locations convenient to the public. (3) The proposed Land Use Code amendment conforms with the intent of the Development Code because the commercial kennel use is consistent with the Commercial Manufacturing district purpose of permitting light industrial and manufacturing uses, including those allowed in the Industrial Park designations, and allows variety of regional and sub-regional commercial activities. ( 4) The proposed Land Use Code amendment is reasonable and beneficial at this time because additional commercial kennel locations will continue to be requested as the City continues to develop residential properties increasing the population of the City and the public continues to own pets. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San Juan Capistrano hereby recommends approval of a negative declaration, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San Juan Capistrano hereby recommends approval of the project subject to the text established for the Commercial Manufacturing district by Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein. PC Resolution 14-10-28-01 3 October 28, 2014 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of October, 2014. Sheldon Cohen, Chairman ~///7-::·~ // / -t?b<: / / C:ari;s··~~ D~;lopment Services Director Secretary POSTED FILED SEP 1 2 2014 SEP 1 2 2014 HUGH NGUYEN, CLERK-RECORDER ~ DEPUTY BY: __ ____:rl-::,_....,:...'7 __ _ HUGH NGUYEN, CLERK-RECORDER BY:. ____ ~-J.f--.:__ __ DEPUTY NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION From: Development Services Department 32400 Paseo Adelanto San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 Subject: Code Amendment (CA) 14-004: Code Amendment to amend the Title 9 of the Municipal Code specifically section 9-3.305 Industrial Districts to allow commercial kennels subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), whereas the Commercial Manufacturing (CM) zoning district does not currently permit the Kennel use. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of San Juan Capistrano has prepared and intends to adopt a Negative Declaration in connection with the subject Code Amendment because it was found that the proposed amendment could not have a significant effect on the environment. The City's decision to prepare a Negative Declaration should not be construed as a recommendation of either approval or denial of this project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Consideration of Code Amendment (CA) 14-004; permitting commercial Kennels in the Commercial Manufacturing (CM) zoning district subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: the public review period is from Friday, September 12, 2014 to Wednesday, October 1, 2014. PROJECT MANAGER: Laura Stokes, Housing Coordinator/Assistant Planner; phone: (949) 443- 6313; e-mail: lstokes@sanjuancapistrano.org; Fax number: (949) 661-5451; Mailing address: Development Services Department, 32400 Paseo Adelanto, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the City invites members of the general public to review and comment on this environmental documentation. Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to the project manager. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department located in City Hall at 32400 Paseo Adelanto. The City's Planning Commission and City Council will conduct public hearings at future dates to be determined. You will receive a separate public notice for those hearings. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised during the public review period on the proposed Negative Declaration (NO) or at the future public hearings. r-', ! \ i \ ~ YJmtiti etivtfA£;ttft By order of David Contrer91's Environmental Administrator EXHIBIT A INITIAL STUDY city of san juan capistrano california fLED SEP 1 2 2014 HUGH NGUYEN, ClERK-RECORDER BY: /'f}t --..c;;~:r::f---!=._ ___ IDEPUTY 1. PROJECT: Code Amendment (CA) 14-004, amending Title 9, Land Use Code of the City of San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code, Section 9-3.305, Commercial Manufacturing zoning district addressing Kennels. 2. LEAD AGENCY: City of San Juan Capistrano 3. CONTACT PERSON & PHONE: Laura Stokes, Housing Coordinator I Assistant Planner, 32400 Paseo Adelanto, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675, (949) 443-6313, lstokes@sanjuancapistrano.org 4. PROJECT LOCATION: City-wide, specifically the Commercial Manufacturing Districts. 5. APPLICANT: Zuri Pet Spa & Resort c/o PRS Group, Phillip Schwartze 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: City-wide, specifically properties that are land use designated 4.1 Quasi-Industrial. 7. ZONING: City-wide, specifically the Commercial Manufacturing (CM) district. 8. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An ordinance amending Title 9, Land Use Code of the City of San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code, specifically Section 9-3.305, Commercial Manufacturing zoning district addressing Kennels and to allow commercial kennels subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), whereas the Commercial Manufacturing district does not currently permit the Kennel use. 9. SURROUNDING LAND USE(S} & PROJECT SETTING: Not applicable. 10. OTHER REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS: None 11. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: None 12. CONSULTATION: A. Federal, State, and Other Local Agencies: Not Applicable B. City of San Juan Capistrano Charles View, Development Services Director Sergio Klotz, Assistant Development Services Director David Contreras, Senior Planner 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, Architectural Design Guidelines. P -:--~7"E·· ~ .. . ,,~,..·· ~ -u SEP 12 2G14 HUGH NGUYEN, CLERI<·RECOROER BYL, :;Jff: DEPUTY 13. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages: D Aesthetics D Biological Resources D Hazards & Hazardous Mats. D Agricultural Resources D Cultural Resources D Hydrology & Water Quality D Air Quality D Geology & Soils D Land Use & Planning Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 0 Mineral Resources 0 Public Services 0 Utilities & Service Systems -2-City of San Juan Capistrano, California 0 Noise 0 Population & Housing 0 Recreation 0 Transportation & Traffic 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 14. DETERMINATION. (To be completed by lead agency) Based on this initial evaluation: til 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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. 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, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 15. ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINATION {Section 9-2.201 of SJC Municipal Code): The initial study for this project has been reviewed and the environmental determination is hereby approved: Dav1 Contreras, Senior Plan er Environmental Administrator 16. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Date ' f This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts which may result from the proposed project. For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist (Section 2) are stated and answers are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis considers the project's short-term impacts (construction-related), and its operational or day-to-day impacts. For each question, the following should be provided: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the pr.oject will not expose sensitive receptors t~~~~~ ~Efi..,. on a project-specific screening analfsj. F 1 L E D , P U ;::::, I t: U SEP 1.~ 2014 SEP 1 2 2014 HUGH NGUYEN, CLERK-RECORDER HUGH NGUYEN, CLERK-RECORDER ~/1 DEPUTY DEPUrllY: ___ 'CH..L-.:.....!..--- Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -3-City of San Juan Capistrano, California as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the City has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Include a source list and list of individuals contacted or consulted. 8) This form is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and all Initial Studies performed on projects within the city must use this format. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify, a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -4-City of San Juan Capistrano, California ~ "' ,-r=Cc::~ 'E 1> -c: ..... tV 1'0 0 !,.,. "' .. ~~tJ .c u ·-0 ~~ 0.. "c::" ~!E~e-.E ~&.§ fll c: ·-0 §,c.. j·~iE <n.E 0 z 16.1 AESTHETICS. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? D D D [ZJ b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building along a State-D D D [ZJ designated scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site D D D [ZJ and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would D D D [ZJ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. No physical changes are proposed as a part of this project; therefore, there will be no potential for effects on a scenic vista. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a state scenic highway? No Impact. No physical changes are proposed. No scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings are situated on-site. In addition, the project site is not situated within a state scenic highway. Impacts are not anticipated in this regard. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? No Impact. Refer to Responses 14.1 a and 14.1 b, above. d) Create a new source of substantia/light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. The proposed project would create no new significant source of lighting. Title 9, Land Use Code requires that all lighting use shielded luminaries with glare control to prevent light spillover onto adjacent areas. The project would have no impact j "" ,.,-c:cr:.; c c:: t> -c:: ~ -~-ttt 1'1:1 0 I.. "'"' .. t=~~g_ s.go a. ; ~ ~ IJ) ·-0'1 1... ~ '§, [ .E -"'a. w t: ·-0 ~cn.E ~·~~ E " ·-E 0 ...J<f)_ z 16.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance as depicted on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland D D D [ZJ Mapping and Monitoring Program of the CA. Resources Agency? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act D D D [ZJ Contract? c. Conflicts with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220 (g), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned D D D [ZJ Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51101(g)? d. Results in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-D D D [ZJ forest use? Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -5-City of San Juan Capistrano, California j ., ,.,-ccc:.; t; -c: c: c:: .. "' (\1: t'IJ 0 '-"' .. "' ::g!Eu ~.g~ g_ ;~~ a. "' c:: ., w ·-en ,_ .E -0'> a. (I) c: ·-0 0 &. 0.. ~u;.§ ~·~~ £ ~Ui.E 0 z e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-D D D t?SI agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland}, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. Designated land uses within the project area do not include agricultural uses and project implementation would not result in conversion of existing farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, the project does not affect an agricultural resource area and thus does not impact designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The proposed project is located in an area zoned for commercial manufacturing; agricultural designations do not occur within the project area and no Williamson Act contracts apply. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in any conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. c) Conflicts with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220 (g), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526}, or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51101 (g)? No Impact. As previously stated, the proposed project area is not located within an agricultural area. Thus, implementation of this project would not result in changes in the environment, which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. d) Results in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. No forest land is proposed to be lost or converted. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. As previously stated, the proposed project area is not located within an agricultural area. Thus, implementation of this project would not result in changes in the environment, which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. j "0 ,.,-~ t:: r: t; -t: ~ '" "' ., "' " ·.;::: .~-0 ;~~ 0.. ; ~ ~ ~ e-.E 0 ~ _§, ~ -'"0.. (.) 0 ci:u;.E ""' ..Jlf)_ z 16.3 AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a, Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality D D D [8] plan? b. Violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected D D D [8] air quality violation? C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under the applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including D D D [8] releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -6-City of San Juan Capistrano, California ~ "0 ,.,~ C:'Ec:~ -t; -t: "c: iii" ~ ~ .Q 5 ., .. "' E!E~ :S~o a. ~:E~e-~-~[ .E ,!1; §, 0.. f/) c: ·-0 o ·-E j -~i .5 "·-E 0 "-"'-...l(J)_ z d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? D D D ~ e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? D D D ~ a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is governed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). A consistency determination is important in local agency project review by comparing local planning projects to the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in several ways. It fulfills the CEQA goal of fully informing local agency decision makers of the environmental costs of the project under consideration at a stage early enough to ensure that air quality concerns are addressed. Only new or significant amendments to General Plan elements, Specific Plans and significantly unique projects need to go under a consistency review due to the AQMP strategy being based on projections from local General Plans. The proposed Code Amendment is a change to land use provisions which would not create significant air quality impacts. Therefore, projects that are consistent with the local General Plan and do not create significant air quality impacts are considered consistent with the air quality-related regional plan. Because the proposed Project is consistent with the goals of the City of San Juan Capistrano General Plan, and would not produce long-term significant quantities of criteria pollutants or violate ambient air quality standards, the proposed Project is considered to be consistent with the AQMP and a more detailed consistency analysis is not warranted. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? No Impact. Because the proposed project consists of a proposed amendment to the land use provisions, the project would not directly or indirectly result in any air quality emissions. Furthermore, the development of new structures in the District to accommodate commercial land uses would require discretionary review which would be subject to project-specific CEQA review. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? No Impact. Refer to Responses a and b. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. Sensitive populations (i.e., children, senior citizens and acutely or chronically ill people) are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than are the general population. Land uses considered sensitive receptors typically include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, hospitals, convalescent homes, and retirement homes. Since the project is near a residential area, there are sensitive receptors in proximity to the project site. Operation of the project would only not increase vehicle trips on area roadways and associated air pollutants, and these increases would not significantly contribute to pollution levels. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. 16.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: t; [ .E 0 z Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -7-City of San Juan Capistrano, California j '0 ,.,-c 'E I::~ "'r::: " -r::: ... " ~ ~ .2 5 " ., " ~!E~ ;~~ c. ~!E~~ g .! §, c.. U) t: ·-0 11)50.. o ·-E j ·~iE "' ·-E 0 0..(/)-...!(/)_ z a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or D D D ~ regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the USFWS? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, D D D ~ policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? C. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not D D D ~ 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 D D D ~ migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological D D D ~ resources, such as tree preservation policy/ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, D D D ~ regional, or state habitat conservation plan? a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the USFWS? No Impact. The planning area of project has no designated habitat. Therefore, the proposed project would not have an adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The proposed project would have no substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wild Service. The project site is void of riparian corridors and sensitive habitat. Thus, no impacts to riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities are anticipated. c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. No wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, exist or have been identified on-site or immediately adjoining the site. Thus, the project would not result in impacts to wetlands. d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. Project implementation would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -8-City of San Juan Capistrano, California migratory fish or wildlife species, with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, as none exist within the project area. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy/ordinance? No Impact. The project site is surrounded by developed suburban or urban land uses and ornamental vegetation. No vegetation is proposed to be removed as a part of this project. f Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The project area is situated in the Coastal and Southern Sub-region of the County of Orange Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP). However, the City is not a signatory to the Implementation Agreement for the sub-region and more importantly, the project site is located within a developed area of the City of San Juan Capistrano. Therefore the project would not result in conservation planning impacts. } "0 ,.,--s c c Q -" " " .. ~¥-"' 0 ~ .. ., .. .g:;&. £.go 0. ; ·c ~ ·c.!? 0 ~ '§, [ .E -"'a. t»~ 0 0 .\:iii.§ " ·-E 'iii :E E -""-z 16.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical 0 0 0 ~ resource as defined in ' 15064.5 of CEQA? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 0 0 0 ~ archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5 of CEQA? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site 0 0 0 ~ or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal 0 0 0 ~ cemeteries? a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in I 15064.5 of CEQA? No Impact. According to the City of San Juan Capistrano General Plan Cultural Resources Element (Figure CR-2, Locations of Prehistoric and Historic Archeological Resources), the project site and surrounding area are designated as an archaeologically or historically sensitive area. However, the project site is not a contributor to the Los Rios Street National Register Historic District. No physical changes are proposed to the historic district or the project site. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to I 15064.5 of CEQA? No Impact. Refer to Response to a. above. c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. Paleontological sites are abundant in southern Orange County, especially along the coast and in creek areas. There is no indication of a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature on the project site. No ground disturbance is associated with the project and there is no potential for significant earth-moving activities that may impact any paleontological resources. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. There are no known grave sites within the project limits nor is any ground disturbance proposed. Therefore, the disturbance of human remains is not anticipated. Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -9-City of San Juan Capistrano, California 'j '0 ,.,--s ""' " -c: c: t: " ~~-" 0 ~ ., ., " ~ ~ g_ :5~t1 0. a; ·c ~ ·c: .2' 5 ~ '§, [ .§ -Ol Q. Ol ;'!:: u 0 ~mE ·m :E E .3m.5 z 16.6 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, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist, or D D D [g) based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Refer to DM&G Pub. 42)?; or, (ii) strong seismic ground shaking?; or, (iii) seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction?; or, (iv) landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? D D D [g) 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-D D D [g) site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 1994 D D D [g) UBC, creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not D D D [g) available for the disposal of waste water? a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) No Impact. The project site is located within the seismically active southern California region and would likely be subjected to groundshaking, thus exposing existing facilities to seismic hazards. No known active seismic faults traverse the City of San Juan Capistrano. However, the City is located within 50 miles of several known potential sources of strong shaking, including the offshore segment of the Newport- Inglewood fault system located approximately six miles west of the City and the San Andreas fault system located approximately 50 miles east of the city. The City is not identified as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly referred to as "Special Studies Zones"). Furthermore the County of Orange General Plan indicates that the project site is not within an Alquist Priolo Special Study Zone. Impacts are not anticipated. The proposed project which involves changes in land use provisions would not result in potential impacts to new uses. 2) Strong seismic ground shaking? No Impact. Southern California is a seismically active region likely to experience, on average, one earthquake of Magnitude 7.0, and ten (10) earthquakes of Magnitude 6.0 over a period of 10 years. Active faults are those faults that are considered likely to undergo renewed movement within a period of concern to humans. These include faults that are currently slipping, those that display earthquake activity, and those that have historical surface rupture. The California Geological Survey (CGS) defines active faults as those which have had surface displacement within Holocene times (about the last 11,000 years). Such displacement can be recognized by the existence of sharp cliffs in young alluvium, un-weathered terraces, and offset modern stream courses. Potentially active faults are those believed to have generated earthquakes during the Quaternary period, but prior to Holocene times. There are several active and potentially active fault zones that could affect the project site. The faults within these zones include the Newport-Inglewood, Whittier, San Andreas, San Jacinto, Malibu-Coast- Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -10-City of San Juan Capistrano, California Raymond, Palos Verdes, San Gabriel, and Sierra Madre-Santa Susana-Cucamonga faults. The proposed project would be required to be in conformance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC), the City's Seismic Hazard Mitigation Ordinance, and other applicable standards. This project will have no impact as no physical improvements are proposed that would alter existing conditions. 3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. Liquefaction is the loss of strength of cohesionless soils when the pore water pressure in the soil becomes equal to the confining pressure. Liquefaction generally occurs as a "quicksand" type of ground failure caused by strong groundshaking. The primary factors influencing liquefaction potential include groundwater, soil type, relative density of the sandy soils, confining pressure, and the intensity and duration of groundshaking. According to the City of San Juan Capistrano General Plan, Figure S-1, Geological Hazards, the project area is susceptible to high liquefaction potential. However, the proposed project does not involve any physical development and therefore, would not result in liquefaction impacts. 4) Landslides? No Impact. Landslides are mass movements of the ground that include rock falls, relatively shallow slumping and sliding of soil, and deeper rotational or transitional movement of soil or rock. Landsliding is considered likely within the Capistrano Formation which comprises much of the City's hillside slopes. However, according to the City of San Juan Capistrano General Plan, the project site is not located within a known or highly suspected landslide area. Further, this project will have no impact as no physical improvements are proposed that would alter existing conditions. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact. No construction is proposed as a part of this project. The proposed project which involves changes in land use provisions would not result in potential impacts. e) 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? No Impact. No water extractions or similar practices are needed by the proposed project. Refer to Response 4.6a, above. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact. According to the Orange County and Western Part of Riverside County Soil Survey, dated September 1978, the project site has a low shrink-swell potential. Further, this project will have no impact as no physical improvements are proposed that would alter existing conditions. f) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The proposed project does not include the installation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. } "0 ,..-c 'E c: ~ c:c t) -" .. "' tU ro o 1-"'"' .. ~!Eg ..r::: u ·-0 :~~ a. ._t;::'t;C. .§ fh ·-O'i L.. .! §, 0.. rn c: ·-o !/J §, 0.. .\:<n.S .5·~i E ~oo.§ 0 z 16.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that D D D ~ may have a significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the D D D ~ purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? No Impact. Global warming poses a potential threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -11-City of San Juan Capistrano, California warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems. In 2006, the Legislature passed and the governor signed Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which set a 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal into law. AB32 directed the California Air Resources Board to begin developing discrete early actions to reduce greenhouse gases while also preparing a scoping plan to identify how best to achieve the 2020 limit for greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). The reduction measures needed to meet the 2020 GHG target are to be adopted by the start of 2011. The State Legislature also directed the California Air Resources Board to consult with the Public Utilities Commission in the development of carbon dioxide (C02) emissions reduction measures, including limits on emissions of greenhouse gases applied to electricity and natural gas providers regulated by the Public Utilities Commission. The Legislature has also directed that such measures meet the statewide emissions limits for greenhouse gases to be established pursuant to AB 32. Because the proposed project involves changes in land use provisions, it would not result in potential impacts. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? No Impact. The proposed project is not in conflict with any plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases because the proposed project involves changes in land use provisions, it would not result in potential impacts. j , ,.,~ 'Er:~ t:: t> -r: ~ .~ 0 .. 0 ~ "' .. :E~e. ~~ 0.. ~§,[ c: ·-0 §,o.. .E Ol.t:" 0 0 ~;;;.E ·w :E E ;;;.E z 16.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through D D kSJ the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable conditions involving the release of hazardous D D D kSJ materials into the environment? C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing D D D kSJ or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as D D D kSJ a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or D D D kSJ public use airport, would the project result in safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project D D D kSJ area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted D D D kSJ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to D D D kSJ urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -12-City of San Juan Capistrano, California a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact. The proposed project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and would not result in such impact. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. The proposed project would not result in a release of hazardous materials into the environment. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. No existing or proposed school facilities are located within a one-quarter mile radius of the project site. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962. 5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. According to the Preliminary Hazardous Materials Assessment, the proposed project site is not included on a list of sites containing hazardous materials, and would not result in a significant hazard to the public or to the environment e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. g) Impair implementation of or physicaffy interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The proposed project would have no impacts on emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. No revisions to adopted emergency plans would be would be required as a result of the proposed 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? No Impact. The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of wildland fires because the project site does not adjoin OCFA-designated wildland areas. j " ,.,-t='Ec~ c:"E ti -c: ;; "' n:l co 0 l.., ""' "' :g!Eg .::~~&. ;~~ "- 2 ~c. ~ ·c; .2'15 oo§,o.. .§ o ·-E .3·~iE .3oo.E 0 ,0...(1)_ z 16.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? D D D [g] b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., D D D [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)? Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -13-City of San Juan Capistrano, California j "t:! ,-'Ec:~ c 0 -c: n; "' .. 0 ~ .. "' ~!E~ ~~ ~ !Eu Q. .! 5 Q. ·c.~ 5 "' "' .E Ol:t:! u <:»"-0 o ·-E r.;;.E Q..(J)_ ·;;; :E E z C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a D D D rg] manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off- site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or D D rg] substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide D D D rg] substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? D D D rg] g. Place housing within a 1 00-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other D D D rg] flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 1 00-year flood hazard area structures which would D D D rg] impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee D D D rg] or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? D D D rg] k. 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 D D D rg] metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, and trash)? I. Result in significant alternation of receiving water quality during or D D D rg] following construction? m. Could the proposed project result in increased erosion downstream? D D D rg] n. Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff? D D D rg] 0. Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes? D D D rg] p. Tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? If so, can it result in an increase in any D D D rg] pollutant for which the water body is already impaired? q. Tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? If so, can it D D rg] exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions? r. Have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water D D D rg] quality to either marine, fresh, or wetland waters? Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -14-City of San Juan Capistrano, California j 'tl ,..-c:cc~ c: c: 1J -c: ~¥u co: cu 0 '-"' "' ., t:¥~&. ;E~ a. ~ ·g, ~ rJ) ·-0) '-§ II) c:: ·-0 til §, 0.. o ·-E j·~i£ "'·-E 0 Q.(J)_ ..J(J)_ z s. Have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality? D D D C8J t. Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of D D C8J beneficial uses? u. Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? D D D C8J v. Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction or post D D D C8J construction? w. 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 D D D C8J handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? X. Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the D D C8J beneficial uses of the receiving waters? y. Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or D D D C8J volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? z. Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or D D D C8J surrounding areas? a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No Impact. No construction is proposed, therefore no impacts are anticipated. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact. The project would not have the potential to substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. The project would not have the capacity to increase the amount of water consumed regionally through increased withdrawals from groundwater sources. No significant impacts are anticipated to occur. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? No Impact. There will be no alteration of absorption rates, and due to no change in the replacement ratio of vacant land with impermeable surfaces. No significant changes in drainage patterns associated with the proposed project would occur. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? No Impact. Refer to Response (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 polfuted runoff? No Impact. Surface runoff velocities, volumes and peak flow rates would have a no increase due to no additional impervious surfaces added as a part of this project. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact. Discharge from the proposed project through stormwater facilities would consist of non-point sources. Stormwater quality is generally affected by the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -15-City of San Juan Capistrano, California length of time since the last rainfall, rainfall intensity, urban uses of the area, and the quantity of transported sediment. Typical urban water quality pollutants usually result from motor vehicle operations, oil and grease residues, fertilizer/pesticide uses, and careless material storage and handling. Majority of pollutant loads are usually washed away during the first flush of the storm occurring after the dry-season period. However, due to the nature of the proposed project, with no physical site alterations, project impacts in this regard are not considered to be significant. g) Place housing within a 1 00-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The proposed project does not propose housing. Therefore, no flood related impacts would occur. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. The project site is located within a 1 00-year flood hazard area. However, the project does not propose any new structures. Refer to Response 4.8c and Response 4.8d, above, for additional discussion. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. As previously stated, the project does not propose any new housing or building structures within the 1 00-year flood plain. However, as previously mentioned above, under Section 4.6, Geology and Soils) the project area could be subject to ground shaking from various earthquakes due to its proximity to the various fault zones. Adherence with the current UBC design criteria relative to seismic events would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudf!ow? No Impact. There are no anticipated impacts to the proposed project from seiche, tsunami or mudflow, as no topographical features or water bodies capable of producing such events occur within the project site vicinity. k) Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters? Consider 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)? No Impact. Potential pollutant discharges to receiving waters would have no increase due to no additional impervious surfaces added nor any use which would include increases pollutant discharges as a part of this project. I) Result in significant alternation of receiving water quality during or following construction? No Impact. Operation is not anticipated to result in any water quality impacts. m) Could the proposed project result in increased erosion downstream? No Impact. Given the project's limited size and limited impervious surface, the project would produce a relatively low volume of stormwater runoff that would not result in increased downstream erosion. n) Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff? No Impact. There is no increase in impervious surface and associated runoff is below the significance threshold established by the City for determining a significant impact. o) Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes? No Impact. The project does not include mass site grading or changes in project site drainage that would alter drainage patterns, or increase runoff flow rates or volumes. p) Tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) fist? If so, can it result in an increase in any pollutant for which the water body is already impaired? No Impact. The project site does not adjoin or discharge directly into a Federally-listed water body. q) Tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? If so, can it exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions? No Impact. See Response top) above. Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -16-City of San Juan Capistrano, California r) Have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water quality to either marine, fresh, or wetland waters? No Impact. The project would not discharge directly into surface waters nor involve operational characteristics that would result in pollutant discharges into such waters including pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers and similar chemicals. s) Have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality? No Impact. The project site does not involve excavation, drilling, or cuts that could intercept or affect groundwater, and does not involve sub-surface fuel tanks or similar features that could affect groundwater. t) Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in any violation of applicable water quality standards established by the Clean Water Act and implemented by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) through the regional National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. u) Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? No Impact. See Response to Section IV.b) of this document. v) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction or post construction? No Impact. No construction is proposed, therefore no impacts are anticipated. w) 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? No Impact. x) Result in the potential for discharge of storm water to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? No Impact. y) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? No Impact. The project will neither increase the volume nor the velocity of stormwater flows, nor indirectly contribute to such impacts as a result of project implementation. z) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? No Impact. See Response to Section IV. b) of this document. j " ,.,-Ec:* 'C t) -c: "iii"' "' 0 ~ .. "' E!E~ ~!~ ~~ a. 2 §,c. c: ·-0 §,a. § 01:!: u 0 gu;§ ';):E.!: u;§ z 16.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? D D D l:8'J b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the General Plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning D D D l:8'J ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? D D D l:8'J a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The proposed project will not have an impact on the physical arrangement of an established community. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to occur. Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -17-City of San Juan Capistrano, California b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element's designation for the project site and with the Official Zoning Map designation of the property. Therefore, no impacts would occur in this regard. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.4(f) above, which concludes the project would not conflict with any habitat conservation plan j , ,.,-t:'Ec:~ c: c: 0 -c: ~~-IU t'G 0 !o.. "' "' "' J: t) ·-0 ;:Eg a. ii ·c :6 ~!E~e-.§ 0 c._ o 1/J§,O. £~.§ ~·$i.E 0 ~<n.§ z 16.11 MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that D D IZl would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other D D D IZl land use plan? a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The City's General Plan and Title 9, Land Use Code would not permit any mineral extraction on or within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the project would have no impact. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. Refer to Response 14.1 Oa, above. 16.12 NOISE. Would the project: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing orworking 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? D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D u "' a. .§ 0 z D Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -18-City of San Juan Capistrano, California a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the locaf general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in conditions that would create noise impacts, and future kennel projects will be individually reviewed through a Conditional Use Permit and conditioned to mitigate potential noise in excess of Section 9-3.531 Noise Standards. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No Impact. There is no construction and demolition activity, therefore the project would not generate any groundborne vibrations or noise levels. Therefore, ground borne vibration is not expected to occur. Additionally, the proposed land use would not generate any more ground vibrations or noise levels than permitted within the district. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. Due to the nature and scope of the proposed project, a permanent increase in the ambient noise level in the project vicinity would not occur. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project will not result in a short- term increased noise levels within the project vicinity due to construction activities. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. As previously stated, the proposed project is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest airport, John Wayne-Santa Ana, is located about 20 miles northwest and given the project's distance from that airport, no impacts are anticipated. f) For a project w;thin the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. j " ,.,--2 t: c; t; -t: c: " "' ... "' "' 0 ~ "' "' .. ~:E~ !E~& s.go a. ~§,a. c: ·-0 ;:; ·~[ .E o ·-E cn;t::: u "·-E 0 0..<1)_ ·; :E E ... 1(1)-z 16.13 POPULATION & HOUSING. Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses or indirectly (for D D [?S] example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the D D D [?S] construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the D D [?S] construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The proposed project would not induce growth through the extension or expansion of major capital infrastructure. No impacts to population and housing would occur. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The proposed project would not require the removal existing housing, and therefore would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -19-City of San Juan Capistrano, California c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.12a and 4.12b, above. ~ '0 ,.,--J!l c: c: tl -c: c: c: "' iii .. .. 0 ~ "' " .. :g~~ ~~~ ;~g Q. .!§,a. c ·-0 UJ§,o. § o ·-E en==: o jcn.§ 0 0.(1)_ 'iii~ .E z 16.14 PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental fac.ilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection? D D D [8] Police Protection? D D D [8] Schools? D D D [8] Parks? D D D [8] Other public facilities? D D D [8] 1) Fire protection? No Impact. Proposed project implementation would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities. 2) Police protection? No Impact. There are no significant impacts related to police protection or service anticipated with implementation of the proposed project. 3) Schools? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the need for the construction of additional school facilities. Therefore, no impacts in this regard will occur. 4) Parks? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will not affect any existing park facilities nor increase the demand for additional recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts to parks are anticipated as a result of this project. 5) Other public facilities? No Impact. No significant impacts to other public facilities are anticipated to occur with project implementation. ~ '0 ,.,--E c:'E tl -c: c: c: " iii"' "' 0 ~ "'"' "' :g!Eu ~ ~ &. ;!E~ a. " c: "' 'E .S? 5 w§,c.. .§ -OJ Q. 0'):!:: 0 0 d:c;;.§ 'iii :?! .E jc;;.§ z 16.15 RECREATION. Would the project: a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial D D D [8] physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have D D D [8] an adverse physical effect on the environment? Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -20-City of San Juan Capistrano, California a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will not generate an increase in demand on existing public or private parks or other recreational facilities that would either result in or increase physical deterioration of the facility. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreaUonal facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project does not include recreational facilities. 16.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel, and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion/management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? ,.,--c: ~ "' " t: "' E ·c: Ol 0 0.. iii D D D D D D j 'E t: "' 0 t; (,) :;; "" .. " ·c: Ol a. o:E .§ 'iii :;; D D D D D '0 ~ 'E t; "' "' 0 " t; c. e-"' .§ 0 ·c; "' " Ol a. 0 .§ .E Cii z D D D D D a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel, and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? No Impact. The project would result in the development of land uses that could result in an increase in vehicular trips. Because the project area is currently not experiencing level-of-service (LOS) deficiencies, no impacts to traffic capacity or volume would occur with implementation of the proposed project. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion/management agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.15a, above. Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -21-City of San Juan Capistrano, California c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. Due to the nature and scope of the proposed project, project implementation would not change air traffic patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. No public roadways are proposed as part of the project, therefore, no impacts regarding design features or incompatible uses would occur. The proposed project would use the same access point as the existing project. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. Adequate emergency access shall be provided during both short-term construction and long-term operation of the proposed project. Impacts are not anticipated to be significant. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No Impact. Project implementation would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Impacts are not anticipated in this regard. ~ ., ,..-t:~r:.; c: c: 1) -c: ii "' m o; o ~..., "'"' .. E~g .::~~e. ""'"-Q. -;;:o .§ .!§,~ 16 ·c .2' o ~ "§, [ ~iii£ ~ ·~:i £ "' .... E 0 ... J(I)-z 16.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional D D D [gj Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction D D D [gj of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which D D D [gj could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded D D D [gj entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve D D [gj the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to D D [gj accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related D D D [gj to solid waste? a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. No improvements are associated with the proposed project and therefore would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The nature and scope of the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of wastewater treatment facilities (refer to Response 4.16a, above). Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -22-City of San Juan Capistrano, California c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The nature and scope of the proposed project would not require or result in the expansion of existing storm water drainage facilities. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. No new or expanded entitlements would be required with implementation of the proposed project. No impacts are anticipated. 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. Refer to Response 4.16a, above. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? No Impact. The project would not generate a minor increase in solid waste. Therefore, there would not be significant a significant change in the context of the Prima Deshecha Landfill's solid waste landfill operating permit of 2,000 tons per day. Operational activities will result in only a nominal amount of solid waste. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. Refer to Response 14.16f, above. ~ ., ,.,-c:Cc:~ c t; -c: ;; .. (U tO 0 1... "' "' ~:E~ t:.g~[ .gu Q. In·-O'l \.. '§, [ .§ ,! §, Q. t/) c ·-0 o ·-E ~·~~ E u;.§ 0 CI..Ul-z 16.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to decrease below self-D D D !S] sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? D D !S] c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable (Cumulatively considerable© means the D D D !S] project's incremental effects are considerable when compared to the past, present, and future effects of other projects)? d. Does the project have environmental effects which will have substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly? D D D !S] 17. PREPARATION. The initial study for the subject project was prepared by: Laura Stokes, Housing Coordinator I Assistant Planner Use Sec. 9-3.305. -Industrial districts. (a) Purpose and intent. The following three (3) industrial districts have been established for the following purpose and intent: ( 1) Commercial Manufacturing (CM) District. The purpose and intent of the Commercial Manufacturing (CM) District is to provide for a wide range of commercial uses, primarily of a non-retail nature, wholesaling, limited manufacturing, and indoor recreational uses. (2) Industrial Park (IP) District. The purpose and intent of the Industrial Park (IP) District is to: (A) Provide areas, designated in the General Plan, for the development of industrial parks; (B) Provide for high-quality physical developments within industrial parks by requiring comprehensive planning and the coordination of building design and location, landscaping, parking, interior circulation, and other facilities; (C) Allow for certain commercial and service uses within such industrial parks which uses are related to the permitted industrial uses or which may serve the employees of the industrial establishments during the normal workday; and (D) Limit the physical effects of the permitted industrial activities, such as the emission of air contaminants, noise, glare, run-off of pollutants, and other such effects which could be harmful to life or other nearby property. (3) Agri-Business (A) District. The purpose and intent of the Agri-Business (A) District is to implement the General Plan provisions for the use of land for agricultural activities. (b) Uses regulations. (1) Table 3-6 identifies the uses permitted in the Commercial Manufacturing (CM), Industrial Park (IP), and Agri-Business (A) Districts. (2) Uses listed as conditionally permitted uses are subject to the review requirements and conditions contained Conditional Use Permit. Accessory uses are subject to the review requirements and conditions contained Accessory Uses and Structures. (3) The "notes and exceptions" column of Table 3-6 indicates more precisely the use regulations for specific uses or operating characteristics. The notes and exceptions must be reviewed in conjunction with the other information for the class of use. (4) Certain permitted uses and conditionally permitted uses may be subject to special conditions regarding location, operation, or the design of the use. The sections of this title governing these uses are identified in the "notes and exceptions" column of Table 3-6. Table 3-6 Uses in Industrial Districts (please refer to end of table for notes) CM IP~ Notes and Exceptions [Accessory uses incidental to the operation of a A A [A Includes cafeterias, snack bars, delicatessens, industrial permitted use products showrooms, conference rooms, business and professional offices, training classrooms, and caretakers' residences. [Adult-oriented business p p -a. Subject to the provisions of Title 5, Chapter 27 and Sectio1 Adult Oriented Businesses. b. Sale of alco 1olic beverages in conjunction with a permitted adul :-oriented business shall be prohibited. lAmbulance services p -:- EXHIBIT B Animal grazing, breeding, boarding, raising, and -PI-a. Includes, but is not limited to, cattle, sheep, goats, training and horses. b. Excludes hog production, commercial livestock feeding ranches, commercial dairies, commercial horse stables and equestrian centers, commercial kennels, and the commercial slaughtering, dressing, or sale of livestock, fowl, or other animals. Animal shelters -Cl- Apiaries 1--P Automobile parts and supply stores and service uses p -I-See repair uses and services Automobile service stations c -I- Bed and breakfasts lc cc Subject to Section 9-3.509 Bed and Breakfasts. Broadcasting studios IP PI- Cabarets and nightclubs c -I- Caretaker residence (temporary) A AA Subject to Section 9-3.553 Temporary Uses and Structures. Car wash c -I- Cemeteries c cc Child day care centers c cc Church, religious, or fraternal c cc Includes synagogues, temples, mosques, and other buildings used for the purposes herein but excludes day care centers, and private and/or secondary educational facilities. Clubs and lodges (private) p _,_ Collection and recycling of paper, glass, and other c cc Excludes junk-yards and auto salvage. materials Compounding, processing, packaging, and treatment of p PI-a. Includes candy, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, food, products and beverages. b. Excludes the rendering or refining of fats and oils. Dancing and live entertainment p -- Drive-through facilities c c-As defined in Appendix A, contingent upon approval of a Discretionary Use Permit. Egg production and sales and the production of ,_ 1-P Subject to the following requirements: chickens, poultry, pigeons, and other fowl, and the 1. Any poultry, pigeon, rabbit, or other animal-raising production of rabbits building or enclosure shall be located a minimum of 300 feet from any existing residential building not on the premises; and Z. The slaughtering or dressing for sale of poultry, pigeons, or rabbits shall be permitted only if they are produced, raised, or fattened on the premises. Eating and drinking establishments p p Such as restaurants, delicatessens, ice cream parlors, cocktail lounges, and taverns. Educational and cultural programs -PA Shall be of a temporary nature and prior approval of a special events permit in accordance with Section !9-3 547 Special Activities. Employee quarters (detached) --A Must be of a permanent character placed in permanent locations. Farming --P a. Includes all types of agriculture and horticulture. b. Excludes farms operated publicly or privately for the disposal of garbage, sewage, rubbish, or offal. Financial services uses p -Includes banks, savings and loan associations, and credit unions. Fortune-telling p - Foundry casting - c Game machines (3 or less) A -3 or less game machines if such machines are accessory to a permitted principal use in the district. Game machines (more than 3) c -I- Home businesses -1-A Subject to Section 9-3 523 Home Business. Paae2 Horse stables and equestrian centers (commercial) --C Subject to Section 9-3.515 Equestrian Standards. Hospitals c -I- Hotels c C1-In accordance with provisions of Section 9-3.524 Kennels (noncommercial) ~ubject to Section 9-3.525 Kennels. Kennels (commercial) 1-ubject to Section 9-3.525 Kennels. Manufacturing, assembly, testing, repair, and research P P 1-Includes, but is not limited to: on components, devices, equipment, and systems of an 1. Semiconductors, and similar components; electrical, electronic, or electromechanical nature 2. Computer hardware and software; 3. Metering instruments, equipment, and systems; 4. Audio equipment, and systems; 5. Radar, infrared, laser, and ultraviolet equipment and systems; 6. Scientific and mechanical instruments; and 7. Television and radio equipment and systems. Manufacturing and assembly of retail and wholesale p Pi-Such items may be made from bone, cellophane, fiber, items to a finished product fir, glass, latex, ceramics, pottery, lead, leather, metal, paper, plastics, wood, or yarn. Medical and dental offices p -I-Medical centers and complexes allowed. Mining oil drilling, and other resource extraction c cc Includes necessary incidental buildings and appurtenances. Mobilehomes and modular homes on a permanent --A Both shall be subject to state regulations governing foundation system development standards. Mortuaries c -- Motels p - Motorcycle sales and services p 1- Nonprofit medical clinics r c ..... Nurseries, greenhouses, and plant storage (resale and p -P Including greenhouses, hydroponic gardens, and similar wholesale) facilities. Offices (general) p -Includes business, professional, real estate, travel agencies, and similar office uses. Offices (large) p p Includes offices which do not regularly provide services or conduct business with the general public, such as corporate offices. Packing plants for whole agricultural products --C Excludes food processing. Parking lots (commercial and public p p Pottery and ceramics manufacture c -I- Produce stands (temporary) -1-A a. To be used for the sales of agricultural products produced on the premises. b. Subject to the following: 1. Such stands shall not be located closer than 20 feet from any street right-of-way; 2. Such stands shall be of wood frame type construction and 3. The accessory signs used to identify the use shall be located on or adjacent to such stands as set forth in Section 9-3.543 Signs. Public buildings and facilities p PI-a. For CAl District -Includes public utilities offices and exchanges, museums, libraries, governmental buildings, parks, bus, taxicab, and railroad stations, tourist information centers, including police and fire stations, but excludes schools and hospitals. b. For IP District -Excludes public schools, police stations, fire stations, and hospitals. Publishing and bookbinding p PI- Radio and television towers and installations, radar c c C Subject to_ Section 9-3.507 Antennas. installations, microwave relay stations, and cellular towers and installations (commercial) Page 3 Recreational uses (requiring outdoor facilities) c 1--a. Such as tennis clubs, provided the requirements of Sections 9-3.501 Accessory Uses and Structures and 9-3.529 Lighting Standards are met. b. Outdoor night lighting for such recreational uses, other than parking lot or security lighting, shall not be permitted unless included within the conditional use permit approval. All night lighting, for any purpose, shall conform to the requirements of ~=.;s. 52~ Lighting Standards. Recreation and leisure uses (not requiring outdoor c --Includes uses such as game machine arcades, pool and facilities) billiard centers, bowling lanes, ice and roller skating rinks, theaters (excluding drive-ins), athletic clubs, and health clubs. Recreational vehicle and automobile storage r r--~ Recycling facilities p p p ~ubject to Se~. .1u1 9-3.537 Recycling Facilities. Section 19-3.537 Recycling Facilities identifies the specific allowed recycling uses. Repair uses and activities p p Includes vehicle repairs and boat maintenance repairs, muffler, brakes, and transmission repairs. All such activities must take place within a building and no related outside storage is allowed. Research and development p p Includes research and development of computer software, information systems, communication systems, transportation, geographic information systems, multi-media and video technology. Development and construction of proto-types may be associated with this use. Residential dwelling (single-family) -r-A pne principal residential dwelling per lot as an accessory use to a principal use. Retail sales of carpeting, furniture, and home c --a. The premises in question shall met all the parking appliances requirements set forth Section 9-3.535 Parking for such retail sates. b. No displays of merchandise shall be visible from Interstate 5. Schools (business, vocational, and professional schools p ,_ 1-a. Includes secretarial, art, dance, drama, and music requiring outdoor facilities. schools. b. Excludes swimming schools, preschools, and public and private primary and secondary schools. Secondhand stores c -I- Service uses p C1-a. Includes pest control services, linen and diaper supply, catering services, printing and reproduction shops, computer and data processing centers, plumbing services, and electrical services. b. Services shall not require extensive on site customer access. Storage and d1sptay (outside) p A r-:>ubJect to Sectwn 9-3.549 Storage and Display. 1 opsoll or t1LL d1rt (processmg and/or sates ot) --I'- Upholstering shops p PI-All such activities must take place within a building and no related outside storage is allowed. VehJCle sates, rental, and teasmg uses .... r-ncludmg automoDHes, trucks, recreat10n vehicles, boats, and personal water craft. Vehicle storage IC '-1-L.xcludes JUnk yards or automobile salvage. vetennary ottlces and cllmcs ..... ._I- Warehousing, storage, and transfer uses p p r-:>uch as cold storage plants, trucking firms, and beverage distributors, provided such uses have less thar 50,000 square feet of floor area. Page 4 Warehousing, storage, and transfer uses c c Such as cold storage plants, trucking firms, and beverage distributors, containing 50,000 square feet of floor area or more. Wholesaling of products p p Such as electrical supplies, plumbing supplies, hospital and sickroom supplies, plate glass, and mirrors. Yard storage for construction materials -(I- P = Principal use permitted by right - -Not permitted A= Accessory use permitted by right (subject-~_,=="-'-"'-==-'-Accessory Uses and Structures) C = Conditional use permit required (subject toJ~lliQ!JJ;!~RL Conditional Use Permit) (c) Development standards. Table 3-7 identifies the development standards for the Commercial Manufacturing (CM). Industrial Park (IP), and Agri-Business (A) districts. Table 3-7 Development Standards for Industrial Districts District Min. Lot Min. One Story Two Story Floor Area Ratio CM IP A Area Street Min. !Min. Side !Min Rear Min. !Min. Side !Min. Rear 1st %2nd Flr Bldg Hgt Frontage1 Front Yd2 tyd.2,3 Yd.2,4 Front Yd.2,3 fYd.2,4 Flr/Lot to 1st Flr Yd.2 Area 7,200 sq. 60ft. 20ft. 5 ft. 25ft. 20ft. 10ft. ~5 ft. 0.30 75% 35ft. ft. 15,000 100ft. 20ft. 10ft. 20ft. 20ft. 10ft. ~0 ft. 0.30 75% 35ft. acres 10.0 200ft. 150ft. ~0 ft. 50 ft. 150ft. 20ft. 50 ft. 0.10 75% 35ft. acres Note: Min.= Mnimum; DU =Dwelling Unit; Yd =Yard; Fir= Floor; Bldg= Building; and Hgt =Height 1 Lots with street frontages below the minimum set forth in this table may be permitted without the approval of a variance if all of the following conditions are met: (a) The lot's street frontage remains a minimum of20 feet; (b) The lot is designed such that the reduced width portion constitutes an access corridor to the buildable portion, which is set back away from the street; (c) The minimum width of the buildable portion of the lot conforms to the requirements of this table; and (d) The Planning Commission determines that adequate visitor parking will be provided on the lot to compensate for the loss of street frontage parking. The actual creation of reduced frontage lots shall be subject to normal City approval of required tract or parcel maps. The reduced frontage portion of such lots shall not be included in the computation of lot area (see Section 9-4.315 Irregular and Cul-de-Sac Lots). 2 The criteria for measuring setbacks on irregularly-shaped and cul-de-sac lots are set forth in12,ection 9-4.315 Irregular and Cul-de-Sac Lots. 3 Architectural projections may extend into required side yards no more than 40% of the applicable district requirement, or more than 3 feet whichever is greater. 4 On lots with an existing building setback encroachment into a required rear yard, structural additions having the same said encroachments shall be permitted without the approval of a variance. However, no new encroachment in excess of that existing, nor any new encroachment may be permitted without the approval of a variance (see Section 9-3.533 Nonconforming Uses, Lots, and Structures). (d) Operational standards. The following operational standards shall apply in the Commercial Manufacturing (CM) and Industrial Park (IP) Districts; Page 5 ( 1) The following effects shall not be permitted to emanate beyond the boundaries of the premises upon which such use is located: (A) Objectionable noise, Noise Standards and the generation of heat or cold, direct or reflected glare, or odors or vibrations detectable by the human senses without the aid of instruments; (B) Air contaminants not in compliance with adopted standards or adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, including, but not limited to, smoke, charred paper, dust, soot, carbon, noxious acids and oxides, fumes, gases, odors, particulate matter, or any combination thereof which endangers human health or causes damages to vegetation or property; (C) Radioactivity and electric or electromagnetic disturbances which unduly interfere with the normal operation of equipment, instruments, or appliances on adjacent properties; (D) Any other emission or radiation which endangers human health, results in damages to vegetation or property, causes soiling, or which exceeds national health service standards; and (E) Any run-off of pollutants that is in non-compliance with NPDES permits. (2) The standards prescribed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the County and State Departments of Public Health, or the equivalent departments, shall be taken into account in the administration of the operational standards set forth in this subsection. (3) The Building Official shall be responsible for determining whether any premises fails to meet the operational standards set forth in this subsection. (e) Development review. Projects proposed within the Commercial Manufacturing (CM), Industrial Park (IP), and Agri-Business (A) Districts shall be subject to applicable review procedures as set forth in Article 3 Development Review Procedures of Chapter 2 of this title. (f) Supplementary district and temporary use regulations. For sign, parking, fence, swimming pool, and similar regulations for the Commercial Manufacturing (CM), Industrial Park (IP), and Agri-Business (A) Districts, see Article 5 Supplemental District Regulations of this chapter. (g) Environmental overlay standards. Standards related to management of project effects on sensitive natural resources (i.e. floodplains, ridgelines, etc.) shall be as set forth in Article 4 Environmental Overlay Districts of this chapter. (§ 2, Ord. 869) (Ord. No. 971, § 3, 5-18-2010; Ord. No. 973, § 3, 10-19-2010; Ord. No. 995, § 2.b., 6-19-2012) Page 6