Loading...
Resolution Number 09-07-07-03a *.*]UMIs] LA� 1 rTQik1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR CODE AMENDMENT (CA) 07-005 TO AMEND TITLE 9 OF THE LAND USE CODE SECTION 9-3.543 REGULATING SIGNS WHEREAS, the Environmental Administrator has evaluated the Sign Code Amendment (CA) 07-005 Initial Study and has determined that the project would not have any significant environmental impacts and prepared a Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code Section 9-3.543 regulates signs pertaining to process, procedure and development standards to include but not be limited to location, size, height, area, height, materials, colors and illumination; and WHEREAS, the City Council authorized amendment of the land use code regulating signs and created a Sign Subcommittee to identify deficiencies in the current code provisions as well as address appropriate signs regulations regarding number, area, illumination, materials, colors, temporary signs, real estate signs, and legal constraints; and WHEREAS, staff and the Sign Subcommittee conducted six (6) work sessions, created a draft sign ordinance and forwarded to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City of San Juan Capistrano Planning Commission conducted four (4) work sessions to review the draft sign ordinance, conducted two (2) public hearings, supported the Sign Code Amendment and supported certifying the Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, on May 19, 2009 the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing, accepted public testimony, and reviewed Code Amendment (CA) 07-005 regulating signs, and continued the item to June 16, 2009; and WHEREAS, on June 16, 2009 the City Council continued the public hearing to July 7, 2009; and WHEREAS, on July 7, 2009 the City Council conducted a continued public hearing on Code Amendment (CA) 07-005 regulating signs, determined that proposed ordinance would not have any significant impacts on the environment, and certified the Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: Section 1. The City Council certified the Negative Declaration as being in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines (Exhibit A). 07-07-2004 Section 2. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately after its passage. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day - July, 2009. MA NIELSEN, MAYOR MO NAM N', (CITYL\ERK 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. 09-07-07-03 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of San Juan Capistrano at a Regular meeting thereof, held the 7th day of July 2009, by the following vote: E ,` (COUNCIL MEMBERS: Allevato, Freese, Hribar, Uso and Mayor Nielsen �E OUNCIL MEMBER: None SE�1!,ftlOUNCII-. MEMBER: None 07-07-2009 35/07/2009 15:25 714-834-3399 OC CLERK RECORDER OR . PAGE 02/1 NEGATIVE DECLARATION city oftsars jean c9ptstrano, californis I. APPLICANT. City of San Juan Capistrano, Community Davolopment Dept 2.- ADDRESS: 32400 Passo Adielant% San Juan Caplstiano. CA 92675 3. PHONE NUMBER- (949) 493A III 4. LEAD AGENCY. City of Son Juan Capistrano, 32400 Pasoo Adelanto, 92675 6. PROJECT MGR.: Gram Taylor, Assistant Corhmunity Devolopment Director, 940) 234-4410, 9Wylo[ &an1uancaol3trano.drQ. G. PROJECT TITLE: Code Amendment (CA) 07-005 7. DESCRIPTION, An ordinance updating Son Juan Capisttano Municipal Code Section 0-3,543 regulating signs to include process, procedures and development standards to include location, area, size, height, rrialerW4, colors and illumination, ENVIRONMENTAL ADWNISTRATOR (EA) DETERMINATION: This project has been evaluated by the Environmental Administrator of the City of Son Juan Capistrano in Act. (CEQA). On March 11, 2009, the Environmental Administrator determined that this project will rvt have a potentially significant adverse effect on, the environment and issued a Negative Declaration (ND). The basis for the EnvironMental Administrator's determination. is the Initial Study prepared pursuant to Section 15053 of the CialitbMia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelinos. Copies may be reviewed or obtained from the CDMM]JnkY Oevelopment Depa..d.ment in. City Hall located at 32400 Paseo Adelanto, San Juan Capistrano, CA 9205 (949) 493-117'7. The County Clorks posting date at the top of the document establishes the beginning of: the public review process, All public comments on the Negative Declaration (ND) must be : provided to the project manager or the Environmental Administrator, in writing, w4hin: twenty (20) days of the posting date, orfor projects requiring State Cleo rinphouee (SCH). review, within thirty (30) days of the posting data, �AWarn A. Ramsey, Aid#,'Em k671Administrator 70�� 05/07/2009 15:25 714-834-3399 OC CLERK RECORDER OR Negetfw Aaclumfion {ntt7) CA 07-005 -- Sign Code Amendment 2 City ut San Jinn Geprstrano Section 9.2,201 or the Title %land Use Coda aatabliShas the aulho€ity of the City's Envtronn>entei Administfator for making oWforrrnerdat delormtfra€ions end implemanting the, City's Environmorntal Review Cuidetines. Pursuant to $action eels of the rWe 9, Land Use Cod$, any person may file an appest of the Envbanrnentat A&Mnistrator's dadriion to issue a Notice of Exemption, Negative Declaration i (ND), Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or requite prepafatica *fen Environmarslat Impact Report (EIR) , i Appaals must be filed in Wr&V plrrsuent(o Section 9.2.311 0711t 9, Land Wo Code in a tlmety manner%W*t the Clty cterk's office. The filing of an appeal stays the issuance of an onviror montat determination until a dedslon by the City Counoll err the appeal. cc; county Clerk Project ft RZ 0-006 (pte)cci managet) CEQA fie (Pisnring Secretary) Project Applicant Polling: t j City Hail; () Puisne Library: E) Carrimu0y Center P STZ 18 2001 F'AGE 03iH5 05/07/2009 15:25 714-1334-3399 OC CLERK REMRDER OR itINMAL STUDY cifv of saln ivan ca oistralso cai€lmrnia 1, PROJECT: Cade AmEndmant jCA) 07-005, amending Tills 9 of the Sart Juan Capistrano Mun+cipol Casio, Zoning Reguiatlons, by updating Section 03.543 fell0sting signs, 2, LEAD AGENCY: City or Sart Juan Capistrano 3, CONTACT PERSON 6 PHONE: Grant Taylor, Assistant Community Development Director, 324DO . Paraeo Asfslanto• San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675, (949) 2344410, safeVtctirs�&anit€ancetal',ftrlttt4.ar4. 4. PROJECT LOCATION: City�wiile but predominantly In non-msldanttatzoNng dWtriets, S. APPLICANT; City of Son Juan Capistrano, Community Devalopmenl Department U. GI NMAL PLAN I; C$tGNATlON! Cibf-wide. bvt predominantly non.revldarolal rand use designalioos. 7. ZONING: City-vdde Gut predominarttty nort-realdentlal zoning districts. 8. PROJECT RESCRIPTit7N: An ordin.1noe updathg San Juan Caoistrano Municipal Code Seetloo V-3.543 regulating signs to intkide grrt"ss, procedure, and cimlopmanl standards to include localiort, area, Site, materials, colors and itlumination. 9. SURROUNDING LAND VSE(S) & PROJECT SETTING, Not applicable. The ordlnarice repvtetes signs Otywides btA.predorninarslly in non»resi ientasl Dreg$. The commercial, industrial, public & ins Wtional areas are prediamirtamkV tocalot! along the city's orteriel highways and are Often adjacent to or ne$t tesWantEal subdivislon3. 10. OTHER REQUIRED AGE:NCYAPPROVALS: None 11. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION, Nsme 12, COMLTA now: --A;'CthritLi�cslAgenirieB` - - City of Santa Demote City of San W3 Obi$po Sign survey of Orertpe County municipalities S. Ctly of San Juan Capistrano. pave Adarns, Coy Manager Cindy Russell, Assistard City Manager Steven Apple, AICP; Community Development Eli€eclor W klarn Ramsey. AICP Principal Planner David Cr>rtttrrau, Senior Planner Juslirt Kirk, Acsoclata Planner Nick Ta&r, Aesrstant Planner T&I Delcamp, fitstorla P(eeorvrdtton MDrtager Omar Sandoval, City Attt mey Jason Retlerer, Deputy City Attorney G. Doo0mvits s re$numeer: City of SAA Juan copls;rano. General Plan, City of San Juin Ceplstrana. Title 9, Land Use Code. City of son Juan Capistrano, Cnvimmmentol ReviDw Outdeline&. Pow t I f� !p ►tafe�y ; °err PAGE 04/06 05!0712009 15:25 714-834-3399 OC CLEW, RECORDER OR WAGE 05106 Initial SfudytEnvironmeniol Chac$dlet Code Amendment 07 -US JSnRa ulatlons -2- C€ o( San Juan Capistrano, Caflfornia Criy or San duan Capistrano Arohitsc€prat DoOgn Gvidognes 12. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTls k.LYAFFECTED! T"4nvironiner€fai tactors chocked below would be potenlisiy offectsd by this pMOCL Involving at react one impart that ;&:a 'PotentlaAy Signiftcont impact" as indicated by the chedd'ist on the following pages: NONE ❑ Aestneties ❑ Agrlculturat AeeouMes ❑ Ali Quallty [ BlolvgiCal Resources ❑ Cuitural ResoUCceS ❑ Geology & Soilra ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Mats. ❑ Hydrology & YVMW Qu&Ifty ❑ Land Use b Planning ❑ Mirieref Resources . ❑ Naha [) Population & dousing ❑ Pubtic Services p Recreation © Transportation &'ftatfr, ❑ U(ill les & Sorvice 5ysterns Q Mandatory F'ksdings of Slgeif;cance 14. DETERMINATION. (To be eompleted.by Lead agency) Based on ifs Initiat ev;aluslion.- i I -find that the:progosad prnjaat COULD NOT have a s€gnillcant effect on the anvlronrnent, and a! NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared, i find that although the proposed project could have a significant efYent on the eavironment. therewlil not be a signilicanl ef9ect In this raee becatize revisions in the projeathave been tr:ada by or ag, eea ; to by the project proponent, A MITIGATED NEGA nVE DECLARATION will bo prepared, 0 t ttnd the€ the propotiecl project MAY have a oignificeAl efrasl on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is raqulred. El I And that the proposed project MAY have a "paterstiai€yr:afgnif carat InnpscV nr ".potentially significant unlasz mitigated" impact cn the environrnsnt, but at feast one c(fed 1) has been odequaWy analyzed In an sarfler document pursuant to applicable legal standardit, end 2) has recon addressed by: rrAlgation rneasurbs used on tate earlier analysis as described on attanhed shoots. An= ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,bAHrnustensWeanlythe effectsthat ramahto be addressed. Cj t find that although the propoSed project could have a signillwant effect on iiia environment, because ah potentlalfy sfgnAicanl atlley= (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Elft or NEGATIVE i DECLARATION pursuant to eppiftble standards, and (b) have bean ava€dos3 w tstitigated pursuant to that. earlier -5111 G(NEGATIVE DECtARA'TION, lncWng ravlstohs or-mlogalion rnassur�xlthatare:'. imposed upon lho proposed projarct, nothing further i9 required, 1S. ENVIRONMENTAL ADOMSTRATOR DETERMINATION (Se lion 9-2.201 o(SJC MuniCipalcode): The inl1W study for this project hu4s been revlowed and the orvMfonmental delerminstkm is Way:; approved: i MUM Ramsey, ATOP, Prirtcipef plenty r Envkonmcntal Adrninfsirator 18. ENVIRONMENTAL C14ECKLIST This saollorr gnslyxes the potentfat environmental Impacts whlois stay Mutt from the proposed project. For tha avOuation of potentlal hpacts, the quesllor+s In the Initial Study Checklist (Section 2) are staled; and answers 21`11 prnvlded accarding to the analysts undenaken as part of the Inliisl Study, The Bnatysisi considers the project's short -lean Impacts (cortstruCtictr< hied}. And its operational b1` day-fo-(lay! knpaats. For each vuestion, the following should be provide Q: (above for use b Coun!y Clerk -Recorder's Office and NEGATIVE DECLARATION city of san Juan capistrano, california 1. APPLICANT: City of San Juan Capistrano, Community Development Dept. 2. ADDRESS: 32400 Paseo Adelanto, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 3. PHONE NUMBER: -(949) 493-1171 4. LEAD AGENCY: City of San Juan Capistrano, 32400 Paseo Adelanto, 92675 5. PROJECT MGR: Grant Taylor, Assistant Community Development Director, (949) 234-4410, gtaylor(a sanivancapistrano,org. 6. PROJECT TITLE: Code Amendment (CA) 07-005 7. DESCRIPTION: An ordinance updating San Juan Capistrano Municipal, Code Section 9-3.543 regulating signs to include process, procedures and development standards to include location, area, size, height, materials, colors and illumination. ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATOR (EA) DETERMINATION: This project has been evaluated by the Environmental Administrator of the City of Sari Juan Capistrano in accordance with the Section 21080(c) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). On March 11, 2009, the Environmental Administrator determined that this project will not have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment and issued a Negative Declaration (ND). The basis for the Environmental Administrator's determination is the Initial Study prepared pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Copies may be reviewed or obtained from the Community Development Department in City Hall located at 32400 Paseo Adelanto, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 (949) 493-1171. The County Clerk's posting date at the top of the document establishes the beginning of the public review process. All public comments on the Negative Declaration (ND) must be provided to the project manager or the Environmental Administrator, in writing, within twenty (20) days of the posting date, or for projects requiring State Clearinghouse (SCH) review, within thirty (30) stays of the posting date. �� 4 ,k��� n A. Ramsey, AICP,'EnvironT6n11 Administrator Negative Declaration (ND) CA 07-005 — Sign Code Amendment 2 City of San Juan Capistrano Section 9-2.201 of the Title 9, Land Use Cade establishes the authority of the City's Environmental Administrator for making environmental determinations and implementing the City's Environme€ital Review Guidelines. Pursuant to Section 9-2.311, Appeals of the Title 9, Land Use Code, any person may file an appeal of the Environmental Administrator's decision to issue a Notice of Exemption, Negative Declaration (ND), Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (ElR) , Appeals must be tiled in writing pursuant to Section 9-2.311 of Title 9, Land Use Code in a timely mannerwith the City clerk's office. The filing of an appeal stays the issuance of an environmental determination until a decision by the City Council on the appeal. cc: County Clerk Project file RZ 08-008 (project manager) CEQA file (Planning Secretary) Project Applicant Posting: [ j City Had; [ j Public Library; [ ] Community Center INITIAL STUDY cit of san 'uan Capistrano California 1. PROJECT: Code Am=endment (CA) 07-005, amending Title 8 of the San Juan Capistrano Municipal Cade, Zoning Regulations, by updating Section 9-3.543 regulating signs.. 2, LEAD AGENCY: City of San Juan Capistrano 3. CONTACT PERSON & PHONE: Grant Taylor, Assistant Community Development Director., 32400 Paseo Adelanto, San Juan Capistrano, CA 82675, (949) 234-4410, gtaylor cr,sanivancapistrano.org. 4. PROJECT LOCATION: City-wide but predominantly in non-residential zoning districts. 5. APPLICANT: City of San Juan Capistrano, Community Development Department 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: City-wide but predominantly non-residential land use designations. 7. ZONING: City -gide but predominantly non-residential zoning districts. 8. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An ordinance updating San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code Section 9-3.543 regulating signs to include process, procedure, and development standards to include location, area, size, materials, colors and illumination. 9. SURROUNDING LAND USE(S) & PROJECT SETTING:Not applicable. The ordinance re ulates signs c� wide but predominantiy in non-residential areas. The commercial, ty ... industrial, public & institutional areas are predominantly located along the city's arterial highways and are often adjacent to or near residential subdivisions. 10. OTHER REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS: None 11. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: None 12. 'CONSULTATION: A. Other Local Agencies: City of Santa Barbara City of San Luis Obispo Sign survey of Orange County municipalities S. City of San Juan Capistrano Dave Adams, City Manager Cindy Russell, Assistant City Manager Steven Apple, AICP, Community Development Director William Ramsey, AICP Principal Planner David Contreras, Senior Planner Justin Kirk, Associate Planner Nick Taylor, Assistant Planner Teri Delcamp, Historic Preservation Manager Omar Sandoval, City Attorney Jason Retterer, Deputy City Attorney C. Documents & resources, City of San Juan Capistrano, General Plan. City of San ,Tuan Capistrano, Title 9, Land Use Code. City of San Juan Capistrano, Environmental Review Guidelines. Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Code Amendment 07-05 (Sign Re Mations -2- City of San Juan Capistrano, California City of San Juan Capistrano Architectural Design Guidelines 13. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED. The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages: NONE Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology & Soils ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Mats. ❑ Hydrology & Water Quality ❑ Land Use & Planning ❑ Mineral Resources. ❑ Noise ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation & Traffic ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance 14. 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. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated"' -impact on the-environment;-but-atleastone effect 1) -rias been adequately anal yied . in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. IM .L find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in aro earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Elk or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 16. ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINATION (Section. 9-2.209 of SJC Municipal Code): The initial study for this project has been reviewed and the environmental determination is hereby approved: Date: VVI'" w1 VtVil m Ramsey, AICP, Principal Plann r Environmental Administrator 16. 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, the following. should be provided: Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Code Amendment 07-05 (Sign Regulations) -3- Ci of San Juan Ca istrano, California 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except."No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2)' All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Cance the City has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"to a „Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses maybe used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief,discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project: 6) Incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Include a source list and list of individuals contacted or consulted. 8) This form is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and all Initial Studies performed on projects within the city must use this format. . 9) The explanation of each issue should identify, a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measum identified,.if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant levels. Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Code Amendment 07-05 (Si2n Regulations) -4- Cily of San Juan Capistrano, California a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact The sign code amendment does not include sign development proposals but regulates process, procedure and sets forth development standards. Potential sign related aesthetic impacts would be addressed by this ordinance by regulating location, size, area, height, materials, colors and illumination. No aesthetic resources would be impacted as a result of this sign code amendment. Upon receiving a sign permit application, development standards regulating such signs would be enforced that will minimize aesthetic impacts. Additionally, the incorporation of landscape scree6ing for freestanding signs would substantially minimize visual impacts to surrounding areas. Landscaping treatments are anticipated to include species similar to those surrounding the existing project site. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a state scenic highway? No Impact. No scenic resources, including 'trees; rock outcroppings or historic buildings would be impacted by this sign code amendment as appropriate development standards and review procedures are included in the ordinance. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual characteror quality of the site and its surroundings? No impact Refer to Responses 14,1 a and 14.1 b, above. d) Create anew source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. The proposed sign code amendment sets forth standards for internal and external illumination of signs so as not to negatively impact adjacent properties or be aesthetically obtrusive. 21 � m & . tl A 4 OF Os U Q 16„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 . a. Convert Prime Farm#and, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building along a State- ❑ ❑ ❑ E Mapping and Monitoring Program of the CA. Resources Agency? designated scenic highway? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Vlilliamson Act c. Substantially degrade the existing Visual character or quality of the site E) ❑ FJand ❑ 13 its surroundings? Contract? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ❑ 11 Eladversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact The sign code amendment does not include sign development proposals but regulates process, procedure and sets forth development standards. Potential sign related aesthetic impacts would be addressed by this ordinance by regulating location, size, area, height, materials, colors and illumination. No aesthetic resources would be impacted as a result of this sign code amendment. Upon receiving a sign permit application, development standards regulating such signs would be enforced that will minimize aesthetic impacts. Additionally, the incorporation of landscape scree6ing for freestanding signs would substantially minimize visual impacts to surrounding areas. Landscaping treatments are anticipated to include species similar to those surrounding the existing project site. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a state scenic highway? No Impact. No scenic resources, including 'trees; rock outcroppings or historic buildings would be impacted by this sign code amendment as appropriate development standards and review procedures are included in the ordinance. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual characteror quality of the site and its surroundings? No impact Refer to Responses 14,1 a and 14.1 b, above. d) Create anew source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. The proposed sign code amendment sets forth standards for internal and external illumination of signs so as not to negatively impact adjacent properties or be aesthetically obtrusive. � m . tl A 4 q tlF El 16.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farm#and, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance as depicted on reaps prepared pursuant to the Farmland ❑ 0 ❑ 0 Mapping and Monitoring Program of the CA. Resources Agency? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Vlilliamson Act ❑ 13 ❑ Contract? Initial Stu dylEnvironmental Checklist Code Amendment 07-05 (Sign Regulations) -5- City of San Juan Capistrano, California a) Conveft Prirrme Farmland, unique Farmland, orF'armland 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 sign code amendment does not impact agricultural uses and would not result in conversion of existing farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, the sign code amendment does not affect an agricultural resource area and thus does not impact designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. b) Contiict with existing zoning for agricultural use, ora Williamson Act contract? No Impact, The proposed sign code amendment generally regulates areas zoned for commercial and industrial uses; agricultural designations generally do not have: signs or minimal signs, and no Williamson Act contracts apply. Therefore, implementation of the sign code amendment would not result in any conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act Contract. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to theirlocation or mature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. As previously stated, the proposed sign code amendment does not impact properties located within an agricultural area. Thus, implementation of this sign code amendment would not result in changes in the environment, which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricu€tura€ use. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. q q � s W 6. O L' p b W ffi 15.3 AIR QUALITY. Would the project: Q 9 J m s .:i ih f Z c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their ❑ 0 plan? location or nature, could result in conversion of f=armland, to non- ❑ ❑ [� � agricultural use?. ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 a) Conveft Prirrme Farmland, unique Farmland, orF'armland 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 sign code amendment does not impact agricultural uses and would not result in conversion of existing farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, the sign code amendment does not affect an agricultural resource area and thus does not impact designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. b) Contiict with existing zoning for agricultural use, ora Williamson Act contract? No Impact, The proposed sign code amendment generally regulates areas zoned for commercial and industrial uses; agricultural designations generally do not have: signs or minimal signs, and no Williamson Act contracts apply. Therefore, implementation of the sign code amendment would not result in any conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act Contract. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to theirlocation or mature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. As previously stated, the proposed sign code amendment does not impact properties located within an agricultural area. Thus, implementation of this sign code amendment would not result in changes in the environment, which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricu€tura€ use. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The City of San Juan Capistrano is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is governed.by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The sign code amendment regulates sign standards and does not propose sign projects. The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is based on General Plan land use designations throughout the South Coast Air Basin and such General Plan designations would not be affected. q � s 15.3 AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 plan? b. Violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under the applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? I ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The City of San Juan Capistrano is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is governed.by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The sign code amendment regulates sign standards and does not propose sign projects. The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is based on General Plan land use designations throughout the South Coast Air Basin and such General Plan designations would not be affected. ]nitial Study/Environmental Checklist Code Amendment 07-25 Si n Re ulations -6- City of San Juan Capistrano, California b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or protected air quality violation? No lmpact. The proposed sign code amendment will not violate any air quality standard or negatively impact the ambient air quality as there are no sign development proposals. The proposed ordinance regulates process, procedures, size, location, area, height, materials, colors and illumination for sign permit applications. No air quality impacts would occur. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? No Impact. Refer to Responses a) and b). d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. Sensitive populations (i.e., children, senior citizens and acutely or chronically il! 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. No project is associated with this sign code amendment, only regulation of process, procedure and development standards that would not affect any sensitive receptors. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The proposed sign code amendment would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. No sign development proposals are associated with the sign code amendment which is a regulatory ordinance for sign permit applications. 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 rm I V E�� �a . C V a 44 kqq� C M g' G U 16.:A 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Z regulations, or by the California Department off=ish 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, ❑ ❑ Elpolicies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game (D1=G) 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 IK El © Ellimited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological .interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or ❑ ❑ migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological 1:1 El Elresources, such as tree preservation policylordinance? 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 Initial StudylEnvironmental Checklist Code Amendment 07-05 (Sign Regulations) -7- City of San Juan Capistrano, -California regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the USFWS7 No Impact. The sign code amendment would not result in site grading or weed abatement activities. Therefore, the proposed sign code amendment 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 pians, 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 orother sensitive natural community identiedin local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The sign code amendment would not impact any federal or State jurisdictional areas. The proposed sign code amendment regulates process, procedure and development standards and would have no adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U,S. Fish and Wild Service. Thus, no impacts to riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities would result. c, Have a substantial adverse effect an federallyprotected 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, would be impacted by this signs code amendment, The proposed ordinance regulates process, procedures and development standards. Thus, the project would not result in impacts to wetlands d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident ormigratoty fish or wildlife species orwi€h established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. Approval of the sign code amendment 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. The ordinance regulates sign permit applications through process, procedure and development standards. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policyfordinance? No Impact. No sign development project is associated with the proposed sign code amendment- The ordinance proposes to regulate sign permit applications by establishing process, procedures and development standards to regulate installation and maintenance of signs. f Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Flan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The City of San Juan Capistrano is situated in the Coastal and Southern Sub -region of the County of Orange Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Flan (NCCP). However, the City is not a signatory to the Implementation Agreement for the sub -region. The sign code amendment is a regulatory document and would not result in conservation planning impacts. c!.0 °. wp R pp'_cR&u op C Gi O m A 16.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Cause a substantialadverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in , 15064.5 of CEQA? ❑ b. Cause a. substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to , 15064.5 o€ CEQA? ® ❑ c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site E3 El or unique geologic feature" Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Code Amendment 07-05 (Sign Regulations) -a- Cit of San Juan Capistrano, California a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ' 15064.5 of CEQA? No impact. The proposed sign code amendment does not propose a sign project, grading or land disturbances. Therefore, the sign code amendment would not impact cultural, prehistoric, historic, archaeology or paleontology resources. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15664.5 of CiWQA? No Impact. Refer to Response to a. above - c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. Paleontology sites are abundant in southern Orange County, especially along the coast and in creek areas. Because the proposed sign code amendment regulates process, procedure and development standards, there is no potential for disturbance of sub -surface resources. d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact, No sign development project is associated with the proposed sign code amendment. Therefore, the disturbance of human remains would not occur. r m RC R" a ui...ssn_E z 16.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a, V rz rz ° rn a s including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving (i.) rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- 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 proposed sign code amendment does not propose a sign project, grading or land disturbances. Therefore, the sign code amendment would not impact cultural, prehistoric, historic, archaeology or paleontology resources. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15664.5 of CiWQA? No Impact. Refer to Response to a. above - c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. Paleontology sites are abundant in southern Orange County, especially along the coast and in creek areas. Because the proposed sign code amendment regulates process, procedure and development standards, there is no potential for disturbance of sub -surface resources. d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact, No sign development project is associated with the proposed sign code amendment. Therefore, the disturbance of human remains would not occur. a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: r m RC a ui...ssn_E z 16.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a, Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving (i.) rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist, or ❑ ❑ based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Refer to DM&G Pub, 42)?; or; (ii) strong seismic ground shaking?; or, (iii) seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction?; or, (iv) landslides? b, Result in substantial sail erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ❑ IQ 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? d. Be located on expansive sail, as defined in Table 18-1-6 of the 1994 El E] ElUBC, 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? a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Initial Study/ Envirohmenta I Checklist Code Amendment 07-05 Sin Regulations) -9- Ciy of San Juan Capistrano, California 1). Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by (he State Geologist for the area or based on othersubstantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) No lmpact The City of San Juan Capistrano is located within the seismically active southern California region and would likely be subjected to groundshaking, thus exposing proposed structures 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. The sign code amendment does not include any sign development projects but proposes to address sign permit applications by regulating process, procedure and development standards, therefore, no seismic impacts would occur. 2) Strong seismic ground shaking? No Impact. Southern California is a seismically active region likely to experience, on average, one earthquake of Magnitude 7.0, and ten (10) earthquakes of Magnitude 6.0 over a period of 10 years, Active faults are those faults that are considered likely to undergo renewed movement within a period of concern to humans. These include faults that are currently slipping, those that display earthquake activity, and those that have historical surface rupture. The California Geological Survey (CGS) defines active faults as those which have had surface displacement within Holocene times (about the last 11,000 years). Such displacement can be recognized by the existence of sharp cliffs in young alluvium, un -weathered terraces, and offset modern stream courses. Potentially active faults are those believed to have generated earthquakes during the Quaternary period, but prior to Holocene times. The sign code amendment is a regulatory document with no sign development projects proposed, therefore, no seismic impacts would occur. 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. The sign code amendment does not propose installation of signs or a sign project as the ordinance is a regulatory document, therefore, there would be no liquefaction hazards. 4) Landslides? No Impact. Landslides are mass movements of the ground that include rock falls, relatively shallow slumping and sliding of soil, and deeper rotational ortransitional movement of soil or rock. Landsliding is considered likely within the Capistrano Formation which comprises much of the City's hillside slopes. However, according to the City of San Juan Capistrano General Plan, the project site is not located within a known or highly suspected landslide area. No development project is proposed with the rezone application. The sign code amendment does not propose sign installations or projects but is a document to regulate sign permit applications through process, procedure, and development standards, therefore, no landslide impacts would occur. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsail? No Impact. No sign development project is proposed with the sign code amendment, therefore, no soil erosion impacts would occur. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No Impact, No sign development project is proposed with the sign code amendment, therefore, no geologic unit, landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse would result from this ordinance. This. document would regulate sign permit applications and set forth applicable process, procedure and development standards. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-9-B of the uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact, The dominant soil association in the City of San Juan Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Code Amendment 07-05 (Sign Regulations) -10- Cit of San Juan Ca istrano, California Capistrano consists of alluvium which has high liquefaction potential due to the sandy -loam characteristics of the soil. Therefore, properties are not dominated by clays which have shrink -swell potential. According to the Orange County and Wastern Part of Riverside County Soil Survey; dated September' 1978, this soil association has no shrink -swell potential. No sign development project is proposed with this sign code amendment. Future installation of signs would require adherence to standard building and engineering practices contained within the most recent California Building Code that would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant levels. e) Have sails incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The proposed sign code amendment does not propose a sign development project and therefore does not include the implementation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. 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 sign code amendment does not include a sign project and would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and would not result in such impacts. 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 sign code amendment does not include a sign project and would -not result in a release of hazardous materials into the environment. The proposed ordinance would set forth process, procedure W e � g o o �EEE n m u rn QO Z 16.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable conditions involving the release of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑ Z 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 F] El F-1public use airport, would the project result in safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project ❑ ❑ ❑ Z area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adapted ❑ ❑ ❑ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h, Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlarid sires, including where wildlands are adjacent to ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild12nds? 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 sign code amendment does not include a sign project and would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and would not result in such impacts. 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 sign code amendment does not include a sign project and would -not result in a release of hazardous materials into the environment. The proposed ordinance would set forth process, procedure Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Code Amendment 07-05 Sin Re ulations -11- City of San Juan Capistrano, California and development standards for sign permit applications and therefore no hazardous materials or hazardous situation would result. 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 proposed sign code amendment addresses process, procedure and development standards only and therefore would have no hazardous emissions or impacts on school facilities. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Cade Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The proposed sign code amendment regulates sign permit applications city- wide and is therefore not included on a list of sites containing hazardous materials, and would not result in hazards to the public or to the environment. e) For a project located within an airport lana 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 sign code amendment regulates sign permit application through process, procedure and development standards and would not impact an airport land use plan or 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 sign code amendment proposes to amend the municipal code to regulate sign permit applications, would not. impact a private airstrip, and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the City. g) Impair implementation of orphysicallyinterfere with an adopted emergency response plan oremergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The proposed sign code amendment does not include a sign installation project and would have no impacts on emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plains. leo revisions to adapted emergency plans Would be would be f6o-dired as a result of the proposed code amendment as the ordinance is intended to regulate sign permit applications. h), Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildiands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with Midlands? No Impact. The proposed sign code amendment would address sign permit application process, procedure and development standards, does not include a sign project, and therefore would not expose people or structures to a risk of wildland fires. ' C J is 1 L 26 G L u � II' C M C6 q C W 15.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY, Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ❑ ❑ ❑ ED 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., production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level El El Elthe which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been chanted)? c. Substantially after the existing drainage pattern of the site or area including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a ❑ p ElE manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off site? Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Code Amendment 07-05 (Sign Regulations) -12- City of San Juan Capistrano, California S a l � d, Substantially after the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide ❑ ❑ 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 Bate snap or other ❑ ❑ ❑ flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen -demanding substances, and trash)? 1. Result in significant alternation of receiving water quality during or ❑ ❑ ❑ following construction? m. Could the proposed project result in increased erosion downstream? ❑ ❑ ❑ n. result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff? ❑ ❑ ❑ o. Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes? ❑ ❑ ❑ Z 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 El ❑ 1:1pollutant for which the water body is already impaired? q. Tributary to other environmentaify sensitive areas? If so, can it ❑ ❑ ❑ exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions? r. Have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water El 1:3 Elquafiiy to either marine, fresh, or wetland waters? s. Have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality? ❑ ❑ Initial StudyiEnvironmental Checklist Code Amendment 07-05 LSign Regulations) -13- City of San Juan Capistrano, California a) Violate any coater quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No Impact. No sign projects are proposed with the sign code amendment. The ordinance would amend the Municipal code to regulate sign permit applications for process; procedure and development standards to include but not be limited to sign location, size, area, height, materials, colors, and illumination. The sign code amendment would have no impact on water quality or violate standards set forth by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume ora 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 sign code amendment does not propose sign projects and would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. The sign code amendment would regulate sign permit applications process, procedure and development standards and would not increase the amount of water consumed regionally through increased withdrawals from groundwater sources. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream orriver, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion orsiltation on- or off site? No Impact. The sign code amendment would not result in changes in the amount of runoff as no sign projects are proposed. The sign code amendment would set forth process, procedure and development standards for sign permit applications, therefore, no alteration of absorption rates and no changes in drainage patterns associated with the proposed sign code amendment would occur. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? No Impact. Refer to Response (c), above. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing .or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No Impact. No sign projects are proposed with the sign code amendment therefore no changes in the amount of runoff would � m t. Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of ❑ ❑ ❑ Z beneficial uses? u. Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? ❑ ❑ ❑ v. Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction or post ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 construction? w. Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials ❑ ❑ EJ R handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? x. Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the ❑ ❑ Elbeneficial uses of the receiving waters? y. Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or EJ ❑ 11volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? z. Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 surrounding areas? a) Violate any coater quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No Impact. No sign projects are proposed with the sign code amendment. The ordinance would amend the Municipal code to regulate sign permit applications for process; procedure and development standards to include but not be limited to sign location, size, area, height, materials, colors, and illumination. The sign code amendment would have no impact on water quality or violate standards set forth by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume ora 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 sign code amendment does not propose sign projects and would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. The sign code amendment would regulate sign permit applications process, procedure and development standards and would not increase the amount of water consumed regionally through increased withdrawals from groundwater sources. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream orriver, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion orsiltation on- or off site? No Impact. The sign code amendment would not result in changes in the amount of runoff as no sign projects are proposed. The sign code amendment would set forth process, procedure and development standards for sign permit applications, therefore, no alteration of absorption rates and no changes in drainage patterns associated with the proposed sign code amendment would occur. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? No Impact. Refer to Response (c), above. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing .or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No Impact. No sign projects are proposed with the sign code amendment therefore no changes in the amount of runoff would Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Code Amendment 07-05 (Sign Regulations) -14- City of San ,Tuan Capistrano, California occur. Surface runoff velocities, volumes and peak flow rates would not be impacted as the proposed sign code amendment would not contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of water. 1} Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact 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, ferfilizerfpesticide uses, and careless material storage and handling. The majority of pollutant loads are usually washed away during the first flush of the storm occurring after the dry -season period. However, no sign projects are proposed with the sign code amendment, therefore, no impacts to water quality would occur. g) Place housing within a 1013 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation reap? No Impact No flood related impacts would occur as the sign code amendment does not contain sign development proposals. The sign code amendment would regulate sign process, procedure and development standards only. h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flaws? No Impact, Because the sign code amendment proposes an ordinance to regulate sign applications through process, procedure and development standards, no sign development project is proposed, and no 100 - year flood hazard areas would be impacted. Refer to Response 4.8c and Response 4.8d, above, for additional discussion. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. As previously stated, the sign coded amendment is a regulatory document that does not propose any neva building structures or land uses within the 1041 -year flood plain. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. There would be no impacts related to seiche, tsunami or mudflow, as no sign development is proposed with the sign code amendment. No topographical features or water bodies capable of producing such events would occur as a result of the proposed regulatory sign ordinance document. k) Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters? Consider waterquality 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. See response to 0 above. 1) Result in significant alternation ofreceiving water quality during orfollowing construction? No impact. No sign development project is proposed with the sign code amendment. The ordinance would regulate process; procedure and development standards for sign permit applications and would not result in any water quality impacts. m) Could the proposed project result in increased erosion downstream? No Impact. The proposed sign code amendment is.a regulatory document that proposes no impervious surfaces, no volume of stormwater runoff and would not result in increased downstream erosion. n) Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff? No Impact, No sign development project is proposed with the sign code amendment and no increase in impervious surfaces and associated runoff would occur. a) Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes? No Impact. The sign code amendment does not include sign development projects and therefore does not include grading or changes in drainage that.would alter drainage patterns, or increase runoff flow rates or volumes for any properties. Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Code Amendment 07-06 (Sign Regulations) -15- City of San Juan Ca istrano, California p) T ibutary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(4) list? If so, can it result in an increase in any pollutant for which the water body is already impaired? No Impact. No sign projects are proposed with the sign code amendment. The ordinance is a regulatory document that would set forth applicable process, procedure and development standards for sign permit applications, therefore, no water quality impacts would occur. q) Tributaryto other environmentally sensitive areas? If so, can it exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions? No Impact. See Response to p) above. r) Have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water quality to either marine, fresh, or wetland waters? No Impact The sign code amendment is a regulatory document for sign permit applications and would not result in discharges into surface waters, No sign development projects are proposed with the sign code amendment, therefore no pollutant discharges into such waters including pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers and similar chemicals would occur. s) Have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality? No Impact. The sign code amendment would regulate process, procedure and development standards for sign permit applications and does not involve excavation, drilling, or cuts that could interceptor 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 sign code amendment does not include any sign development proposals and 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 ornparian habitat? No Impact. The proposed sign code amendment does not include sign -development projects, therefore, no aquatic, wetland or riporlan habitats would be!Mpact d as a result of the ordinance. v) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction or post construction? No Impact. The proposed sign code amendment does not include any sign development projects and would not impact stormwater runoff as no construction is proposed with a regulatory document. w) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment )maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? No Impact The proposed sign code amendment does not include a sign development project and no discharge of stormwater pollutants would occur as a result of a regulatory document that sets forth process, procedure and development standards for sign permit applications. x) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? No Impact. The sign code amendment does not include a sign development project, therefore, no discharge of stormwater would occur. y) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? No Impact The proposed sign code amendment does not include sign development projects and will neither increase the volume nor the velocity of stormwater flows, nor indirectly contribute to such impacts as a result of approval of a regulatory ordinance. z) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? No Impact The proposed sign code amendment does not include any sign development project proposals, therefore, no erosion to any properties would occur. Initial StudyfEnvironmental Checklist Code Amendment 07-05 Sign Re ulations -16- City of San Juan Capistrano, California aj Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The proposed sign code amendment does not include sign development projects and is a regulatory document to set forth process, procedure and development standards for sign permit applications. The regulatory ordinance could not impact the physical arrangement of an established community and no impacts would 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) adapted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The proposed sign code amendment is consistent with the General Plan, Title 9 Zoning Code, and Architectural Design Guidelines, therefore, no impacts or conflicts to existing regulatory documents would occur as a result of approving .this sign ordinance. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact Refer to Response 4.4(f) above, which concludes the sign code amendment does not include sign development proposals and would not conflict with any habitat conservation plan � v u u --L o _ O 0m= N C 4 9 r.-. � E O _ QW_ J S_ J U) .Z 16.9 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 ❑ ❑ 11would 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? aj Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The proposed sign code amendment does not include sign development projects and is a regulatory document to set forth process, procedure and development standards for sign permit applications. The regulatory ordinance could not impact the physical arrangement of an established community and no impacts would 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) adapted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The proposed sign code amendment is consistent with the General Plan, Title 9 Zoning Code, and Architectural Design Guidelines, therefore, no impacts or conflicts to existing regulatory documents would occur as a result of approving .this sign ordinance. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact Refer to Response 4.4(f) above, which concludes the sign code amendment does not include sign development proposals and would not conflict with any habitat conservation 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. Theproposed sign code amendment does not include sign development projects. Therefore, the ordinance to regulate sign permit applications would have no impact on mineral resources.. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral -resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. Refer to Response 14.10a; above. s 16.10 MINERAL RESOURCES_ Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that ❑ ❑ 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 pian? 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. Theproposed sign code amendment does not include sign development projects. Therefore, the ordinance to regulate sign permit applications would have no impact on mineral resources.. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral -resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. Refer to Response 14.10a; above. Initial Study/e=nvironmental Checklist Code Amendment 07-05Si n Regulations) -17- City of San Juan Capistrano, California 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? No Impact. The proposed sign code amendment does not include sign development projects.and would therefore not create any impacts in terms of ambient noise levels. Noise impacts are regulated by the City's General flan Noise Element and Title 9, Land Use Code regulations. b).Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration orgroundborme noise levels? No Impact. The sign code amendment does not include a sign development proposal, therefore, no construction and demolition activity would occur to generate excessive groundborne vibrations or noise levels. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. The sign code amendment is a regulatory ordinance that does not include any sign development projects, therefore, no increase or impact in the ambient noise level would 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 sign code amendment would set forth process, procedure and development standards to regulate sign permit applications and would not result in short-term increased noise levels as no sign development projects are proposed and no associated construction activities. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or wonting in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact As previously stated, the proposed sign code amendment is a document to regulate sign permit applications and would not impact public airport or public use airport. The nearest airport, John Wayne -Santa Ana, is located about 20 miles northwest and no impacts would occur. 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 sign code amendment is a U o o w v Z ar OR 16.11 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 El ❑ ❑ 0 applicable standards of otlier agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ❑ El ❑ vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ ❑ Z project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or pbriodic increase in ambient noise levels L1 El 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ public use airport, would the project expose people residing orworking in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive ❑ ❑ ❑ Z 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? No Impact. The proposed sign code amendment does not include sign development projects.and would therefore not create any impacts in terms of ambient noise levels. Noise impacts are regulated by the City's General flan Noise Element and Title 9, Land Use Code regulations. b).Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration orgroundborme noise levels? No Impact. The sign code amendment does not include a sign development proposal, therefore, no construction and demolition activity would occur to generate excessive groundborne vibrations or noise levels. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. The sign code amendment is a regulatory ordinance that does not include any sign development projects, therefore, no increase or impact in the ambient noise level would 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 sign code amendment would set forth process, procedure and development standards to regulate sign permit applications and would not result in short-term increased noise levels as no sign development projects are proposed and no associated construction activities. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or wonting in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact As previously stated, the proposed sign code amendment is a document to regulate sign permit applications and would not impact public airport or public use airport. The nearest airport, John Wayne -Santa Ana, is located about 20 miles northwest and no impacts would occur. 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 sign code amendment is a Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Code Amendment 077p5 (Sign Regulations) - f 8- City of San Jean Capistrano, California document to regulate sign -permit applications by setting forth applicable process, procedure and development standards that would not expose people to excessive noise levels. a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (far example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The proposed sign code amendment does not include sign development projects and would not induce growth through the extension or expansion of major capital infrastructure. No impacts to population and housing beyond those identified within the City's General Plan Land Use Element and Housing Elementwould occur. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact, The proposed sign code amendment is a regulatory document to address sign permit applications and would not require the removal of existing housing and therefore would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing_, c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.12a and 4.12b, above. m - a0 in- o m a E . 16.13 PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial IL ..,ia5 Jia z 16.12 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 F71 [j ❑ M example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the F1 El El � construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the El 11 Elconstruction Z of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (far example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The proposed sign code amendment does not include sign development projects and would not induce growth through the extension or expansion of major capital infrastructure. No impacts to population and housing beyond those identified within the City's General Plan Land Use Element and Housing Elementwould occur. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact, The proposed sign code amendment is a regulatory document to address sign permit applications and would not require the removal of existing housing and therefore would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing_, c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.12a and 4.12b, above. a d - �k A NJ aAn J H.09 � s a ,has (/) E E o Z 16.13 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 ofwhich 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ Z Police Protection?. ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ FA Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Code Amendment 07-05 (Sign Regulations) -19_ City of San Juan Capistrano, California 1) Fire protection? No Impact. The proposed sign code amendment does not include any sign development projects and would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities. The sign code amendment is a regulatory ordinance to set for process, procedure and development standards for sign permit applications. 2) Police protection? No Impact. There are no impacts related to police protection or service anticipated with implementation of the proposed sign code amendment as no sign development projects are proposed, 3) Schools? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed sign code amendment would not result in the need for the construction of additional school facilities as no sign development is proposed. Therefore, no impacts in this regard will occur. 4) Parks? No Impact. Approval of the proposed sign code amendment will not affect any existing park facilities nor increase the demand for additional recreational facilities, No sign development projects are proposed with the regulatory ordinance, therefore, no impacts to parks would result from this sign code amendment. 5} Other public facilities? No Impact No impacts to other. public facilities would occur with adoption of the sign code amendment. The ordinance is a document intended to regulate process, procedure and development standards for sign permit applications. No sign development projects are proposed, therefore, no impacts to public facilities would occur_ 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. Adoption of the proposed sign code amendment does not include a sign development proposal and will therefore not generate any increase in demand on existing public or private parks or other recreational facilities that would either result in or increase physical deterioration of such facilities. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. Adoption of the proposed sign code amendment does not include any sign development projects and therefore has no potential to impact recreafional facilities. p a w u a [pt R R fl 5 A p C N 16.14 RECREATION. Would the project: IL 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. toes the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have ❑ ❑ ❑ Z 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. Adoption of the proposed sign code amendment does not include a sign development proposal and will therefore not generate any increase in demand on existing public or private parks or other recreational facilities that would either result in or increase physical deterioration of such facilities. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. Adoption of the proposed sign code amendment does not include any sign development projects and therefore has no potential to impact recreafional facilities. [pt R R fl 5 A p IL 16.15 TRANS PORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would the project: Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Code Amendment 07-05 (Si2n. Regulations) -20- -.Ci!Z of San Juan Capistrano, California 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)? No Impact. The sign code amendment does not include sign development projects, therefore, no traffid.impacts would occur_ The sign code amendment is a regulatory document to set forth requirements for process, procedure and development standards including sign location, size, area, height, materials, colors and illumination. 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 4.15a; above, c) Result Ina change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. Due to the sign code amendment being a regulatory document, approval 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)? Na Impact. No public roadways are proposed or would be impacted as'a result of the sign code amendment, The ordinance is a document to regulate sign permit applications through Process, procedure and. development standards. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed sign code amendment does not include sign development projects. Adequate emergency access is required for all properties within the City of San Juan Capistrano and regulated by the California Building Code and Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). t) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed sign code amendment does not propose sign development projects, therefore, no impacts to parking would occur. The Title 9, Land Use Code regulates parking standards and requirements. n� i R a E Q. WW m 04 N H S 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 El 11 Elsubstantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volurne 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 ❑ ❑ (l risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e,g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm ❑ ❑ ❑ Z equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting El ❑ Elalternative 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, or congestion at intersections)? No Impact. The sign code amendment does not include sign development projects, therefore, no traffid.impacts would occur_ The sign code amendment is a regulatory document to set forth requirements for process, procedure and development standards including sign location, size, area, height, materials, colors and illumination. 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 4.15a; above, c) Result Ina change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. Due to the sign code amendment being a regulatory document, approval 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)? Na Impact. No public roadways are proposed or would be impacted as'a result of the sign code amendment, The ordinance is a document to regulate sign permit applications through Process, procedure and. development standards. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed sign code amendment does not include sign development projects. Adequate emergency access is required for all properties within the City of San Juan Capistrano and regulated by the California Building Code and Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). t) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed sign code amendment does not propose sign development projects, therefore, no impacts to parking would occur. The Title 9, Land Use Code regulates parking standards and requirements. Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Code Amendment 07-05 (Sign Regulations) -21- City of San JuanCa istrano, California g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e. g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. Adoption of the sign code amendment would not conflict with adopted policies; plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Because the sign code amendment is a regulatory document, no impacts would occur to transportation. a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements ofthe applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact The proposed sign code amendment is a regulatory document that does not .include sign development proposals, therefore, no Improvements are associated with the proposed ordinance that would exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The proposed sign code amendment does not include sign development proposals and would not require or result in the construction of wastewater treatment facilities (refer to Response 4.16a, above). c) Require or result in the construction of new storwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The proposed sign code amendment does not include any sign development proposals and would not require or result in the expansion of existing storm water drainage facilities. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. No new or expanded entitlements would be required with implementation of the proposed code amendment. The proposed ordinance is a regulatory document to address process, procedure and development standards associated with sign permit applications. No impacts would occur. .... IS � m 14 i5 pfd N��a Naq CL V1 E 16.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional ❑ ❑ Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction ❑ ❑ [] (� 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. ❑ ❑ ❑ El 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ the project=s projected demand in addition to the provider=s existing commitments? f: Be served_ by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ❑ ❑ ❑ accommodate the project=s solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local -statutes and regulations related ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 to solid waste? a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements ofthe applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact The proposed sign code amendment is a regulatory document that does not .include sign development proposals, therefore, no Improvements are associated with the proposed ordinance that would exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The proposed sign code amendment does not include sign development proposals and would not require or result in the construction of wastewater treatment facilities (refer to Response 4.16a, above). c) Require or result in the construction of new storwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The proposed sign code amendment does not include any sign development proposals and would not require or result in the expansion of existing storm water drainage facilities. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. No new or expanded entitlements would be required with implementation of the proposed code amendment. The proposed ordinance is a regulatory document to address process, procedure and development standards associated with sign permit applications. No impacts would occur. Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Code Amendment 47-05 (Sign Regulations) -22- Ci of San Juan Ca 'istrano, California e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.16x, above. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the projects solid waste disposal needs? No Impact. The proposed sign code amendment does not include any sign development proposals and would not generate any solid waste. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. Refer.to Response 14.16f, above, 17. PREPARATION. The initial stud for the subject project was prepared by: 4 Date:` Grant Taylor; Assista Commurtity'Development Director 21 t ti u C V� p tl9 V � 14.17 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- elfsustaining sustaininglevels, 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c. Does the project have impacts which are individually I€mited, but cumulatively considerable (ACumulatively 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 en*onmental effects which will have ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly? 17. PREPARATION. The initial stud for the subject project was prepared by: 4 Date:` Grant Taylor; Assista Commurtity'Development Director