Resolution Number 97-3-4-5209
RESOLUTION NO. 97-3-4-5
DENYING APPEAL AND AFFHtMING ENVIRONMENTAL
ADMINISTRATOR DECISION - REZONE 96-1 AND ARCHITECTURAL
CONTROL 96-6 (RESCO/KING)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN
CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ADMIMSTRATOR'S DECISION IN ISSUING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR REZONE 96-1 AND
ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL 96-6 - RESCO DEVELOPMENT/CAPISTRANO
GATEWAY (KING)
WHEREAS, Robert King, President of "Save Our San Juan," has filed an appeal of
the Environmental Administrator's decision to issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Zone
Change (Rezone) 96-1, Architectural Control 96-6 (Resco/Capistrano Gateway) pursuant to Section
9-2.314, Appeals, of the Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, Robert King, President of "Save Our San Juan," asserts that the
Environmental Administrator's decision to issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration was not in
compliance with applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and contends that
the project requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Report; and,
WHEREAS, Robert King, President of Save Our San Juan, asserts that the complete
project is undefined and the portions that are defined have such incomplete information that the
complete environmental impact of this project cannot be defined; that the proposed mitigation
[measures] allow a bypassing of the community's right to know and have analyzed all environmental
impacts of the entire project and surrenders the community's rights and the applicant's responsibility,
under the California Environmental Quality Act, to a permitting process; that the project has not been
fully analyzed as to grading, aesthetics, traffic noise, glare, community compatibility, and landscaping;
and, that the mitigation [measures] specified are inadequate to protect the community from the known
effects of this project; and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Administrator reviewed the project on December 10,
1996, pursuant to Section 15061 of the California Environmental Quality Act and issued a Mitigated
Negative Declaration and caused a Notice of Negative Declaration to be posted pursuant to the City's
Environmental Review guidelines, and has otherwise complied with all applicable provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act and the City's adopted Environmental Review Guidelines; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly -noticed public meeting on
February 4, 1997, pursuant to Section 9-2.313 of the Municipal Code, to consider testimony on this
appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San
Juan Capistrano does hereby make the following findings:
-1-
NO]
1. The Environmental Administrator's decision to issue a Mitigated Negative
Declaration is consistent with the City's adopted significance thresholds established in the City's
Environmental Review Guidelines based on findings that potentially significant environmental effects
would be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the proposed mitigation measures; and,
2. The Environmental Administrator's decision to issue a Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been based on a project which has been adequately defined so that the complete
environmental impacts of the project have been adequately identified and publicly disclosed in
compliance with all applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, in
particular Sections 15070, 15071 and 15072; and,
3. The Environmental Administrator's decision to issue a Mitigated Negative
Declaration includes a detailed discussion of grading, aesthetic, traffic, noise, light/glare, and land
use -related environmental impacts which adequately advises the affected community of the nature and
extent of the project's potentially significant environmental impacts and their right -to -know consistent
with Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; and,
4. The Environmental Administrator's decision to issue a Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been based on a full and comprehensive analysis of grading, aesthetics, traffic, noise,
glare, community compatibility, and landscaping impacts associated with the proposed project
consistent with Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; and,
5. The Environmental Administrator's decision to issue a Mitigated Negative
Declaration is based on mitigation measures which are adequate to protect the community from the
known effects of this project and includes various mitigation measures prepared pursuant to Section
15063 and Section 15070(b)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; and,
Project -Related Noise
6. The project will not result in any significant noise impacts due to the fact that
the project does not propose any bell tower nor outside sound amplification; the pre-school use
would be limited to no more than thirty (30) children; the outdoor play area is situated about six
hundred (600) feet from existing residences; and additionally proposed mitigation would require
public review through the discretionary review process for any proposals for a bell tower or outside
sound amplification; and,
Aesthetics
7. The project will not result in any significant aesthetic impacts due to the fact
that the effected viewshed is limited to southbound automobile traffic on Interstate -5 (I-5) and the
San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor; the architectural design and finish of the retaining walls
bordering the graded pad are subject to the City's Architectural Design Guidelines; and the proposed
mitigation measures will effectively mitigate impacts by requiring the installation of landscaping on
manufactured slopes which will screen views from I-5 and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation
Corridor, and existing street tree landscaping will be protected during construction.
-2-
Traffic/Circulation
211
8. The project will not result in any significant transportation or circulation
impacts due to the fact that the traffic study prepared by Traffic Safety Engineers for the project has
determined that arterial highway intersections will maintain a minimum level -of -service "D" as
mandated by the City's General Plan Growth Management Element; site access will be required to
meet the Municipal Code's driveway entrance standards and sight distance standards; and, mitigation
measures effectively mitigate impacts by restricting the use of the graded pad to "church and religious
institution uses" or requiring a cumulative traffic analysis and traffic improvements for any other use
of the graded pad; and,
Li h Glare
9. The project will not result in any significant light and glare impacts due to the
fact that the following proposed mitigation measures will assure that all exterior lighting complies
with the provisions of Section 9-3.614, Lighting, of the Municipal Code and light and glare impacts
will be reduced to a level of insignificance:
"Mitigation Measure 49: Prior to Planning Commission review of the
architectural control application, the applicant shall prepare and
submit a lighting plan. The lighting plan shall include the location of
all lighting, light source (high pressure sodium, metal halide) lens
(NEMA) type, height, mounting (building, pole, etc.), vertical tilt,
horizontal orientation, and cutoff/shielding type. The lighting plan
shall be designed to comply with the provisions of Section 9-3.614,
Lighting, of the Land Use Code as determined by the Commission."
"Mitigation Measure #10: Prior to Planning Commission review of
the architectural control application, the applicant shall prepare and
submit a photometric analysis of the lighting plan. The photometric
analysis shall evaluate lighting intensity to the nearest 0.1 footcandle
on not less than ten -foot grid, and evaluate adequate off-site area to
demonstrate compliance with City standards."
"Mitigation Measure #I1: All exterior lighting fixtures shall be
provided with shielding and situated so that direct light does not
encroach on adjoining residential properties, in particular the Spotted
Bull Lane and Country Hills Estates neighborhoods."
Freeway/Corridor Noise
10. The project will not result in any significant freeway/corridor noise impacts
due to the fact that freeway widening and corridor construction are independent of the subject project
and the City is precluded from imposing mitigation measures on the project to address such noise
impacts. Furthermore, the grading proposed by the project would not remove any physical barriers
-3-
04 WA
which may presently block freeway/corridor noise as depicted on plan sheet B-7, section B -B which —
depicts a typical east -west section through the site; proposed buildings adjoining Rancho Viejo Road
provide the opportunity to deflect and absorb freeway/corridor noise; and the existing ridgeline which
forms the southern boundary would remain unchanged by grading and effectively block site deflected
noise from Spotted Bull Lane.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Juan
Capistrano does hereby affirm the decision of the Environmental Administrator and does deny the
appeal.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 4th day of
March -1997.
--DAVID M. SWERDLIN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERN6
-4-
213
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO )
I, CHERYL JOHNSON, City Clerk of the City of San Juan Capistrano, California,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No.
97-3-4-5 adopted by the City Council of the City of San Juan Capistrano, California,
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of March 1997, by the
following vote:
AYES: Council Members Jones, Greiner, Hart, Campbell
and Mayor Swerdlin
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
(SEAL)
CHERYL JOLNSOWCITY CLERK
-5-