07-0821_APA ENGINEERING, INC._D12_Agenda Report • 8/21/2007
t '
AGENDA REPORT \ D 1 2
TO: Dave Adams, City Manager
FROM: Nasser Abbaszadeh, Engineering & Building Director
SUBJECT: Consideration of Preliminary Design Approval, Budget Amendment and
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Junipero Serra Road and Rancho Viejo
Road Intersection Improvements (CIP No. 404)
RECOMMENDATION
By Motion,
1. Adopt a resolution approving the preliminary design plans for Junipero Serra Road
and Rancho Viejo Road Intersection Improvements, and Increase the FY 07-08
project budget by $23,000 from the Capistrano Circulation Fee Program (CCFP) to
cover additional design costs, and,
2. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project.
SITUATION
A. Summary and Recommendation
Preliminary design plans for Junipero Serra Road and Rancho Viejo Road
Intersection Improvements have been prepared based on the City Council concept
review of May 2, 2006.
Staff is recommending that City Council approve the preliminary design plans and
adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project by resolution provided
as Attachment 5.
A copy of the concept plans is available for review in the City Clerk's office. A copy
has also been placed in the City Council Office.
B. Background
At the September 16, 2003 meeting, City Council adopted the Traffic Congestion
Relief Capital Improvement Program from the Traffic Congestion Relief Ad-Hoc
Committee. The Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) identifies a wide range
of circulation improvements throughout the city.
Agenda Report • • August 21, 2007
Page 2
Under consideration are three separate widenings at the Junipero Serra Road and
Rancho Viejo Road Intersection, combined into one intersection improvement
project. The City Council ranked these three improvements as #20, #25 and # 26 of
the sixty-two (62) Capital Improvement Projects in the Traffic Congestion Relief
Program.
TCRP Proposed Improvement
Rank
#20 Rancho Viejo Road northbound dual left turn lanes at Junipero Serra
Road
#25 Junipero Serra Road eastbound right turn lane, 1-5 northbound ramps
to Rancho Viejo Road
#26 Junipero Serra Road westbound right turn lane, Rancho Viejo Road to
I-5 northbound ramps
The location map for the improvements is provided as Attachment 1. The Initial
Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are provided as Attachment 4.
C Design Issues
Geometrics Concept Review
The project geometrics concept was reviewed by the Transportation
Commission on February 8, 2006, the Planning Commission on March 28,
2006 and was approved by City Council on May 2, 2006. City Council issues
raised during the concept review have been addressed in the preliminary
design phase.
The proposed improvements also require coordination with and approval
from Caltrans where they interface with the 1-5 northbound ramps and traffic
signals and the Park and Ride parking lot. Staff is working concurrently with
Caltrans on these issues and has obtained Caltrans review comments.
Caltrans has previously expressed support for the proposal.
Intersection Operation
Various suggestions were made during the concept review stage on how the
intersection should operate. These have been reviewed by staff and the
City's engineering consultant and a recommendation is summarized below
and contained in the Traffic Engineer's Report: (see attachment 2, Traffic
Engineer's Report)
a. Caltrans: Signalize with split phases for the north-south traffic
directions on Rancho Viejo Road.
Agenda Report • • August 21, 2007
Page 3
The current operation is split phase for east-west traffic but not for
north-south. For north-south traffic, a full second, left-turn lane is being
added which is actually better than one and a half left turns that could
be provided by a split phase operation.
b. Caltrans: Restrict the 'right-turn on red" movement for the southbound
Rancho Viejo Road.
In 2003, as a recommended "Immediate Project' by the Traffic
Congestion Relief Ad Hoc Committee the City implemented this
restriction at the intersection. This was subsequently discontinued as
no benefit and is the current situation. This restriction is being re-
instituted to ensure there is storage for the northbound left turns when
that phase is active. This restriction is partially offset by the fact a right
turn arrow overlap phase (see item e) is being provided.
C. Resident: Provide "Do Not Block Intersection" signs.
Signs are included.
d. Commission: Allow a free south-bound right turn at Rancho Viejo
Road and Junipero Serra Road.
In order to avoid a potentially hazardous weaving maneuver between
the southbound right turning traffic and the northbound left turning
traffic, there is not sufficient roadway length(only 125 feet) to safely
allow vehicle weaving/ merging to occur. Even with dual southbound
right turn (one is a shared through and right), the traffic flow
southbound on Rancho Viejo Road will have equivalent delays as if
there were a single "free" right turn lane.
e. Commission: Provide a right-turn arrow for southbound Rancho Viejo
Road.
This overlap arrow is being included, which requires signing "No-U-
Turns" on eastbound Junipero Serra at Rancho Viejo Road.
Junipero Serra Road Access to South Park and Ride
The Planning Commission recommended that this access be eliminated to
allow for more landscaping. Caltrans has requested that this be retained as a
right in ingress only. Staff has reduced the width of the driveway and oriented
it as a right in ingress only as a compromise to both requests.
Agenda Report • • August 21, 2007
Page 4
Rancho Viejo Road Access to South Park and Ride
Staff recommends that the existing access location be relocated to oppose
Malaspina Road as a consideration of access safety. This will require
acquisition of right-of-way from the adjacent property (APN 650-112-01).
Staff designed the alignment so as to preserve the existing mature parkway
pepper trees.
Mitigation of Impacted Parking Spaces
The proposed road widening impacts the existing parking spaces in both
Park and Ride facilities and would require the removal of existing spaces.
The loss of parking spaces due to the improvements has been mitigated by
providing replacement spaces. The main area used to accomplish this is the
abandoned driveway area adjacent to Rancho Viejo Road in the south lot.
Existing Condition
NORTH PARK AND RIDE SOUTH PARK AND RIDE
Regular 40 Regular 59
Handicap 3 Handicap 2
Total 43 Total 61
Total 104
Pro osed Condition
NORTH PARK AND RIDE SOUTH PARK AND RIDE
Regular 33 Regular 66
Handicap 3 Handicap 2
Total 36 Total 68
Total 104
Project Landscaping
The landscape palette has been based on the California native plant palette
used for the Rancho Madrina project, off Rancho Viejo Road to the south. A
number of issues have been addressed:
a. City Council requested median landscaping on Rancho Viejo Road
north of Junipero Serra Road and this is provided.
b. A number of existing trees require removal due to the proposed
improvements.
C. A number of existing trees are recommended for removal to provide a
consistent landscape theme.
Agenda Report • • August 21, 2007
Page 5
Conceptual landscape plans were reviewed by the City's Design Review
Committee May 3, 2007 at which time the DRC made the following
comments:
a. The DRC commended staff for working with the project engineers to
save the existing trees and meet the project objectives.
b. The landscape palette is well-designed and compliments the existing
streetscape.
C. The shrubs in the landscape median on Rancho Viejo Road need to
be blended and softened to avoid visual edges.
d. The median on Rancho Viejo Road may need to be redesigned or
signage provided to ensure that vehicles turning left onto Rancho
Viejo Road from Junipero Serra Road don't drive into the median left
turn pocket.
Water Quality
The larger parkway landscape area north and south of Junipero Serra Road
is proposed to be used as a landscaped bio-swale by diverting low flow,
"first-flush" stormwater flows from Rancho Viejo Road into the bioswale.
The proposed project will improve stormwater quality at the project location
using various treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs). On the
southern side of Junipero Serra Road, the runoff flowing down Rancho Viejo
Road, south of the project will be intercepted into a culvert that would direct
the flow to a vegetated swale. Additional runoff north of the proposed
driveway will be also intercepted through another culvert and directed to the
vegetated swale. At the end of the bio-swale, a Stormtreat Wetland system
will treat the runoff before discharging into the storm drain system. Any
remainder runoff on Rancho Viejo Road will enter Junipero Serra Road and
join runoff on it and will be treated in a Filterra unit, before discharging into
the catch basin on Rancho Viejo Road.
On the Northern side of Junipero Serra Road, similar treatment will take
place. Runoff going south will enter a series of culverts and then enter a
vegetative swale, then end up in the drainage system. Another Filterra unit
will handle any runoff from the Northern side of Junipero Serra Road.
Agenda Report • August21, 2007
Page 6
Caltrans Comments
Caltrans has provided extensive comments by letter dated May 31, 2007
(see Attachment 3, May 31, 2007 Caltrans letter re: Junipero Serra Road &
Rancho Viejo Road intersection Improvements). Staff has the following
responses using the same numbering as the Caltrans letter:
1. ADA curb ramps and lighting will be addressed as requested in the final
design. The minimum 50 feet curb radius requested is proposed to be 75
feet.
2. A ramp terminus will be provided in the final design.
3. Signage will be provided in the final design.
4. Truck turning templates will be used to check northbound and
southbound turns.
5. New trees are proposed to replace existing trees. No transplants are
proposed.
6. The City does not support deleting shrubs and groundcover in favor of
inert materials particularly where the areas are to be transferred to City
right of way.
7. The City proposal is to transfer Caltrans right of way to City right of way
where possible fronting City streets. A maintenance agreement would be
appropriate for areas not able to be transferred.
8. The City is proposing a separate irrigation system for landscaping under
its control.
9. The City is proposing to retain 104 stalls in the Park and Ride lots.
10.Safe ingress and egress will be maintained during construction and is
provided in the design.
11.Park and Ride users and Caltrans will be notified 14 days prior to
construction.
12.The City questions Caltrans stated cost of $50,000 in fees to transfer
right-of-way. The street widening was at one time a Caltrans proposal.
The City requests Caltrans to waive all transfer and related fees for the
project.
Agenda Report • • August 21, 2007
Page 7
13.The City is willing to acquire and transfer right of way to the State, but
without transfer fees.
COMMISSIONS/BOARD REVIEW, RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plans on July 24, 2007 and
recommended City Council approval and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The Engineer's Estimate of construction costs is $694,000. The City recently obtained a
$60,000 grant for design from the Growth Management Area (GMA) program of the
Combined Transportation Fund Program (CTFP).
The design contract was awarded by City Council September 5, 2006 at $132,480. Staff
has approved an increase of $9,702 for revised access and expanded landscape concept
drawings. An additional fee of $13,195 will be required to take these plans to final design.
Additional construction and right-of-way costs are estimated to be $132,000 (excluding
Caltrans proposed $50,000 fee). Right of way is budgeted in FY 08-09, construction in 09-
10.
NOTIFICATION
The following parties were provided with notification of this agenda item:
Steve Sandland, Centra Realty'
Bob King'
Thomas J. Bernard, Pacific Capital Holdings Inc.'
Mitchell Land & Improvement Company
Capistrano Business Plaza Associates
Malaspina Homeowners Association
Pueblo Serra Worship Holdings
Michael Recupero
'Agenda report included
Agenda Report • • August 21, 2007
Page 8
RECOMMENDATION
By Motion,
1. Adopt a resolution approving the preliminary design plans for Junipero Serra
Road and Rancho Viejo Road Intersection Improvements, and Increase the FY
07-08 project budget by $23,000 from the Capistrano Circulation Fee
Program (CCFP) to cover additional design costs, and,
2. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project.
Respectfully submitted: �Prepared by:
Nasser Abbaszadeh, P.E. Brian Perry, P.E.
Engineering & Building Director Project Manager
Attachments: 1. Location Map
2. Traffic Engineer's Report April 26, 2007
3. Caltrans comment letter of May 31, 2007
4. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
5. Draft Resolution
6. Preliminary Plans Entitled "Junipero Serra Road & Rancho
Viejo Road Intersection Improvements' Prepared By APA
Engineering, Inc. And Dated March 20, 2007. (Document
may be reviewed at the Office of the City Clerk)
THE CITY OF
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
Yl L < JUNIPERO SERRA/
RANCHO VIEJO ROAD
->-'" INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
•' CIP No 404
` P LOCATION
41
err
t
I Y d
b . '1. 41
oei
OT
0 3000 6000 9000 Feet
ATTACHMENT
City of San Juan Capistrano
RANCHO VIEJO ROAD AT JUNIPERO SERRA ROAD
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT PLAN
Prepared by:
Austin-Foust Associates,Inc.
2223 Wellington Avenue, Suite 300
Santa Ana,California 92701-3161
(714)667-0496
April 26, 2007
ATTACHMENT 2
RANCHO VIEJO ROAD AT JUNIPERO SERRA ROAD
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT PLAN
The intersection of Rancho Viejo Road and Junipero Serra Road currently experiences substantial
traffic back-ups and delays, particularly during peak periods. This study investigates the source of those
delays and provides recommendations for roadway capacity improvements.
ANALYSIS
The intersection of Rancho Viejo Road and Junipero Serra Road is a four-way type with split
phasing on Junipero Serra Road and protective left tum arrows on Rancho Viejo Road. The fourth leg of
the intersection is a private office building driveway. Figure 1 provides an aerial view of the intersection
and existing lane configuration. The operation of the traffic flow is heavily influenced by the existence of
the northbound I-5 Freeway on/off ramp situated so close that only 125 feet of vehicle storage exists on
the Junipero Serra leg between the Rancho Viejo Road and the freeway ramp signals.
Field observation supplemented by peak hour traffic counts indicates that southbound right turn
(525+ vph) and the northbound left tum (300+ vph) traffic movements experience substantial delays
forming long queues and frequently requiring multiple cycles to complete the turns. A conventional
capacity analysis using the usual ICU methodology does not accurately simulate actual field conditions.
Such a conventional ICU analysis,which produces .57 and.50 LOS during the AM and PM peak periods,
fails to recognize the short spacing (125 feet f) between Rancho Viejo Road and the northbound I-5
on/off ramp signals. There are only four lanes on Junipero Serra Road (two in each direction) and all
traffic destined for the northbound on-ramp must use the No. 2 curb lane. With over 500 vph southbound
turning right and 300 vph northbound turning left from Rancho Viejo Road, most of which is stacked up
in the curb lane with only enough storage for four to five vehicles, the traffic backs-up on to Rancho
Viejo Road. Frequently,motorists turning left from northbound Rancho Viejo Road enter the intersection
but are stopped in the middle because the storage lane to the northbound freeway is full. If these left
turners are either courteous and/or obey the law and do not "block the intersection" then right turners
from southbound Rancho Viejo Road "sneak in" a right tum on red and fill up any gaps in the short
storage lane. This situation is further worsened by the fact that the No. 2 westbound lane on Junipero
Serra Road also accommodates the through traffic as well as the freeway on-ramp traffic. In effect, the
No. 1 lane of eastbound Junipero Serra Road is essentially the left tum storage lane for the southbound
on-ramp situated another 500 feet to the west.
Rancho Viejo Road at Junipero Serra Road I Austin-Foust Associates,Inc.
Intersection Improvement Concept Plan 1069001rpt.doc
Figure 1
INTERSECTION LOCATION
Rancho Viejo Road at Junipero Serra Road Austin-Foust Associates,Inc.
Intersection Improvement Concept Plan 2 18(1058base.dwg
To reduce these excessive traffic queues and improve the overall operation, several roadway
improvements as illustrated graphically in Figure 2 are needed. These are:
1. Widening of Junipero Serra Road to provide six lanes to replace the existing four in the short
segment between Rancho Viejo Road and the northbound I-5 Freeway ramps. This will
enable two westbound lanes on Junipero Serra to enter the northbound I-5 on-ramp
simultaneously. This, in effect, provides essentially a "free" right tum lane onto the freeway
thereby practically eliminating the vehicle queues in the existing No. 2 curb lane.
2. Widen the west side of Rancho Viejo Road north of Junipero Serra Road to provide a
separate right tum lane as well as enabling right turns to occur from the No. 2 through lane of
southbound Rancho Viejo Road.
3. Widen the west side of Rancho Viejo Road south of Junipero Serra to provide dual
northbound left turn lanes replacing the short single lane that currently exists. This will more
than triple the storage available as well as increase capacity by allowing the turning of two
left turns at the same time.
4. Re-orient the driveway access to the Park-N-Ride lot on the southside of Junipero Serra Road
to provide entry only and relocate the Rancho Viejo Road driveway to be opposite Malaspina
Road.
5. Modify the existing exclusive HOV lane striping on the I-5 northbound on-ramp to become
dual general-purpose lanes in order to enable the most efficient use of the limited vehicle
storage on westbound Junipero Serra Road between Rancho Viejo Road and the I-5
northbound ramps.
Special Issue Considerations
During the initial review process of this proposed improvement, the City received several
comments regarding additional features to include so as to further improve traffic flow within the
intersection. These include:
Rancho Viejo Road at Junipero Serra Road 3 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc.
Intenection Improvement Concept Plan 1069001rpt.dw
r �
K
maa wee N1. v.r �u.r
`• ��MIRVL" PARY.NRIDE
/ u
Zany* Evin cues ,Rov cue a,
PARK NRIDE PC
E%ST.lee `1 Fe' F SI p}itl
S
ln rw 16 NB ON PN•IP - _ N8 OFF ROMP
11"T IOIP
fi s
fl�
111113 111t,m
1-5 SAN OIEGOFREENAY 1-5 SAN DIEGO FREEWAY
•
ESgwe z
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTPIAN
RANCHO V IFJO ROAD AT
JONIPERRO SERRA ROAD
R.ncho Vidu Road at Junipem Serra Road 4 Amlm-Fuml Aaaxrnc..to,
Inmwnion lmprmtmenl C nccpl Plan fM9IXHrplfig2d g
0 0
a. Signal split phases for the north-south traffic directions on Rancho Viejo Road
(Caltrans)
b. Restriction of the right-tum-on-red movement for the southbound Rancho Viejo
Road (Caltrans). In 2003, as a recommended "Immediate Project" by the Traffic
Congestion Relief Ad Hoc Committee, the City implemented this restriction at the
intersection. This was subsequently discontinued as no benefit and is the current
situation.
c. "Do Not Block Intersection Sign"(Resident)
d. Free southbound right turn at Rancho Viejo Road and Junipero Serra(Commission)
e. Right turn arrow for southbound Rancho Viejo Road(Commission)
These "suggestions" have all been evaluated and each is included in the final design of the
improvement plans. Specific responses to each comment is as follows:
a. The current operation for east-west, but not for north-south. For north-south
direction a full second left turn lane is being added which is actually better than one
and a half left turns that could be provided by a split phase operation.
b. This restriction is being re-instituted to ensure there is storage for the northbound left
turns when that phase is active. This restriction is partially off-set by the fact a right
turn arrow overlap phase(see item E)is being provided.
c. Signs are included.
d. A separate exclusive southbound right turn lane alone with a shared through and right
turn lane. In order to avoid a potentially hazardous weaving maneuver between the
southbound right turning traffic and the northbound left turning traffic, there is not
sufficient roadway length (only 125 feet) to safely allow vehicle weaving/merging to
occur. Even so, with essentially dual southbound right turn (one is a shared through
and right), the traffic flow on southbound Rancho Viejo Road will be about the
equivalent delay as if there were a single"free"right turn lane.
e. This overlap arrow is being included, which requires signing "No-U-Tums' on
eastbound Junipero Serra at Rancho Viejo Road.
Rancho Viejo Road at Jun ipero Serra Road 5 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc.
Intersection Improvement Concept Plan 1069001rpt.doc
CONCLUSION
In summary, substantial traffic queues and delay are encountered at the intersection of Rancho
Viejo Road and Junipero Serra Road, and these delays are a direct result of the limited vehicle storage
between Rancho Viejo Road and the northbound 1-5 Freeway on-ramp. The improvement of the
situation, indicated in Figure 2, calls for the widening of three legs (all but the private driveway) of the
intersection of Rancho Viejo Road and J Serra Road is necessary and the HOV lane on the northbound
on-ramp should be converted to dual general-purpose lanes. Further,the Rancho Viejo Road driveway to
the south Park-N-Ride lot should be relocated opposite Malaspina Road.
Rancho Viejo Road at Junipem Serra Road 6 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc.
Intersection Improvement Concept Plan 1069001rpt.doc
1. Rancho Viejo 4 Junipem Serra
Existing W/Niti
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR - AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 301 .18* 266 .16* NBL 2 3400 301 .09* 266 .08*
NBT 2 3400 208 .06 161 .05 NET 2 3400 208 .06 161 .05
NBR 0 0 4 0 NOR 0 0 4 0
SBL 1 1700 8 .00 3 .00 SBL 1 1700 8 .00 3 .00
SET 1 1700 193 .11* 224 .13* SET 0.5 3400 193 (.16)* 224 (.14)*
SBR 1 1700 526 .31 420 .25 SBR 1.5 526 420
EBL 1.5 435 .13* 412 .12* EBL 1.5 435 .13* 412 .12*
EBT 0 5100 21 6 EBT 0 5100 21 6
EBR 1.5 220 (.00) 179 EBR 1.5 220 (.06) 179 .11
WBL 0.5 3 4 WBL 0.5 3 4
WET 1 3400 5 .00* 29 .W WBT 1 3400 5 .00* 29 .W
WBR 0.5 0 3 WBR 0.5 0 3
Right Turn Adjustment SBR .10* SBR .03* Clearance Interval .05* .05*
Clearance Interval .05* .05* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing
Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .43 .40
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .57 .50
�� L
1. Rancho Viejo a Junipero Serra
Existing W/Miti
AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
LANES CAPACITY VOL Vic VOL V/C LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C
NBL 1 1700 1 ;,0'i`-, .I8' %' b6'•" .16' NBL 2 3400 301 .09' 266 .08'
NET 2 3400 208 .06 161 .05 NET 2 3400 208 .06 161 .05
NBR 0 0 4 0 HER 0 0 4 0
SBL 1 1700 '8 .00 3 .00 SBL 1 1700 8 .00 ? .00
SBT 1 1700 193 .11' 224 .13' SBT 0.5 3400 193 ).16)' 224 ).14)'
SBR 1 1700 400 .31 0426' .25 SBR 1.5 526 420
EBL 1.5 t'W .13' p "f .12" EBL 1.5 435 .13' 412 .12'
EBT 0 5100 21 6 EBT 0 5100 21 6
EBR 1.5 220 {.00) 179 EBR 1.5 220 {.06) 179 .11
WBL 0.5 3 4 WBL 0.5 3 4
WBT 1 3400 5 .00' 29 .01" WBT 1 3400 5 .00' 19 .01'
WBR 0.5 0 3 WBR 0.5 0 3
Right Torn Adjustment SBR .10' SBR .03' Clearance Interval .05' .05'
Clearance Interval .05' .05' Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing
Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .43 .40
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .57 .50
OF 3S.TRANSFORTATIONAMHOUSMAGEWY ARNOLD SCIBYARZIENEGGER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
District 12
3337 Michelson Drive,Suite 380
Irvine,CA 92612-8894
Tel (949)724-2267 Flex your poser!
F=(949)724-2592 Be enema efflclem!
FAX&MAIL
May 31,2007
Brian Perry File: IGR/CEQA
City of San Juan Capistrano SCH#:None
3200 Paseo Adelante Log#: 1860
r San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 I-5
Subject: Junipero Serra Road/Rancho Viejo Road Intersection Improvements(CIP No ,w
404) Caltrans Coordination
Dear W. Perry:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Conceptual ]Improvement Plans
for the proposed improvements at Junipero Serra Road and Rancho Viejo Road
intersection. The nearest State route to the project site is I-5 in the City of San Juan Capistrano.
Caltrans District 12 status is a responsible agency on this project and we have the following
continents:
1. Curb ramps located at the intersection of Junipero Serra Road and the 1-5 northbound ramps
should meet the current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. In addition, the
curb radius at this location should be a minimum of 50' and adequate lighting should be
provided, as specified in Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 82-03. DIB 82-03 is available on
Caltrans'website at: www.dot.ca. og_v/h lq_oppd/dib/dib82-03 pdf
2. Provide a Portland Cement Concrete(PCC)ramp terminus for the I-5 northbound off ramp.
-3. Signage must be provided on eastbound Junipero Serra Road at the I-5 northbound on-ramp +w
to inform drivers of an optional right turn to a ramp HOV lane and an exclusive right tum
movement to the ramp for general-purpose lanes.
4. Truck turning template should be checked for trucks traveling from northbound and
southbound Rancho Viejo Road to westbound Junipero Serra Road.
5. There are many large existing trees on-site, including Coral, California Pepper,Lagerstroemia,
Sycamore, etc. Please show all existing trees and proposed treatment for these trees, whether
they will remain in place or be transplanted.
6. The proposed plant palette for the project consists of mostly California natives. While Pepper
trees and Sycamore trees have been proven successful on freeway roadside, the native shrubs
historically have not done well on the roadside. It is recommended to use these trees(existing,
"Calmae.t lmpr s mob/1/1y acrou Cafif r ia"
ATTACHMENT
transplanted, or new) together with inert materials (rock, DG, gravel mulch) to create a
sustainable, low maintenance landscape. Delete all native shrubs and groundcovers in the
plant palette.
7. Show existing and proposed Right of Way for Caltrans, and areas that the City of San Juan
Capistrano will maintain. A maintenance agreement shall be signed and approved before the
contract is out for advertisement.
8. Provide separate irrigation systems including separate water meters/irrigation controllers for
the City of San Juan Capistrano and Caltrans maintained areas.
9. If any parking stalls are removed from the Park & Ride area as a result of this project, the
k<_-- same number of stalls must be replaced elsewhere within the facility.
10. The Park&Ride ingress/egress must be safe for commuters during and after construction.
11. Park and Ride users must be notified of the project at least 14 days prior to construction.
Further, please notify and Caltrans District 12 Park and Ride Coordinator of any impacts prior
and during construction phase. Please contact Gary Franken at (949) 724-2228 or email
gary_franken @dot.ca.gov.
12. To decertify State right of way, Caltrans will need to initiate the right of way decertification
process for each affected parcel. Caltrans requires that a deposit be submitted (for each
parcel) to start the process. The current initial decertification deposit is $25,000.00 (per
parcel). Exhibit 16-Ex-24 is attached for your reference. Please note that the decertification
process may take a year or more to complete. Please contact Vince Lundblad, Caltrans Right
of Way Excess Land Department at(909)444-0119 for any additional information.
13. The right of way lines are not depicted on the preliminary plans provided with the IGR review
request. However, it appears that the City may need to acquire property for the
reconfiguration of the driveway to the Park and Ride facility south of Junipero Serra (at
Malaspina Road). If this is the case, Caltrans will require that the right of way be transferred
to the State as a condition of the encroachment permit. A cooperative agreement between the j
City and the State is required to coordinate the above process.
Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could
potentially impact the State Transportation Facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact
us, please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at(949)724-2267.
Sincerel ^(/ �
/
Ryan Ch berla/in,Branch Chief
Local Development/Intergovernmental Review
C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research
t s
M1 l^I
Al
� Y
Decertification Process '
District RNV- Excess Land Project Development-Dlstdct Design •
y
SWI W . Wutlr ^m Ytl EM
F.�trY. p.lw>Ilq persue Wtwwfn
C � 7
W
srlrr aun Frr ��•� Ytl YYrlwl WrWy
�'� �� bglr.n.`Yr ltltlW Yn � � rtltl.l Nr+�.E
IYrae.IM �� i�' IIN�1�IJp �DerMinl �
ro. Yet HW
t.Aw tar.tlle MUEn
p
No yYtl�ii° I Ir YrIM. �xwr
• Fir NP I.gtlltrVtl I GbwN/ I
- a Y. PMYYIN MiIAeve
YFYY VrN Ne.M—`IIt
G Exbbb
3rld N.i�
Clwlt Yea .ir u.lY�iwr.Mwi�r r .:Y Y.
HeF.IW11F Mb aY.lYe
el+lr ISRN
gYF1ry Ev�W •
IM1M1. MYIY t Jtla R91M� la[rFlEYY � 11nr lMr.lY9
M.WI Ia�FNI EEt� End bYYI/ MyE
OsrYw
R/W Access Review Distdct RIW Engineering
(Chewer 3110.ArdrJa 20 and Chapter&120.AMda 20)
n.r
' i r.allFE. 2 r.r.•o..E � Q�
/'� wvrtEr r.rnlr rSii�
\`�//—� bYOr a DwtliPrE t�Mrt ES Yr. NNt
�;V., di tEr`e � IMatl W.w WU f
rr.lyr r.nm
iEr.i tl..tlr... wr rn.w �°'oet w
11W E4!
Notice of Completion and Environmental ISCH No.: 2007061043
Document Transmittal Form
Mail to: State Clearinghouse, PO Box 3044, Sacramento, California 95812-3044
1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
1. PROJECT TITLE: Capital Improvement Project (CIP) 404, Junipero Serra Road & Rancho Viejo Road
2. Lead Agency: City of San Juan Capistrano 3. Contact: Brian Perry, Senior Civil Engineer
3a.Address: 32400 Paseo Adelanto 3b. City: San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
3c. County: Orange 3d. Zip Code: 92675 3e. Phone: (949)443-6353
PROJECT LOCATION: At the intersection of Junipero Serra Road & Rancho Viejo Road
4. County: San Juan Capistrano 4a. City/community: San Juan Capistrano/Orange
4b. Assessor's Parcel No.: n.a.
4c. Section/Township/Range: n.a.
5a. Cross Streets: 5b: For rural, nearest community: same
6. Within 2 miles of: a. State highway#: Interstate-5 b. Airport: n.a.
c. Railways: n.a. d. Waterways: n.a.
7. DOCUMENT TYPE:
CEQA a. [ ] Notice of Preparation e. [ ] Sup./Sub. EIR (Prior SCH No.:)
b. [] Early Consultation f. [] Notice of Exemption
c. [X] Mitigated Negative Declaration g. [] Notice of Completion
J, [] Draft EIR h. [] Notice of Determination
NEPA i. [J NOI m. [ J Joint Document
j. [] FONSI (Finding of No Significant Impact) n. [ ] Final Document
k. [ J Draft EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) o. [ ] Other:
I. [] EA(Environmental Assessment)
8. LOCAL ACTION:
a. [ ] General Plan Update f. [ ] PUD k. [ ] Land Division (tract/tentative map)
b. [J General Plan Amend. g. [} Site Plan 1. []Annexation
c. [ ] General Plan Element h. [] Rezone m. [] Redevelopment
d. [] Specific Plan i. [] Prezone n. [] Coastal Permit
e. [ ] Master Plan j. [I Use Permit o. [X] Other: Capital Improvement Project (CIP)
9. DEVELOPMENT TYPE:
[ ] Residential [] Water Facilities [ ] Hazardous Waste [] Waste Treatment
[J Office [X] Transportation [] Recreational [ ] Industrial
[] Commercial [ ] Mining [] Other [ ] Power
[] Educational
10. Total acres: n.a. 11. Total jobs created: n.a.
12. ISSUES DISCUSSED:
[x]Aesthetic [] Forest/fire [] Sewer capacity [J Floodplain
[ ] Agricultural [ J Geo/seismic [ ] Soils/grading [] Septic systems
[ ] Air Quality [] Minerals [ ] Solid waste [] Growth Inducing
[x] Archeo/History [ ] Noise [] Toxic/hazardous [ ] Land use
[ ] Coastal zone (] Population [xl Traffic [] Cumulative
[xj Drainage [] Public facilities [ ] Vegetation [ ] Other
[ J Economic/jobs [ ] Parks/recreation []Water resources
[] Fiscal [] Schools/University [] Wildlife
13. Funding (approx.) Federal $: 0 State$: 0 Total$: 0
14. PRESENT LAND USE &ZONING: transportation improvements
15. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:The proposed project consists three separate road improvement projects to
Junipero Serra Road and Rancho Viejo Road Intersection that were included in that program,combined into a
single intersection improvement project.These three project elements were ranked#20,#25 and#26 of the
sixty-one (61) projects identified by the Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP). The project include:
• Rancho Viejo Road northbound dual left turn lanes at Junipero Serra Road
• Junipero Serra Road eastbound right turn lane, 1-5 northbound ramps to Rancho Viejo
Road
ATTACHMENT 4
0 0
• Junipero Serra Road westbound right turn lane, Rancho Viejo Road to 1-5 northbound
ramps
The proposed improvements also require coordination with and the approval of Caltrans where they
interface with the 1-5 northbound ramps and traffic signals and the two Caltrans-maintained, park& ride
parking lots.
Reviewing Agencies/Distribution:
[ ] Resources Agency State & Consumer Services
[ ] Boating & Waterways [ j General Service
[] Coastal Commission [] OLA(Schools)
[] Coastal Conservancy Environmental Protection Agency
[ ] Colorado River Board [ ] Air Resources Board
[ ] Conservation [ ] California Waste Management Board
[] Fish &Game [] SWRCB'. Clean Water Grants
[ ] Forestry & Fire Protection [] SWRCB: Delta Unit
[ ] Office of Historic Preservation [ ] SWRCB: Water Quality
[ ] Parks & Recreation [ ] SWRCB: Water Rights
[] Reclamation Board [] Regional WQCB#
[j S.F. Bay Conservation & Dev. Commission Youth &Adult Corrections
[] Water Resources (DWR) [ ] Corrections
Business, Transportation & Housing Independent Commissions & Offices
[] Aeronautics [] Energy Commission
j] California Highway Patrol [] Native American Heritage Commission
[] CALTRANS District# [] Public Utilities Commission
[ ] Department of Transportation Planning (HQs) [ ] Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
[] Housing & Community Development [] State Lands Commission
[ ] Food &Agriculture [ ] Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Health &Welfare [] Other
[ ] Health Services
Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency)
Starting Date: Friday, June 8, 2007 Ending Date: Monday, July 9, 2007
Signature: — Date: June 7, 2007
For SCH Use Only
Date Received:
Date Review Starts:
Date to Agencies:
Date to SCH:
Clearance Date:
INITIAL STUDY
city of san Juan Capistrano California
1. PROJECT: Capital Improvement Project (CIP) 404, Junipero Serra Road & Rancho Viejo Road
Intersection Improvement Project
2. LEAD AGENCY: City of San Juan Capistrano
3. CONTACT PERSON & PHONE: Brian Perry, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer, (949) 443-6353
4. PROJECT LOCATION: The project is located at the intersection of Junipero Serra Road and Rancho
Viejo Road and includes that stretch of Junipero Serra Road between the 1-5 northbound ramps and
Rancho Viejo Road. The project also includes Rancho Viejo Road extending about 200 feet northerly and
350 feet southerly of Junipero Serra Road.
5. APPLICANT: City of San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: n.a.
7. ZONING: n.a.
8. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: On September 16, 2003, the City Council adopted the Traffic Congestion
Relief Program(TCRP)which identified a wide range of circulation improvements throughout the city.The
proposed project consists three separate road improvement projects to Junipero Serra Road and Rancho
Viejo Road Intersection that were included in that program, combined into a single intersection
improvement project. These three project elements were ranked#20,#25 and#26 of the sixty-one(61)
projects identified by the Traffic Congestion Relief Program.
TCRP Proposed Improvement
Rank
----
.-_qn —northbound
#20 Rancho Viejo Road northbound dual left turn lanes—at_—Junipero Serra Road �
425 Junipero Serra Road eastbound right turn lane, 1-5 northbound ramps to
Rancho Viejo Road
- - -- -- -—
#26 Junipero Serra Road westbound right turn lane, Rancho Viejo Road to 1-5
northbound ramps
The proposed improvements also require coordination with and the approval of Caltrans where they
interface with the 1-5 northbound ramps and traffic signals and the two Caltrans-maintained, park& ride
parking lots.With respect to Caltrans design standards,the proposed project provides a 75-0" radius on
the two reconstructed ramp corners at their intersection with Junipero Serra Road which exceeds the
Caltrans minimum 50'-0" radius design standard.
The current signal operation is intended to remain the same.The eastbound approach on Junipero Serra
Road has a shared left and through lane along with a separate left turn only lane, which necessitates the
split phase operation for east-west direction. The north-south operation is a conventional leading left-turn
phase for both directions. Southbound Rancho Viejo Road would be signed to restrict right-turns on red
The intersection pavement would be painted with "Do Not Block Intersection Sign" signs to discourage
traffic from blocking vehicle movements. Southbound traffic on Rancho Viejo Road would be provided with
a right-turn on red signal which will require a prohibition on U-turns by eastbound Junipero Serra traffic at
Rancho Viejo Road.
The existing entrance to the park& ride lot on the south side of Junipero Serra Road will be redesigned
and reconstructed The existing entrance allows ingress and egress with no turn restriction The project
Initial Study/Environmental ChLtklist -2- City of Can Capistrano, California
would reconstruct the access to a right-turn in only.
The south park & ride lot also has an access to Rancho Viejo Road which off-set about 120 feet to the
north of and opposing Malaspina Drive.The existing access location will be relocated to the south to align
with Malaspina Road as closely as possible, to improve access. This entrance realignment will require
acquisition of right-of-way from the adjacent property owned by Endevco(Assessor Parcel Number 650-
112-01). The proposed alignment of the access drive has been designed to preserve the existing mature
parkway pepper trees.
The proposed road widening will displace parking spaces in the two Caltrans park & ride lots and will
require redesign of those parking lots. The project has been designed so as to result in no net loss of
parking spaces. The two lots provide a total of 104 spaces and the project has been designed to provide
104 spaces. The only change to the existing parking is that the north lot will have seven fewer standard
spaces and the south lot will have seven more standard spaces. Given the fact that the south lot is used
much more heavily then the north lot, the proposed parking changes should improve the overall park &
ride lot situation.
Parking lot and street lighting will be relocated as needed to accommodate the proposed street widening
improvements. However, illumination levels remain substantially the same because no new light fixtures
are proposed, only relocation of the existing light poles.
The proposed landscape plan and palette incorporate extensive use of California native plants and is
similar to the palette used for the Rancho Madrina project located on the east side of Rancho Viejo Road
to the south. Widening of Rancho Viejo Road will require the removal of several existing trees. In cases
where the existing tree is non-native or in poor health, the City has chosen replacement as opposed to
relocation.
The larger parkway landscape area north and south of Junipero Serra Road is proposed to be used as a
landscaped bio-swale by diverting low flow, first-flush stormwater flows from Rancho Viejo Road into the
bio-swale before entering the storm drain system.
Existing utility cabinets and water facilities are prominently situated along Junipero Serra Road between
the 1-5 northbound off-ramp and the south park&ride lot entrance.The project proposed to relocate these
utilities and provide landscape screening.
9. SURROUNDING LAND USE(S) & PROJECT SETTING: The project site is bordered by a commercial
offices and business center to the east and northeast, research & development to the southeast and
Interstate-5 to the west.
10. OTHER REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS:
Encroachment permit from California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Approval of right-of-way improvement plans from California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Approval of right-of-way conveyances to California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
11. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: No previous environmental documentation has
been prepared for the proposed project.
12. CONSULTATION:
A. Federal, State, and Other Local Agencies:
California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS)
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)
B. City of San Juan Capistrano
William Huber, Assistant City Manager
Molly Bogh, Planning Director
Initial Study/Environmental Ch9llist -3- City of*Juan Capistrano California
Lt. Mike Betzler, Orange County Sheriff's Department
Nasser Abbaszadeh, Engineering & Building Director
Cindy Russell, Administrative Services Director
Bret Caulder Building & Code Enforcement Manager
Sam Shoucair, Senior Engineer
Brian Perry, Senior Civil Engineer
Ziad Mazboudi, Senior Civil Engineer
Alan Oswald, Traffic Engineer
Craig Harris, Assistant Engineer, Water
William Ramsey, AICP, Principal Planner
David Contreras, Associate 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, Environmental Review Guidelines.
City of San Juan Capistrano, Street Tree Master Plan.
City of San Juan Capistrano, Architectural Design Guidelines,
13. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: A summary of the
environmental factors potentially affected by this project, consisting of a"Potentially Significant Impact"or
"Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated", include:
® Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural ❑ Air Quality
❑ Biological Resources ® Cultural Resources ❑ Geological
❑ Hazards ® Water ❑ Land Use & Planning
❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population & Housing
❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ® Transportation
❑ Utilities Systems
14. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
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, there are four possible responses. They include:
1. No Impact. Future development arising from the project's implementation will not have any
measurable environmental impact on the environment and no additional analysis is required.
2. Less Than Significant Impact.The development associated with project implementation will have the
potential to impact the environment; these impacts, however,will be less than the levels or thresholds
that are considered significant and no additional analysis is required.
3. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The development will have the potential to generate impacts
which may be considered as a significant effect on the environment, although mitigation measures or
changes to the project's physical or operational characteristics can reduce these impacts to levels that
are less than significant.
Initial Study/Environmental ChOlist -4- City of*Juan Capistrano, California
4. Potentially Significant Impact. Future implementation will have impacts that are considered significant,
and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to
less than significant levels.
N N N N C N N
NC d C y N C
O 02 C y m O
6 W d N J �N Z
14.1 AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building along a State- ❑ ❑ ® ❑
designated scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site El ® El Eland its surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ❑ El ® El
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?No Impact. The project site and surrounding area
are not characterized as providing a scenic vista. Nevertheless, short-term construction-related aesthetic
impacts would consist primarily of demolition of existing improvements, grading, the presence of
construction equipment, and additional warning signage on the affected roads. These aesthetic impacts
are temporary and would only occur during construction. Furthermore, landscape screening will
substantially minimize visual impacts of the parking lots to the roadways Landscape screening includes
California native trees and vegetation designed to generally enhance the site's aesthetics. The proposed
landscape screening would result in the project having no significant aesthetic impacts on scenic vistas
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?Less Than Significant Impact. No scenic resources, including
trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings are situated on-site. However, the project site consists of
arterial streets which the General Plan Conservation&Open Space Element classifies as"scenic drives."
The proposed street widening improvements are the minimum necessary to accommodate the General
Plan Circulation Element recommended road improvements. The overall design of the proposed
proposes to protect, replant, and replace landscaping elements so as to comply with the General Plan
"scenic drive" designation. Therefore, impacts to the "scenic drive'will be less than significant.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?Potentially
Significant Impact Unless Mitigated. The proposed street Improvements will require the removal of
existing landscaping and mature trees and therefore, could result in potentially significant impacts by
altering the visual character of area. The type, location, and size of landscape material will affect the visual
character of the area, and the following mitigation is proposed:
AES-1: The preliminary landscape plan and plant palette shall be subject to review and approval by the
City's Design Review Committee. The plant palette shall include California native, drought-
tolerant species to provide compatible plantings and to minimize water use. The final landscape
plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director for compliance with the
Initial Study/Environmental Colist -5- City of0Juan Capistrano, California
approved preliminary landscape plan. All landscaping shall be installed and provided with
necessary temporary irrigation and mulching as specified by the construction specifications. Prior
to City Council approval of the Notice of Completion for the work and the release of the final
retainer to the landscape contractor, the project landscape architect shall provide a letter of
certification that all landscape material has been installed consistent with the City-approved plans
and specifications.
In addition, the relocation of existing above-ground utilities could further impacts the visual quality of the
Junipero Serra Road corridor if not appropriately screened.
AES-2: The above-ground cabinets and utilities relocated near the 1-5 northbound off ramp along
Junipero Serra Road shall be screened with landscape material and shall be painted a neutral
earthtone color to visually blend with the surrounding site context. The construction plans and
specifications will include provisions for a combination of one-gallon and fifteen-gallon plantings
to provide effective screening of above-ground cabinets and utilities.
With these proposed mitigation measures, impacts would be reduced to a level of insignificance.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area?Less Than Significant Impact.The proposed project would not create new sources of lighting.
Existing street lighting will be relocated as a result of street widening along Junipero Serra Road and
along the westerly edge of Rancho Viejo Road. Street lighting complies with Title 9, Land Use Code
provisions which require that lighting use shielded luminaries with glare control to prevent light spillover
onto adjacent areas.
T C T C C C
q N jy N� N A q
iC ; C u C y d
b C A d C d M C AE
A
«O21OC N2,6
amE a�n� SNE i
14.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide
Importance as depicted on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland ❑ ❑ ❑
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the CA. Resources Agency?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act ❑ El ElContract?
El
c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- ❑ ❑ ❑
agricultural use?
a) ConvertPrime Farmland, Unique Farmland, orFarmland 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. The project area or surrounding areas do not
include agricultural uses and the project would not result in conversion of existing farmland to non-
agricultural uses. Therefore, the project does not impact agricultural resources nor designated Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
b) Conflict with existing zoning foragricultural use, ora Williamson Act contract?No Impact.See Response
to 14.2(a) above.
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. See Response to 14.2(a) above.
Initial Study/Environmental ChOist -6- City of#Juan Capistrano, California
T C T'5 C
C C V C �' N r C y d
a 'c n w c a N 'c o. E
omr ° rnc OE
MW_ MOD min _ z
14.3 AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality El ❑ 11plan?
b. Violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected El El Elair 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 ❑ ❑ ❑
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ ❑
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). New or amended General Plan elements, Specific Plans and
significantly unique projects must undergo a consistency review due to the AQMP strategy which is based
on projections from local General Plans- 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 consistentwith the General Plan Circulation Element,and
would not produce long-term quantities of criteria pollutants or violate ambient air quality standards, the
proposed project is deemed consistent with the Regional AQMP
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Less Than Significant Impact. AQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook contains screening tables to
provide guidance to local governments regarding the various types/amounts of land uses which may
exceed state or federal air quality standards and would,therefore, result in potentially significant air quality
impacts. Two different screening significance thresholds are provided and include: 1) Construction
thresholds, and 2) operation thresholds. As a proposed road improvements project, only construction
significance thresholds are applicable to the proposed project.
CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Short-term minor impacts associated with the demolition and construction phases may result in local
nuisances associated with increased dust/particulate levels. Construction activities would result in criteria
pollutant emissions from stationary and mobile equipment, including material delivery trucks and worker
vehicles to and from the project site. This would be a temporary construction impact,which would exist on
a short-term basis during construction and would cease upon completion of construction. Adherence to
standard dust control procedures would reduce potential construction-related air quality impacts to less
than significant levels Temporary construction-related air quality impacts would include.
a Particulate (fugitive dust and PM10) emissions from clearing and grading activities on-site,
Off-site air pollutant emissions at the power plant(s)serving the site,while temporary power lines
are needed to operate construction equipment and provide lighting,
o Exhaust emissions and potential odors from the construction equipment used on-site as well as
the vehicles used to transport materials to and from the site; and
Initial Study/Environmental ChOlist -7- City of Ituan Capistrano, California
a Exhaust emissions from the motor vehicles of the construction crew.
Construction emissions (PMte, ROG, and NO,) are estimated for:
Site grading equipment exhaust and fugitive dust;
Demolition;
o Asphalt paving;
Stationary equipment; and
Mobile equipment
Using the District's guidelines for air quality assessment, construction-related emissions are estimated as
follows
Table 3.1 SCAQMD Construction Emission Thresholds & Daily Emissions
SCAQMD Threshold
Total Project Thresholds Exceeded?
Pollutant Emissions (lbs/da ) Yes/No
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 29.70 550 No
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 3.52 75 No
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 21.49 100 LNoj
Fine Particulate Matter(PM,,) 1.89 150
Emissions calculated using the URBEMIS2002 Computer Model as recommended by the SCAQMD.
• Calculations include emissions from numerous sources including: site grading, construction worker trips, stationary
equipment,diesel mobile equipment,truck trips,and asphalt off gassing.
Refer to Appendix A,AIR QUALITYDATA,for assumptions used in this analysis,including quantified emissions reduction
by mitigation measures.
Based on this analysis, project construction will not exceed AQMD thresholds and therefore, will not
violate State or Federal air quality standards or contribute to an existing air quality violation in the air basin
To reduce construction equipment operational emissions, all vehicles and construction equipment are
required to be equipped with State-mandated emission control devices. Therefore, project implementation
would result in less than significant levels of construction-related emissions. However,to minimize local air
quality impacts, the following mitigation is proposed:
AQ-1: During periods when average wind speeds exceed twenty-five (25) miles per hour, the City=s
grading inspector shall have the authority to require the project to cease all grading activity, or
implement extraordinary air quality mitigation to effectively reduce fugitive dust emissions(PMte)
AQ-2: During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust
emissions shaft be controlled by regular watering or other dust preventive measures using the
following procedures, as specified in the South Coast Air Quality Management Districts Rule 403
These control techniques will be included in the project's construction specifications Compliance
with these measures will be subject to periodic site inspections by the City :
All material excavated or graded will be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of
dust. Watering will occur at least twice daily with complete coverage, preferable in the late
morning and after work is done for the day.
All material transported on-site or off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely
covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
The area disturbed by cleaning, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations will be
minimized so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
Initial Study/Environmental ChhOst -8- City of Sin Juan Capistrano, California
AQ-3: All haul trucks for excavated or graded material on-site shall comply with State Vehicle Code
Section 23114, with special attention to Sections 23114(b)(F), (e)(2), and (e)(4) as amended,
regarding the prevention of such material spilling onto public street and roads. The following is a
description of the above mentioned Sections:
Section 23114(b)(F): Shed boards designed to prevent aggregate materials from being
deposited on the vehicle body during top loading.
Section 23114(e)(2): Vehicles transporting loads composed entirely of asphalt material
are exempt only from the provisions of this section requiring that loads be covered
Section 23114(e)(4): Vehicles transporting loads of aggregate materials shall not be
required to cover their loads if the load,where it contacts the sides,front,and back of the
cargo container area, remains six(6) inches from the upper edge of the container area,
and if the load does not extend, at its peak, above any part of the upper edge of the
cargo container area.
With these proposed mitigation measures, air quality impacts would be reduced to a level of
insignificance.
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? Less Than Significant 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. Residential areas are situated outside the immediate
proximity of the project area. Although construction-related air emissions would occur, they are
deemed less than significant and mitigation measures are proposed to further reduce construction-
related emissions. Therefore, impacts to sensitive receptors would be reduced to a level of
insignificance.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The proposed
project would not create objectionable odors.
N V N U S C A N
C C U C IC H et. w. U 4
E
° E m u ° E °
c
a N _ a N 7 �N _ z
14.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
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?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, L] El Elpolicies, 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 L1 EJlimited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
El filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Initial StudylEnvironmentaI ChOlist -9- City of Can Capistrano, California
q C A A A A q
d C A d d N A E
Od O C O
n. w E a y h E z
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish orwildlife species orwith established native resident or El 1:1 Elmigratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological El El Elresources, 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, ❑ ❑ ❑
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, orby the California Department of Fish and Game or the USFWS? No Impact.The area of
project affect will essentially be that area previously disturbed by previous road construction and parking
lot construction. Plant communities within the project area consist of urban areas,ornamental vegetation,
and cleared/graded areas. There is no native vegetation or habitat existing within the project impact area
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 orby the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact.According to the field reconnaissance performed by City staff,
the project area does not contain any federal or State jurisdictional areas. Consequently, the proposed
project could not 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. Thus, no impacts to riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities would occur.
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 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 ormigratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? No Impact. Therefore,the proposed project would not interfere with the movement of any native,
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
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. Vegetation and landscaping removed during construction will be re-
established upon completion of construction.
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, orotherapproved local, regional, orstate habitat conservation plan? No Impact.The project area is
situated in the Southern Sub-region of the County of Orange Natural Community Conservation Plan and
Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). However, the City is not a signatory to the Implementation
1
Initial StudylEnvironmentaI Ast -10- City of Sin Juan Capistrano, California
Agreement for the sub-region. More importantly,the project site is located within a developed area of the
City of San Juan Capistrano with no habitat value. Therefore, the project would not conflict with provisions
of any adopted conservation plan,
q q q .2 q q q
c � c E
u c
E
o rno me m E.
o
R N. d N 7 J N- Z
14.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in § 15064.5 of CEQA? El 11 E N
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to§ 15064.5 of CEQA? El 0 El 0
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site
or unique geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in§15064.5 of
CEQA? No Impact. The existing project area has been previously, completely disturbed. According to
the General Plan Cultural Resources Element (Figure CR-2, Locations of Prehistoric and Historic
Archeological Resources), the project site and surrounding area are not designated as potential
archaeological or historically sensitive areas. Due to the highly disturbed nature of the project area,there
is no potential for the project to affect significant historic resources.
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §
15064.5 of CEQA?Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated.The project area is situated to the
east of the existing J. Serra High School Athletic Fields complex.Archaeological site CA-ORA-855(ORA-
855) is located in the northwestern part of that complex approximately 1,050 feet west of the proposed
project. That site has been identified as a portion of the Juaneno village of Putuidem, listed in the San
Juan Capistrano Mission records. A test program and a data recovery program were prepared for that
project (reference the Cultural Resources Assessment for CA-ORA-855, City of San Juan Capistrano,
California; The Chambers Group, Inc., revised February 10, 2004). While the project area is situated a
relatively substantial distance(over 1,000 feet)from the limits of this known archeological resource,that
proximity does not eliminate the potential for sub-surface resources related to the site. In order to mitigate
potential impacts to such resources, the following mitigation is proposed:
CR-1: A qualified archaeologist(defined as an archaeologist on the List of Certified Archaeologists for
Orange County) shall be retained (at the project applicant's expense) by the City of San Juan
Capistrano and shall be present at pre-construction meetings to advise construction contractors
about the sensitive nature of cultural resources located on the project site, as well as monitoring
requirements. A qualified monitor (defined as an individual with a bachelors degree in
anthropology with archaeological monitoring experience), supervised by the qualified
archaeologist, shall observe all grading, excavating and/or trenching below the original ground
surface. Should non-human cultural resources be discovered,the monitor shall have the power to
temporarily halt or divert construction activities until the qualified archaeologist can determine if
the resources are significant and, if significant, until recovered by the archaeologist. In the event
that human remains are discovered, construction activities shall be halted or diverted until the
provisions of§7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and§5097.98 of the Public Resources Code
have been implemented.
CR-2'. The project archeologist may retain a Native American monitor, from a list maintained by the
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), who shall observe construction activities that
Initial Study/Environmental C*list -11- City of San Juan Capistrano, California
result in grading, excavating, and/or trenching below the original ground surface. The Native
American monitor shall consult with the archaeological monitor regarding objects and remains
encountered during grading that may be considered sacred or important. In the event that
evidence of human remains is discovered, the Native American monitor will verify that the
archaeologist has notified the Coroner in compliance with§7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code
and §5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No
Impact. The City's General Plan does not address paleontological resources. Paleontological sites are
abundant in southern Orange County, especially along the coast and in creek areas. Due to the project
site's location and the extensive disturbance which has occurred on the property, there is no potential for
paleontological resources.
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than
Significant Impact. There are no known grave sites within the project area. However, the project site is
situated in relatively close proximity to the J. Serra High School Athletic Fields complex. Archaeological
site CA-ORA-855(ORA-855) is located in the northwestern partof that complex approximately 1,050 feet
west of the proposed project. That site has been identified as a portion of the Juaneno village of
Putuidem, listed in the San Juan Capistrano Mission records. However, disturbance of human remains is
not anticipated. In the unlikely event that human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a
determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 The County
Coroner must be notified of any human remains find immediately. If the remains are determined to be
prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)which will determine
and notify a Most Likely Descendant(MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized
representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery,and shall complete the inspection within 24
hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD will have the opportunity to make recommendations to the
NAHC on the disposition of the remains. State law assures that impacts will be less than significant.
C C U C N C y E
y C d y C d N C Q
o m
aw_E o E w rn E o
o. Oa min_ z
14.6 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 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,
v landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ❑
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- El El 11site 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 El 1:1 ® ❑
CBC, 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 ❑ ❑ ❑
available for the disposal of waste water?
0 0
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 orbased on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) No Impact. The
project area is located within the seismically active southern California region and would likely be
subjected to groundshaking, thus exposing proposed water transmission and storage 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. No impacts are anticipated in this regard.
2) Strong seismic ground shaking?Less Than Significant 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-
Raymond, Palos Verdes, San Gabriel, and Sierra Madre-Santa Susana-Cucamonga faults. The
proposed project would be required to be in conformance with current construction standards.
Standard engineering practices and design criteria would reduce the effects of seismic groundshaking
to less than significant levels.
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, dated December 14,
1999, the project area is not susceptible to liquefaction hazards.
4) Landslides? Less Than Significant 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 area is not located within a known or highly suspected landslide area The
project would not result in landslide impacts.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact. Grading and trenching during the
construction phase of the project would displace soils and temporarily increase the potential for soils to be
subject to wind and water erosion. The contractor will be required to comply with standard engineering
practices for erosion control and a qualified soils engineer will monitor soil compaction during construction.
Soil erosion impacts are not anticipated.
Initial Study/Environmental Coist -13- City of San Juan Capistrano California
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-site or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?No Impact. No water extractions or similar practices would occur that are typically associated
with project-related subsidence effects. In addition, surface material which would be disrupted/displaced
by construction would be re-compacted on-site during project construction. Adherence to standard
engineering practices would result in no impacts from unstable soils. Refer to Response 14.6(a), above
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-8 of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life orproperty?Less Than Significant Impact. The dominant soil association in the
project area consists of terrace deposits characterized by their relatively high degree of stability.According
to the Orange County and Western Part of Riverside County Soil Survey, dated September 1978,terrace
deposits have a low shrink-swell potential. Further, adherence to standard engineering practices
contained within the most recent CBC would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant levels
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks oralternative 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.
q N a N N A q
C4= U CN SC y n
d C A 2 -2
IC
o0...
C A E
a
rnE o. .
. amn
._ _ c o
MN. n N 7 J N _E z
14.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through ❑ El Elthe 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 ❑ ❑ ❑
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?
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 E] El ❑
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 ❑ ❑ ❑
public use airport, would the project result in safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
T_ 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?
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted El El Elemergency 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 ❑ ❑ ❑
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
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.
Initial StudylEnvironmental Coist -14- City of San Juan Capistrano, California
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 is not anticipated to result in a release of hazardous materials into the environment.
However, during the short-term period of project construction, there is the possibility of accidental release
of hazardous substances such as spilling of hydraulic fluid or diesel fuel associated with construction
equipment maintenance. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of these hazardous
substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous
materials. The contractor will be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures
which would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances 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. The project does not involve
hazardous emissions or handling hazardous materials or waste.
J) 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. The proposed project site is not listed on any State register as a site
containing hazardous materials, and would not result in any hazard impacts.
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.
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.
g) Impair implementation of orphysically 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. The project would provide additional road capacity that would support any
evacuation required by an adopted emergency plan.
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.
A U A V S q U u
N
c uc c m S c u E
O OI d p m C O 4
M W_ i
14.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? El ® El ❑
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 EJ EJ IJ Z
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
Initial Study/Environmental Colist -15- City of fanoJuan Capistrano California
T C T C C U
q UA U q U R
c u .c c ,^ 5 E
y t A d C d N CA
QT6 y001C Np,6
a fnE ain� .ai0E 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 El El ❑
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 El El Elsubstantially 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 ❑ ❑ ❑
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other ❑ ❑ ❑
flood hazard delineation map?
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would El El ❑
—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 ❑ ❑ ❑
or dam?
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑
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 ❑ ❑ ❑
metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, and trash)?
I. Result in significant alternation of receiving water quality during or El El Elfollowin construction?
m. Could the proposed project result in increased erosion downstream? ❑ ❑ ❑
n. Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased El El El El
runoff?
o. Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage 1:1 EJ Elatterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes?
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 ❑ ❑ ❑
pollutant for which the water body is already impaired?
q. Tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? If so, can it ❑ ❑ ❑
exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions?
r Have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water ❑ 1-1 Elualit to either marine, fresh, or wetland waters?
s. Have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality? ❑ ❑ ❑
t. Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or
groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of ❑ ❑ ❑
beneficial uses?
u. Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? ❑ ❑ ❑
Initial Study/Environmental Colist -16- City of S'�n Juan Capistrano, California
1pu 10u� t u n
E
o mE o me a°iE o
o.w_ o.w D .��n_ z
v. Potentially Impact stormwater runoff from construction or post El 11 Elconstruction?
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?
x. Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the El El Elbeneficial uses of the receivingwaters?
y. Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or El El Elvolume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm?
z. Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or El El Elsurroundin areas?
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigated. Compliance with the statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity would prevent
stormwater pollution from impacting waters of the U.S. in the vicinity of the project site. Implementation of
the following mitigation measure would reduce potential water quality impacts to less than significant
levels.
WQ-1: The project Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)shall emphasize structural and non-
structural Best Management Practices(BMPs)in compliance with NPDES Program requirements
and specific measures shall include:
Siltation of drainage devices shall be handled through a maintenance program to remove
silt/dirt from channels and parking areas.
o Surplus or waste material from construction shall not be placed in drainage ways orwithin the
100-year floodplain of surface waters.
to All loose piles of soil, silt, clay, sand, debris, or other earthen materials shall be protected in a
reasonable manner to eliminate any discharge to waters of the State.
o During construction, temporary gravel dikes shall be used as necessary to prevent discharge
of earthen materials from the site during periods of precipitation or runoff.
Stabilizing agents such as straw, wood chips and/or soil sealant/dust palative shall be used
during the interim period after grading in order to strengthen exposed soil until permanent
solutions are implemented.
Revegetated areas shall be continually maintained in order to assure adequate growth and
root development.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies orinterfere 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 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. The proposed project will marginally increase impervious surface However, changes to the
Initial Study/Environmental C119list -17- City of S'�n Juan Capistrano, California
ground absorption rates is not considered significant. No significant changes in drainage patterns
associated with the proposed project are anticipated to 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. The project will not alter existing drainage
patterns. However,the project proposes to create a bio-swale along the easterly edge of the south park&
ride lot to collect and clean stormwater runoff from Rancho Viejo Road which would result in a positive
impact. The following project design feature is proposed:
WQ-2: The project's construction plans and specifications shall include the installation of a bio-swale
as part of the project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) treatment control best
management practices(BMPs)to address water quality impacts.The location and alignment
of the bio-swale shall be substantially consistent with the preliminary design plans. The final
design of the bio-swale shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer or his
designee for compliance with the Regional National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?No Impact. Construction of
proposed street improvements will result in minor changes in the amount of runoff due to an increase in
the amount of impermeable surface area within the project site. However,due to the relatively limited area
of impervious surface, the proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems.
t) 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
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, the proposed bio-swale would be designed to handle first flush storm runoff from a
portion of Rancho Viejo Road.
g) Place housing within a 100-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 area
is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. 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 not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. Refer to response to 14.8(c)
and Response 14.8(d).
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. The project site is not situated in the 100-
year flood plain.
J Inundation byseiche, tsunami, ormudflow?No Impact. The project site is not located along hillsides or
along coastal areas that might be subject to these natural events.
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. The project would result in a reduction in pollutant discharges through the
installation of the bio-swale previously mentioned and so, would not result in impacts in this regard.
Initial Study/Environmental Chwist -18- City of S•Juan Capistrano, California
1) Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction?No Impact.See
response to 14.8(a). During construction, erosion control will be provided on-site to protect water quality.
Operation would not typically 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. The 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 now rates
or volumes?No Impact.The project does not include mass site grading or substantial 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) list? 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 the response to 14.8(p) above.
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
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. The project area does not contain wetland or
riparian habitat. See the response to 14.4(b).
v) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction or post construction?No Impact.The project will
favorably affect stormwater runoff through the installation of the proposed bio-swale. See response to
14.8(d) above.
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 orstorage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas?No Impact.The
project does not include such areas or uses
x) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters?No
Impact.The project will be designed to meet the regional National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit requirements.
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.
Initial Study/Environmental ChOlist -19- City of San Juan Capistrano California
z) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? No Impact. See
Response to Section 14.4(b).
q R q N�L N A ry
C4J-.. U CC
v'c E
O p�6 O TC N d
afnE an� �yE z°
14.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑
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?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑ ❑ ❑
community conservation plan?
a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The proposed project will not divide an
established community. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to occur.
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 Circulation Element's Master Plan of Streets and
Highways. 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 14.4(f) above which concludes the project would not conflict with any habitat
conservation plan.
C4 V C4 y wLr4 y d
d C A d C W N C S E
d"E o
a(n_ awe gym_ z
14.10 MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that 1:1 El 11would 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 ❑ ❑ ❑
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 locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. Refer to Response 14.10(a).
Initial Study/Environmental ChOlist -20- City of San Juan Capistrano, California
T T t H C V u
A U q U g N U
C V C E y at+4 y E
d C Q d C W N C p
o m
mE o 5 .�d v�m E o
a _ a � _ z
14.11 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 El El Elvibration or groundborne noise levels?
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the El El Elproject vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels El 11 Elin 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 El El LJpublic use airport,would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive ❑ ❑ ❑
noise levels?
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? Potentially Significant
Impact Unless Mitigated. The proposed project would create a short-term impact in terms of
construction noise. Noise generated by construction and demolition equipment, including trucks,
backhoes and other equipment, may temporarily impact nearby sensitive receptors. Construction noise is
estimated to be approximately 92 dBA at 50 feet from the source. Under the City's Noise Ordinance
standards, construction activities would be limited to daytime hours for the duration of construction.
However, to minimize congestion impacts, construction would occur during evening, off-peak hours. All
construction vehicles and equipment will be required to use available noise suppression devices and be
equipped with operational mufflers during construction activities. Restricted hours, equipment restrictions,
and the relatively short period of construction will minimize noise. The following mitigation measures will
assure noise impacts are less than significant:
N-1: Equipment will use available noise suppression devices and properly maintained mufflers
Construction noise will be reduced by using quiet or"new technology", equipment, particularly
the quieting of exhaust noises by use of improved mufflers where feasible All internal
combustion engines used at the Project site will be equipped with the type of muffler
recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. In addition, all equipment will be maintained in
good mechanical condition so as to minimize noise created by faulty or poorly maintained
engine, drive-train and other components.
N-2: The equipment staging area will be situated so as to provide the greatest distance separation
between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the Project
site during all Project construction.
N-3: Notification will be given to residents of the Malaspina Subdivision of planned street
construction activities at least thirty (30) days prior to the commencement of demolition
activity, and will include a brief description of the project, the overall duration of the various
construction stages, noise abatement measures that will taken, and the name and phone
number of the construction site supervisor or his designee to report any violation of a noise
Initial Study/Environmental ChLtklist -21- City ofan Juan Capistrano, California
standard.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
No Impact. The amounts of construction and demolition required for the proposed facility is not
anticipated to generate excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels. Additionally, this project will
include pile-driving activities. Therefore, ground-borne vibration would not occur. Also, refer to response
14.11(a).
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 implementation of the proposed project may
result in short-term increased noise levels within the project vicinity due to construction activities. This
temporary condition would cease upon project completion.
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.
0 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?No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip.
q UA U S q U U
C E U C E N « U n
ac n a'c
om omc ym o
o. W E MOD A W E z
14.12 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 ❑ ❑ ❑
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the El El Elconstruction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the EJ El Elconstruction 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.
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.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? No Impact. Refer to responses to 14.12(a) and 14.12(b).
c _ E
E
o
E
mo me a �'£ o
M vi_ MZ5 mow_ z
Initial Study/Environmental ChOlist -22- City of S•Juan Capistrano, California
7; jC C
N U A U A V A
"W. u E m "`.= m E
y C A A C N N C
0 OI 6 0 T C N O�
avi E avis 10H E z°
14.13 PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, 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? 11 El El
Police Protection? ❑ ❑ 1:1
Schools? El EJ El
Parks? ❑ El F-1
Other public facilities? 11 El 0
1) Fire protection?No Impact. The proposed project would not alter fire protection services.
2) Police protection?No Impact. The project would not result in impacts to police protection services
3) Schools?No Impact. The proposed project would not result in the need for additional school facilities.
4) Parks? No Impact. The proposed project will not affect any existing or proposed park facilities nor
increase the demand for new recreational facilities.
5) Otherpublic facilities?No Impact. No significant impacts to other public facilities are anticipated.
E
i c E 2 m N. E E
ainE a°ins �Wi
14.14 RECREATION. Would the project:
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial El ❑ 0
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 1-1 ❑ ❑
an adverse physical effect on the environment?
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 The proposed project will not increase the demand on existing public or private parks or other
recreational facilities that would accelerate the physical deterioration of the facility
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
Initial Study/Environmental Ch*ist -23- City of Sqivan Capistrano, California
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?No Impact. The proposed
project does not include recreational facilities.
'ecu ccN .�.cu E
nen_ a`n� min_ z
14.14 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a ❑ ❑ ❑
substantial increase In either the number of vehicle trips, the volume
to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b. Exceed,either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard ❑ ❑ ❑
established by the county congestion/management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, 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. Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting ❑ ❑ ❑
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, orcongestion at intersections)?No Impact.The proposed project would provide
road capacity but would not increase vehicular trips. The project would result in a minor increase in
vehicular trips as a result of the construction activity for the proposed project. However,such traffic would
be minor and short-term.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact. Refer to Response
14.15(a), above
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels ora change in location
that results in substantial safety risks?No Impact. The proposed project would not result in a change in
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)? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated. The
proposed project includes modifications to the access of the southerly park & ride lot The existing
entrance on Junipero Serra Road will be reconstructed as a eastbound, right-in only and exiting trafficwill
be prohibited. In addition,the Rancho Viejo Road entrance to this parking lotwill be relocated to the south
to align with Malaspina Road eliminating the current 120 foot centerline offset. These design features will
Initial Study/Environmental Coist -24- City of Sin Juan Capistrano, California
reduce potential traffic hazards resulting from increased traffic at the intersection. The following project
design features are proposed to mitigate mitigates.
TR-1: The construction plans and specifications shall provide for the existing Junlpero Serra Road
entrance to the southerly park & ride lot to be reconstructed as a eastbound, right-in only
The entrance shall be designed, constructed and signed to prohibit traffic from either exiting
or from making westbound left-turns.
TR-2 The construction plans and specifications shall provide for the relocation and realignment of
the Rancho Viejo Road entrance to the southerly park& ride lot so as to align as closely as
possible, with Malaspina Road.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?No Impact. The project will not affect emergency access The
street shall remain accessible at all times to vehicular traffic.
Result in inadequate parking capacity?No Impact. The project proposes to relocate but maintain the
same number of parking spaces as presently exist. The project would result in relocating seven spaces
from the northerly to the southerly parking lot.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, orprograms supporting alternative transportation(e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? No Impact. The project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation. In fact, the project will improve overall access to the existing park&
ride bots and could increase ride-sharing participation at this location.
T T C C
q UA V q N
C C V C C y u U U y d
mcg+ 'cm 'cm E
rna ern- mmn
o._ E E o
aw_ ami gym_ z
14.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional El El ElWater Quality Control Board?
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?
c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which ❑ ❑ ❑
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 ❑ ❑ ❑
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 El El Elthe project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to L1 El ❑
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related El 11to solid waste?
L1 N
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?No
Impact. The proposed project would not affect wastewater treatment requirements.
Initial Study/Environmental Ch*list -25- City of*San Capistrano California
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 proposed project would not require or result in the construction of wastewater treatment facilities.
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
proposed project would not require nor result in the expansion of existing stormwater drainage facilities.
The project would require the relocation of existing catch basins.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. The project does not require water supplies.
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. The project does not require wastewater treatment.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the projects solid waste disposal
needs?No Impact.The demolition and removal of existing road material would generate a small amount
of solid waste which would be insignificant in the context of the Prima Deshecha Landfill's operating
permit of 2,000 tons per day.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?No Impact. Refer to
Response 14.16f, above.
U U V A
C U C L 6
E
amE o °'c v2'E o
aa_ ami mow_ z
14.16 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-
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?
c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable ("Cumulatively considerable" means the ❑ ❑ El
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?
16. PREPARATION. The initial study for the subject project was prepared by:
Wil Ramsey, A CP, Principal Pla ner
Initial Study/Environmental Colist -26- City o4on Juari Capistrano, California
17. DETERMINATION. (To be completed by lead agency) Based on 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 herein have been
included in this project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
18. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME (DFG) FEE DETERMINATION (Chapter 1706,
Statutes of 1990-AB 3158)
[X] It is hereby found that this project has no potential adverse impact, either individually or cumulatively,
on any wildlife resources and a "Certificate of Fee Exemption" shall be issued for this project.
[] It is hereby found that this project could result in potential impacts to 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.
19. ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINATION(Section 9-2.201 of SJC Municipal Code):
The initial study for this project has been reviewed and the environmental determination, contained in
Section V. preceding, is hereby approved:
Williblim Ramsey, AICP, Environmental Admi C
or
(P\Planning\Plan Shared\CEQA Forms\CEQA-IS-InitialStudy wpd)
RESOLUTION NO. 07-8-21- 03
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF, THE CITY OF SAN JUAN
CAPISTRANO APPROVING PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLANS FOR THE
INTERSECTION OF JUNIPERO SERRA ROAD AND RANCHO VIEJO
ROAD
WHEREAS,the City has developed preliminary design plans for the Junipero
Serra Road and Rancho Viejo Road intersection in accordance with the City's General
Plan Circulation Element and the Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) including
Rancho Viejo Road northbound dual left turn lanes at Junipero Serra Road;Junipero Serra
Road eastbound right turn lane, 1-5 northbound ramps to Rancho Viejo Road; Junipero
Serra Road westbound right turn lane, Rancho Viejo Road to 1-5 northbound ramps, and
include planned improvements to street pavement, curb and gutter,sidewalk,the park-and-
ride lots, landscaping, and other accessory improvements; and,
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2003, the City Council adopted the Traffic
Congestion Relief Capital Improvement Program(TCRCIP)as recommended by the Traffic
Congestion Relief Ad-Hoc Committee and ranked the project elements comprising this
proposed project as priorities #20, #25, and #26; and,
WHEREAS, this project has been processed in accordance with Section 9-
2.337, Public improvement plans and outside agency development review of Title 9, Land
Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Administrator has reviewed the project
pursuant to Section 15061 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), prepared
an Initial Study pursuant to CEQA, and determined the project qualifies for a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND); and has otherwise complied with all applicable provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
meeting on July 24, 2007 pursuant to Section 9-2.313 of the Municipal Code to consider
public testimony on the proposed project; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public meeting on
August 21, 2007 pursuant to Section 9-2.313 of the Municipal Code to consider public
testimony on the proposed project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
San Juan Capistrano does hereby make the following findings:
1. The proposed project is consistent with the policies and objectives of the General
Plan, specifically, the Circulation Element because it would result in a geometric
1
design for the Junipero Serra Road and Rancho Viejo Road intersection consistent
with the City's geometric design standards for a "secondary arterial" road ; and,
2. Additional funding of $23,000 is necessary to complete the design and is hereby
allocated to the project from the Capistrano Circulation Fee Program (CCFP): and,
3. The proposed project is consistent with the policies and objectives of the General
Plan, specifically,the Parks and Recreation Element because it will accommodate a
bikeway consistent with the recommendations of the Master Plan of Bikeways as
provided by Figure PR-1,Parks and Recreational Facilities; and,
4. The proposed project has been designed to be consistent with the City's Public
Facility Design Standards.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the City Council of
the City of San Juan Capistrano hereby approves the preliminary design plans for the
proposed street and related improvements to the Junipero Serra Road and Rancho Viejo
Road intersection as provided by the plans entitled "Junipero Serra Road&Rancho Viejo
Road Intersection Improvements"prepared by APA Engineering, Inc. and dated March 20,
2007.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED tril
1s` day of August, 2007.
i
/ M AL EV TO, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARGA l2 MONAHHAN, CIT CLER
t�
2
• 10
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO )
I, MARGARET R. MONAHAN, appointed City Clerk of the City of San Juan Capistrano,do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 07-08-21-03 was duly adopted by the City
Council of the City of San Juan Capistrano at a Regular meeting thereof, held the 2151 day
of August 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: C UNCIL MEMBERS: Nielsen, Uso, Hribar, Soto and Mayor Allevato
NOES: UNCIL MEMBER: None
ABSE OUNCIL MEMBER: None
M _R, R. M A AN, Cityrk
___
RESOLUTION NO. 07-8-21-x
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN
CAPISTRANO APPROVING PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLANS FOR THE
INTERSECTION OF JUNIPERO SERRA ROAD AND RANCHO VIEJO
ROAD
Whereas, the City has developed preliminary design plans for the Junipero
Serra Road and Rancho Viejo Road intersection in accordance with the City's General
Plan Circulation Element and the Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) including
Rancho Viejo Road northbound dual left turn lanes at Junipero Serra Road; Junipero Serra
Road eastbound right turn lane, 1-5 northbound ramps to Rancho Viejo Road; Junipero
Serra Road westbound right turn lane, Rancho Viejo Road to I-5 northbound ramps, and
include planned improvements to street pavement,curb and gutter, sidewalk,the park-and-
ride lots, landscaping, and other accessory improvements; and,
Whereas, on September 16, 2003, the City Council adopted the Traffic
Congestion Relief Capital Improvement Program (TCRCIP) as recommended by the Traffic
Congestion Relief Ad-Hoc Committee and ranked the project elements comprising this
proposed project as priorities #20, #25, and #26; and,
Whereas, this project has been processed in accordance with Section 9-
2.337, Public improvement plans and outside agency development review of Title 9, Land
Use Code; and,
Whereas, the Environmental Administrator has reviewed the project pursuant
to Section 15061 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), prepared an Initial
Study pursuant to CEQA, and determined the project qualifies for a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND); and has otherwise complied with all applicable provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and,
Whereas, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public meeting
on July 24, 2007 pursuant to Section 9-2.313 of the Municipal Code to consider public
testimony on the proposed project; and,
Whereas, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public meeting on
August 21, 2007 pursuant to Section 9-2.313 of the Municipal Code to consider public
testimony on the proposed project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
San Juan Capistrano does hereby make the following findings:
1. The proposed project is consistent with the policies and objectives of the General
Plan, specifically, the Circulation Element because it would result in a geometric
1
ATTACHMENT 5
0 0
design for the Junipero Serra Road and Rancho Viejo Road intersection consistent
with the City's geometric design standards for a "secondary arterial' road ; and,
2. Additional funding of $23,000 is necessary to complete the design and is hereby
allocated to the project from the Capistrano Circulation Fee Program (CCFP): and,
3. The proposed project is consistent with the policies and objectives of the General
Plan, specifically, the Parks and Recreation Element because it will accommodate a
bikeway consistent with the recommendations of the Master Plan of Bikeways as
provided by Figure PR-1,Parks and Recreational Facilities; and,
4. The proposed project has been designed to be consistent with the City's Public
Facility Design Standards.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of
the City of San Juan Capistrano hereby approves the preliminary design plans for the
proposed street and related improvements to the Junipero Serra Road and Rancho Viejo
Road intersection as provided by the plans entitled "Junipero Serra Road& Rancho Viejo
Road Intersection Improvements"prepared by APA Engineering, Inc. and dated March 20,
2007.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21St day of August, 2007.
SAM ALLEVATO, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARGARET R. MONAHAN, CITY CLERK
2
9 0
Consideration of Preliminary Design Approval, Budget Amendment and
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Junipero Serra Road and Rancho Viejo
Road Intersection Improvements (CIP No. 404)
Preliminary Plans Entitled "Junipero Serra Road & Rancho Viejo Road
Intersection Improvements" Prepared By APA Engineering, Inc. and Dated March
20, 2007. (Document may be reviewed at the Office of the City Clerk)
ATTACHMENT