1994-0615_CALIF, STATE OF_Negative Declaration City of San Juan Capistrano Date Posted: 1p-//W,
32400 Paseo Adelanto
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Posting Removal:
(min. 20 days or 30 days if subject to SCH review)
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
N
I�^J . Proponent: City of San Juan Capistrano
XU 2. ddress: 32400 Paseo Adelanto, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
3. Phone Number: (714) 443-6353
Lead Agency: City of San Juan Capistrano
5. Project Title: Capital Improvement Project (CIP) !128, Multi-modal Parking Lot.
6. Description: Acquire an existing 0.25 acre parcel, reconstruct an existing parking lot
increasing parking from 75 spaces to 108 spaces, install an 8 foot high, 236 foot long
retaining wall, and complete accessory lighting and ilandscaping improvements.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW BOARD (ERB) DETERMINATION:
This project has been evaluated by the Environmental Review Board of the City of San Juan
Capistrano in accordance with the adopted California Stale guidelines to determine its potential
impact on the environment. On June 14, 1994, the Environmental Review Board determined that this
project will not have a significant effect on the environment because mitigation measures will reduce
potential impacts to a level of insignificance. Therefore, the Environmental Review Board has issued
a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The basis for the Board's determination is the Initial Study
completed for the subject project. The Initial Study is attached and copies may be obtained from the
Planning Department, City Hall, 32400 Paseo Adelanto, Sap Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
n Ramsey, AICP, Envirom ent< ord nator
•saataaaaasaataaaataatara• asaataaa asapaaassassaaaasaaasaaasaaaasaaasaaaaa•
Any person may file an appeal to a ve Declaration. Appeals must be filed in writing with the
Planning Department within thirty(30) days of the "date posted". The filing of an appeal stays the
Board issuance of a negative declaration until a determination on appeal by the City Council. If the
City determines that the appeal is based on environmental factors not previously considered which
may have a significant effect on the environment, the iCity may require preparation of an
environmental impact report (EIR). The City Council has delegated authority for issuing Negative
Declarations to the ERB by Resolution 74-2-11-2 and the Citys adopted Envirotunental Impact
Report Guidelines.
County Clerk project file
j lobby posting site posting
CEQA file - aA
(cAwpwm60bip\cip128mm.nd)
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -2-
ENVMONMENTAL CHECKLIST
L BACKGROUND
1. Proponent: City of San Juan Capistrano
2. Address: 32400 Paseo Adelanto, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
3. Phone Number: (714) 443-6353
4. Lead Agency: City of San Juan Capistrano
5. Project Title: Capital Improvement Project (CIP) 128, Multi-modal Parking Lot.
IL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations for all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.)
YES MAYBE N4
I. EARTH. Will this proposal result in:
a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? [J [] [XJ
b.) Disruptions,displacements,compaction,or overcovering of the soil? [J [] [XJ
c.) Changes in topography or ground surface relief features? (J [] [XJ
d.) The destruction,covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? I] [ 1 IX]
e.) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,either on or off site? I] I] IXl
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands,or changes in siltation,deposition,or erosion
which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay,inlet,or lake? L J (J (XJ
g.) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes,landslides,
mudslides,ground failure,or similar hazards? I 1 [ 1 IXI
Z AIR. Will this proposal result in:
a.) Substantial increase in air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? I] I] 1X1
b.) Exposure of people to locally elevated levels of air pollution? [] [] 1X1
c.) The creation of objectionable odors? [1 [] (XI
d) Alteration of air movement,moisture,temperature,or any change in climate,either
locally or regionally? I 1 I] IXl
3. WA T IIs Will this proposal result in:
a.) Changes in currents,or the course or direction of water movements,in mannd&eh waters? [] [] 1X]
b.) Changes in absorption rarer,drainage patterns,or the rate/amount of surface nmol? [] I ] [XI
c.) Alterations to the flow or course of floodwater? I I I] IX]
d.) Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? [] [] [X]
e.) Discharge into surface waters,or in any alteration of surface water quality,including
but not limited to temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity? [] I 1 [Xl
f) Alteration of the direction or rate of How of groundwater? [] I] [XI
g.) Chimp in the quantity of groundwater,either through direct additions or withdrawals,
or by Interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? [] [] IX]
h.) Substantial reduction in the amount of water available for public water supplies? I 1 I 1 IXI
i.) Exposure of people/property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? [] I] IXI
4-PLANT LIFE. Will this proposal result in:
a.) Change in the diversity of species,or number of any species of plants(including trees,
shrubs,grass,crops,microflora or aquatic plants)? I] I] IXl
b.) Reduction in the numbers of any unique,rare,or endangered species of plants? I J I J (Xl
c ) Introduction of new species of plants into an area or in a barer to normal
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -3-
replenWimewofexistingspecies? ( 1 [ 1 (X]
d) Acreage reduction of any agricultural crop? [ 1 [ 1 (Xl
S. ANIMAL LIFE. Will this proposal result in:
a.) Change in the divasity of species,or numbers of anv species of animals(birds,land
animals including reptiles,fish.shellfish,benthic organisms,insects,or microfauna)? { 1 {1 (XI
b.) Reduction in the numbers of any unique,rare or endangered species of animals? ( I ( I [X]
c.) Introduction of new species of animals into an area,or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals? [ I ( I [X]
d.) Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? { I [ 1 [XI
6. NOISE. Will this proposal result in:
a.) Increase in existing noise levels? ( I ( I [XI
b.) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [ I [ I (Xl
7. LIGHT and GLARE. Will this proposal create new light and glare? [I 1XI [ I
8. LAND USE. Will this proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area? [1 I (Xl
9. NATURAL RESOURCES, Will this proposal result in:
a.) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? {I {] [}(]
b.) Substantial depletion of any non-renewable natural resources? [] [] [}(I
10. IS�SK OF_Ly. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances(including but not limited to oil,pesticides,chemicals or radiation)
in the even of an accident or upset conditions? (1 ( I (XI
11. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the locaticn,distribution,density,or growth
rate of the human population of an area? [I (I [XI
12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect extaung housing ot create demand for
additional housing? (1 I (Xl
13 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will this proposal result in:
a.) Gcr=aum of substantial additional vehicular movement? [1 [1 [Xl
b.) Effects on existing parking facilities,or demand for new pig? [1 (XI I
c.) Substantial impact upon existing transportation systerai&? [1 I 1 IN
d) Alterations to present Patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? r I (Xl
e.) Aiteratxw to wara,rail or air traffic? [1 [1 1X1
f) W=aae in trtuffic hazards to motor vehicles,bicyclists or pedestrians? I I 1X1
I4 PUBLIC_I SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect on,or result in a need for new
or altered governmental serviom in any of the following areas:
a.) Fire protection? [1 {1 1X1
b.) Police protection? [1 (1 IN
C.) Schools? [I [I (XI
d.) Parks or other recreational facilities? [1 [1 (X1
e.) Maintenance of public facilities,including roads? [I (I (XI
f) Other govesmxntal services? [I {I [X1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -4-
15.
ENERGY. Will the proposal result in:
a.) Use of substantial amounts of fuel/energy? ( 1 ( 1 1X1
b.) Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy,or require the
development of new sources of energy? [1 (1 (Xl
16. UTILITIES. Will this proposal result in a need for new systems,or substantial
alterations to the followmg utilities:
a.) Power or natural gas? I I 1X1
b.) Communication systems? [ 1 I 1X1
C.) Water? I I (Xl
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 11 [ 1 (Xl
e.) Storm water drainage? [1 I 1X1
f) Solid waste and disposal? [l (1 (X1
17. HUMAN HEALTH. Will this proposal result in:
a.) Creating any health hazard or potential health hazard(excluding meatal health)? [1 I 1X1
b.) Exposure of people to potential health hazards? [ I ( 1 (XI
18. AES]HETICS. Will this proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view
open to the public,or the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ( I (XI 11
19. RECREATION. Will this proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities? [I [I [Xl
20 ARCHEOLOGICAIA-USTORICAL. Will this proposal result in the alteration of a
significant archeological or historical site.structure,object,or building? [1 IX] 11
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGN71CANC .
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-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a planta 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? [1 (1 (XI
b.) Does the project have the paeatial to achieve short-tam,to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?(A short-term impact on the environment is ane which occurs in a relatively
brief,definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future)? 11 11 (Xl
c.) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact an two or mote separate resources where the impact on each resource is
relatively small,but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is sigatficant) ( 1 [1 [Xl
d.) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings,either directly or indirectly? [1 [1 (Xl
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -5-
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. EARTH: No. The project involves minimal or no land disturbing activities and therefore,
would not result in any earth resource related environmental impacts.
2. AIR: No. The project would not result in conditions which would exceed significance
levels established by the Regional Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and
therefore will not have an impact on air resources.
3. WATER: No. The project would not effect any surface or groundwater resources and
therefore no impacts are anticipated.
4. PLANT LIFE: No. The project would not establish specific policies with respect to
natural habitat nor plant resources and therefore, staff anticipates no plant life impacts.
5. ANIMAL LIFE: No. The project would not eliminate natural habitat nor wildlife
resources and therefore, staff anticipates no animal life impacts.
6. NOISE: No. The project would not create a potentially significant noise source and staff
anticipates no noise impacts.
7. LIGHT AND GLARE: Maybe. The project does not include fighting specifications for
the type and location of lighting at this time. Engineering staff have indicated that fighting
will consist of a design, mast height and fixture type, as is presently used at the south
railroad platform. That lighting consists of a traditional style bell-type fixture mounted on
14 foot mast with high pressure sodium fights. The specific type of fixture used for the
railroad platform provides a pronounced cut-off to restrict lighting to the platform. Staff
would anticipate the fixture design for the parking lot to incorporate a design which
provides greater surface dispersion.
The Land Use Code requires that parking lot fighting provide at least I footcandle but no
more than 5 footcandles of intensity. The parking lot would need to be illuminated to
those standards. Potential fight and glare impacts are significant and require mitigation.
Mitigation Measure #1- Parking lot lighting design will be consistent with that man
lighting aR2roved for the south railroad Rlatform(reference AC 91-04 Lighting Program
Fixtures_ F-8). Light fixtures will inco[porate a design which provides adequate
illumination to the parking lot area consistent with tlpe requirements of Section 9-3.614 of
the Land Use Code. The parking lot will be illuminated with high pressure sodium light_c
to provide a minimum of 1 footcandle and maximum of 5 footcandles of intensity. The
Engineering Division will have a conccgaal (jgh*ing design and photometric study
prepared for Planning Commission review.
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -6-
With this mitigation measure, potential light and glare impacts will be reduced to a level of
insignificance.
8. LAND USE: No. The project would not result in a significant change in land use from
what the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance have planned for the project site and
therefore, no land use impacts would result.
9. NATURAL RESOURCES: No. Staff does not anticipate that the project will impact any
natural resources.
10. RISK OF UPSET: No. The project does not include activities which could result in any
potential "risk of upset" impacts and therefore, staff does not anticipate any impact.
11. POPULATION: No. The project would not result in conditions effecting the rate or
extent of community immigration nor emigration and therefore, staff anticipates no
impacts.
12. HOUSING: No. Staff does not anticipate that the project will generate substantial
increases in demand for new housing nor substantially alter the housing mix of the
community.
13. TRANSPORTATION: Maybe. The proposed project will increase parking from 75 to
108 spaces, providing 33 additional parting spaces for retail business customers and rail
commuters. The additional parking would help meet parking demand in the downtown
area. Because of existing parking shortages, staff anticipates that parking would
marginally reduce traffic congestion during peak parking demand periods. Vehicles
seeking parking would generally locate parking more quickly without extensive trolling
through the parking area and adjoining streets. The proposed design will alter the aisle
orientation which should improve internal circulation efficiency. Parking aisle connections
to the existing access drive along the east side of the depot will be reduced from 3 to I
reducing turning movements. Therefore, staff anticipates no significant transportation
impacts. In fact, the proposed project will improve traffic circulation in the vicinity of the
project.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES: No. The project will neither effect existing nor create substantial
demand for additional public services. Therefore, staff anticipates no impacts.
15. ENERGY: No. The project will not require substantial energy resources to function and
therefore, staff anticipates no impacts.
16. UTILITIES: No. The project will not effect existing nor planned utilities and therefore
staff anticipates no impacts.
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -7-
17. HUMAN HEALTH: No. The project will not effect human health and therefore, staff
anticipates no impacts.
18. AESTHETICS: Maybe. The project proposes to construct an 8 foot high, 236 foot long
retaining wall along the east boundary of the project. The project also proposes to
increase the expanse of existing parking lot. The concept plan depicts a median along the
west edge and at the center of the lot but not along the wall. The project narrative
provided by Engineering indicates that the medians would be planted with canopy trees
and shrubs. The base of the retaining wall and area above the retaining wall would be
planted with ivy and shrubs. Aesthetic impacts of the retaining wall and parking are
potentially significant and require mitigation. Landscaping would provide an opportunity
to reduce the visual impact of the proposed project.
Mitigation Measure #2: The Engineering Division will have a conceptual landscaac plan
R4Aared for Planning Commission and City Council review in conjunction with their
review of the parking concot plan. The two parking lot mediAm will be the maximum
poential width up to 10 feet but not less than 5 feet wide to accommodate landsca in¢
The medians will include the planting of canopy tri and shrubs The p1ayting median at
the base of the proposed retaining wall will be the maximum potential width tlp to 5 feet
but not less than 3 feet wide and will include at lean two varieties of climbing vines wish
at least one evergreen variety.
19. RECREATION: No. The project will not generate any recreation resource related
impacts.
20. ARCHEOLOGICAL USTORICAL: No. The City has previously retained Greenwood
and Associates to conduct archeological testing of the project site("Archeological
Monitoring of Test Boring at Parking Lot San Juan Capistrano, California" dated
September 14, 1993 by Dana N. Slawson). The project involved drilling and monitoring 5
test borings and the conclusions of the report state that no significant artifacts were
encountered. However, the report recommended monitoring of any grading or subsurface
disturbance. The Engineering Division has stated that project monitoring during grading
and excavation will be conducted as recommended by the Greenwood report. Therefore,
the project will not result in any significant archeologicaUhistoncal resource impacts.
IV. PREPARATION
The initial study for the subject project was prepared by:
William Ramsey, AICP, Senior Planner
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
V. DETERMINATION (To be completed by the lead agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
( ] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[X] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have included in this project.
A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
VL DE MINIMIS FEE DETERMINATION (Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990-AB 3158)
[X] It is hereby found that this project involves no potential for any adverse effect,
either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources and that a "Certificate of
Fee Exemption" shall be prepared for this project.
[ ] It is hereby found that this project could potentially impact wildlife, individually or
cumulatively, and therefore fees shall be paid to the County Clerk in accordance
with Section 711.4(d)of the Fish and Game Code.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW BOARD DETERMINATION (Section 9-2.201 of
SJC Municipal Code): The initial study for this project was reviewed and approved by the
Environmental Review Board (ERB) at their meeting of June 14, 1994 and the
environmental determination has been recommended for approval.
Date: June 15, 1994
Dick Bobertz, Planning
Chairman
(Owpwin601cip�cip 128mm.is)