Ordinance Number 1030ORDINANCE NO. 1030
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN
CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTOR "C" OF THE ORTEGA
PLANNED COMMUNITY COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 78-
01 ESTABLISHED BY LAND USE CODE SECTION 9-3.315 PLANNED
COMMUNITY TO ALLOW MEDICAL AND DENTAL USES AS A
PERMITTED, PRINCIPAL USE (PROJECT NAME: ORTEGA
COTTAGES) (PROJECT NUMBER: CA 15-004) (APPLICANT NAME:
DUNBAR ORTEGA, LLC)
Whereas, Dunbar Ortega, LLA, property owner, has requested approval of
Code Amendment (CA) 15-004 to amend Sector "C" of the Ortega Planned Community
Comprehensive Development Plan 78-01, established by Land Use Code Section 9-
3.315 Planned Community, to allow medical and dental uses as a permitted, principal
use;
Whereas, the proposed project has been processed pursuant to Section
9-2.301, Development Review of the Land Use Code; and,
Whereas , pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and
section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.),
the City of San Juan Capistrano is the lead agency for the proposed project; and
Whereas, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15063 and
the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if the
project could have a significant effect on the environment; and
Whereas, based on the information contained in the Initial Study, which
concluded that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment, the
Environmental Administrator has determined that a Negative Declaration should be
prepared for the Project, and a Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to CEQA,
the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines; and
Whereas, as required by State CEQA Guidelines section 15072(d), on
December 21 , 2015 , the Notice of Intent to Adopt the MND was posted by the Clerk for
the County of Orange; and
Whereas, during the public comment period, copies of the Negative
Declaration were available for review and inspection at City Hall, and on the City's
website; and
Whereas, the City solicited Tribal input on the project from the Native
American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to
participate in consultation and the tribes who requested, in writing, that an agency
inform it of proposed projects (in accordance with AB52) on December 11, 2015; and
Whereas, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15073, the draft
Initial Study and Negative Declaration were circulated for a 20-day review period from
December 21, 2015, through January 18, 2016, during which the City did not receive
any comment letters from any people or organizations; and
Whereas, the City has prepared Errata to the Negative Declaration to
clarify and amplify the project description. Specifically, the City added detail to the
project description to clarify the exact parcels in Sector C that would be impacted by the
proposed zone change. As described in detail in the Negative Declaration, the zone
change would not impact all parcels, particularly those parcels for which the zoning
designation is open space. The Errata to the Negative Declaration do not require
recirculation under State CEQA Guidelines, section 15073.5; and
Whereas, all the requirements of the Public Resources Code, the State
CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the
City in connection with the preparation of the Negative Declaration, which is sufficiently
detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the project have
been adequately evaluated; and
Whereas, the Negative Declaration prepared in connection with the project
sufficiently analyzes the project's potentially significant environmental impacts; and
Whereas, the findings and conclusions made by the City Council in this
Ordinance are based upon the oral and written evidence presented as well as the
entirety of the administrative record for the project, which is incorporated herein by this
reference. The findings are not based solely on the information provided in this
Ordinance; and
Whereas, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been
presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the
administrative record, including but not limited to the Initial Study, Negative Declaration,
and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and
Whereas, the Negative Declaration, as modified, reflects the independent
judgment of the City and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the
merits of the project; and
Whereas, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City
Council, no additional information submitted to the Planning Commission or City
Council, and none of the Errata, have produced substantial new information requiring
substantial revisions that would trigger recirculation of the Negative Declaration or
additional environmental review of the project under State CEQA Guidelines section
15073.5; and
Whereas, the City Council has considered the Environmental
Administrator's determination pursuant to Section 1507 4 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), has considered all project environmental documentation; and,
Whereas, the Planning Commission conducted a duly-noticed public
hearing on February 9, 2016 pursuant to Title 9, Land Use Code, Section 9-2.302 to
consider public testimony on the proposed project and has considered all relevant
public comments; and
Whereas, the City Council conducted a duly-noticed public hearing on
March 15, 2016 pursuant to Title 9, Land Use Code, Section 9-2.302 to consider public
testimony on the proposed project and has considered all relevant public comments.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby finds that the foregoing recitals
are true and correct and are incorporated herein as substantive findings of this
Ordinance.
SECTION 2. CEQA. The City Council does hereby make the following findings
with respect to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Negative
Declaration, which is attached hereto and incorporated .herein by reference as Exhibit
"8":
1. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
The City prepared an Initial Study pursuant to Section 15063 of the State
CEQA Guidelines to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed Code Amendment. On December 21, 2015, the City's
Environmental Administrator published a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative
Declaration pursuant to Section 15070 of the CEQA Guidelines. On
December 21, 2015, the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration and
Initial Study were posted with the Orange County Clerk Recorder (Attachment
7). Due to the fact that the project is not a project of statewide, area wide or
regional significance, state agency review was not required. As such, the
draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration were circulated for public review
for 20 days. Specifically, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration were
publically circulated from December 21, 2015 to January 18, 2016; the
additional days of circulation were added to account for the holidays. The City
posted a Notice of Negative Declaration, pursuant to Section 15072 of the
State CEQA Guidelines, at City Hall and on the City's website. The City
received no comment letters on the proposed Negative Declaration.
After the Negative Declaration was released for public review, but before the
Planning Commission was asked to review the document, staff made a series
of edits to the Negative Declaration to more precisely describe the nature of
the zone change. Errata to the Negative Declaration have been prepared and
are included in the Final Negative Declaration. The Errata show redline
changes that were made to the Negative Declaration, after the public review
period on the project closed, to clarify the precise location of the portions of
Sector C that would be modified by the zone change.
A lead agency is required to recirculate a negative declaration when the
document must be "substantially revised" after public notice of its availability
but prior to its adoption . (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15073.5(a).) Here, the
minor modifications to the Negative Declaration do not require recirculation
for two reasons.
First, the Negative Declaration has not been substantially revised. A
"substantial revision" includes: (1) where a new, avoidable significant effect is
identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order
to reduce the effect to insignificance; or (2) where the lead agency determines
that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce
potential effects to less than significant and new measures or revisions must
be required.
Here, recirculation is not required pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section
15073.5(b) because: (1) the Negative Declaration, prior to modification,
correctly determined that direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the
proposed project would be less than significant or would have no
environmental impact at all; (2) no new, significant effect has been identified
since the Negative Declaration was made available for public review; and (3)
no new mitigation measures or project revisions are required to reduce an
effect to less than significant. As a result, the minor modifications
incorporated into the project after public notice of the Negative Declaration's
availability do not require recirculation of the Negative Declaration under
State CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5(b).
Second, the revisions to the Negative Declaration merely clarify and amplify
the Negative Declaration. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section
15073.5(c), recirculation is not required when: (1) mitigation measures are
replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines section 1507 4.1; (2) new project revisions are added in response
to written or verbal comments on the project's effects identified in the
proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant
effects; (3) measures or conditions of project approval are added after
circulation of the negative declaration which are not required by CEQA, which
do not create new significant environmental effects, and are not necessary to
mitigate an avoidable significant effect; or (4) new information is added to the
negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant
modifications to the negative declaration.
Here, recirculation is not required pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
15073.5(c) because: (1) the Errata do not make any changes to mitigation
measures (the negative declaration showed that the project would not have
any significant impacts that would require mitigation); (2) the Errata do not
include any project revisions, new mitigation measures, or new conditions of
approval that have been added in response to written or verbal comments on
the project's effects identified in the proposed Negative Declaration; (3) no
mitigation measures or conditions of approval have been added after
circulation of the Negative Declaration; and (4) the revisions shown in the
Errata merely clarify and amplify the findings of the Negative Declaration
because they add more specificity as to the exact parcels in Sector C that
would be affected by the proposed zone change. The project has not
changed. As a result, the minor modifications incorporated into the project
after public notice of the Negative Declaration's availability do not require
recirculation of the Negative Declaration under State CEQA Guidelines
section 15073.5(c).
The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in
the Negative Declaration, as modified by the Errata, Initial Study and other
documents contained in the administrative record for the project. The City
Council finds that the Negative Declaration, as modified by the Errata, Initial
Study and administrative record contain a complete and accurate reporting of
the environmental impacts associated with the project and that the Negative
Declaration, as modified by the Errata, and the Initial Study have been
completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the
City's Local CEQA Guidelines.
2. FINDINGS ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. Based on the whole record
before it, including the Negative Declaration, as modified by the Errata, Initial
Study, the administrative record and all other written and oral evidence
presented to the City Council, the City Council finds that all environmental
impacts of the project are either less than significant or no impact as outlined
in the Negative Declaration, as modified by the Errata, and the Initial Study.
The City Council further finds that there is no substantial evidence in the
administrative record supporting a fair argument that the project may result in
any significant environmental impacts. The City Council finds that the
Negative Declaration, as modified by the Errata, contains a complete,
objective, and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated
with the Project and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the
City. No new significant environmental effects have been identified in the
Final Negative Declaration and no changes made to the Negative Declaration
constitute substantial revisions requiring recirculation under State CEQA
Guidelines section 15073.5. The changes reflected in the Errata merely
clarify and amplify the project description. (State CEQA Guidelines, section
15073.5(c)(4).)
3. ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION. The City Council hereby adopts
the Negative Declaration, as modified by the Errata, prepared for the project.
4. WILDLIFE RESOURCES. Pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 711.4(c),
all project applicants and public agencies subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act shall pay a filing fee for each proposed project, as
specified in subdivision 711.4(d) for any adverse effect on wildlife resources
or the habitat upon which wildlife depends unless a "no effect" finding is made
by the California Department of Fish and Game. This fee is due and payable
as a condition precedent to the County Clerk's filing of a Notice of
Determination.
5. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION. The City Council directs staff to prepare,
execute, and file a Notice of Determination with the Orange County Clerk
within five (5) working days of the passage and adoption of this Ordinance.
6. CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS. The documents and materials that constitute
the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at
San Juan Capistrano City Hall, 32400 Paseo Adelanto, San Juan Capistrano,
CA 92675. The Director of Development Services is the custodian of the
record of proceedings.
SECTION 3. Amendment to Comprehensive Development Plan 78-01 . Sector C
of the Ortega Planned Community Comprehensive Development Plan 78-01 is hereby
amended to include the language specified in Exhibit "A," which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, based on the following findings:
1. The proposed Ortega Planned Community Comprehensive Development
Plan 78-01 amendment conforms with General Plan, specifically Policy 2.2
and 2.3.
Policy 2. 2: Assure that new development is consistent and compatible with
the existing character of the City.
Policy 2.3: Ensure that development corresponds to the provision of public
facilities and services.
These policies are met because the amendment will permit medical and
dental offices to use existing professional offices. Moreover, the existing
office complex provides sufficient parking for the medical or dental use in
addition to the office use, assuring that any new development is consistent
and compatible with the existing development and character of the City and
ensures that the addition of medical and dental offices to the existing office
complex will maintain the necessary provisions of the public facilities and
services. Any future development will be reviewed with the added use allowed
and taken into consideration to ensure it is compatible with the existing
development and character of the City and provides sufficient public facilities
and services.
2. The amendment is necessary to implement the General Plan and to provide
public convenience because the locations where medical and dental offices
may be located are limited in the City. The area of Sector C of the Ortega
Planned Community COP 78-01, which has a General Plan Land Use
designation of Industrial Park, offers more appropriate opportunities for
medical and dental locations convenient to the public, and offers convenient
locations compatible with surrounding uses.
3. The proposed Land Use Code amendment conforms with the intent of the
Development Code because the medical and dental use is an office type of
use compatible with the uses permitted in the area of Sector C of the Ortega
Planned Community COP 78-01, which has a General Plan Land Use
designation of Industrial Park, including business, professional, and real
estate offices. Medical and dental uses will not cause a strain on the existing
amenities (circulation , sewer and water, and parking) because the medical
and dental uses will occupy existing office suites, and the existing office
complex provides sufficient parking to accommodate medical and dental
office parking.
4. The proposed Land Use Code amendment is reasonable and beneficial at
this time because it encourages orderly development and increases potential
medical and dental locations that allow for further growth of a community
serving business.
The proposed use conforms to the intent of the development code and is
consistent with Municipal Code Section: Planned Community District 9-
3.315(a)(2), which states that the intent is to "realize the economic, social,
and aesthetic advantages of combining different types of land uses in a
coordinated community design." Therefore, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed Code
Amendment to the City Council.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase,
or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by
the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares
that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, sentence, clause, phrase,
or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, sentence ,
clause, phrase, or portion thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force
thirty (30) days after its passage.
SECTION 6. City Clerk1S Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption
of this Ordinance and cause the same to be posted at the duly designated posting
places within the City and published once within fifteen (15) days after passage and
adoption as required by law; or, in the alternative, the City Clerk may cause to be
published a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the text of this Ordinance
shall be posted in the Office of the City Clerk five (5) days prior to the date of adoption
of this Ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption, the City Clerk shall cause to
be published the aforementioned summary and shall post a certified copy of this
Ordinance, together with the vote for and against the same, in the Office of the City
Clerk.
/#r ~l
ATTEST:
PASSED, APPROVED
2016.
K
)
)SS
)
ADOPTED .t:'~ _) day of
I, MARIA MORRIS, appointed City Clerk of the City of San Juan Capistrano, do hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 1030 which was
regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at the Regular Meeting of the City
Council on the 15th day of March 2016, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly
adopted and passed at the Regular Meeting of the City Council on the 5th day of April
2016, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:\ C 1 UNCIL MEMBERS: Allevato, Perry and Mayor pro tern Ferguson
NOES c b UNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Patterson I ABSENT: COUNCIL~EMBERS: Reeve
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO )
I, MARIA MORRIS, declare as follows:
That I am the duly appointed and qualified City Clerk of the City of San Juan
Capistrano; That in compliance with State laws, Government Code section 36933(1) of
the State of California, on the 16th day of March 2016, at least 5 days prior to the
adoption of the ordinance, I caused to be posted a certified copy of the proposed
ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN
CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTOR "C" OF THE ORTEGA PLANNED
COMMUNITY COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 78-01 ESTABLISHED BY
LAND USE CODE SECTION 9-3.315 PLANNED c_pMMUNITY TO ALLOW MEDICAL
AND DENTAL USES AS A PERMITTED, PRI ~CIPAL USE (PROJECT NAME:
ORTEGA COTTAGES) (PROJECT NUMBER: CA/1 -004) (APPLICANT NAME:
DUNBAR ORTEGA, LLC)
I
This document was posted in the Office of the City ~IE!rk ((l4.Jl '
MARIA MQR ~~S \CITY CL
San Juan Cap'!lstra no, Cali
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ·
CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO )
I, MARIA MORRIS, declare as follows:
That I am the duly appointed and qualified City Clerk of the City of San Juan
Capistrano; that in compliance with State laws, Government Code section 36933(1) of
the State of California.
On the 141h day of April 2016, I caused to be posted a certified copy of Ordinance No.
1030, adopted by the City Council on April 5, 2016, entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN
CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTOR "C" OF THE ORTEGA PLANNED
COMMUNITY COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 78-01 ESTABLISHED BY
LAND USE CODE SECTION 9-3.315 PLANNED COMMUNITY TO ALLOW MEDICAL
AND DENTAL USES AS A PERMITTED, PRINCIPAL USE (PROJECT NAME:
ORTEGA COT AG S) (PROJECT NUMBER: CA 15-004) (APPLICANT NAME:
DUNBAR ORT GA, LC)
\
This docu · was posted in e Office of the City Clerk
Exhibit A
PROPOSED COP 78-01 AMENDMENT
City of San Juan Capistrano 18 Ortega Planned Community
VI. Planning Sector C
A. Purpose and Intent: The purpose of these regulations is to implement the General Plan proposal for a
comprehensive network of permanent, multi-functional, and publicly and privately owned open spaces
within the City; prevent development on land determined to be subject to flooding, geological hazard,
excessive slope or other danger to human life or property; preserve, protect, and enhance the value of
natural resources in all respects, Including topographical and geological features, plants and wildlife,
historical places, watershed areas, and scenic attractions; and, provide sufficient space to meet the
community's present and prospective needs for various recreational and cultural activities under public
and private auspices.
B. Principal Uses Permitted:
1. Open space recreation uses including public or private parks, playgrounds, riding and hiking trails,
bicycle trails, golf courses, golf driving ranges, athletic fields, and similar uses (permanent
structures or improvements are prohibited).
2. Horticultural or agricultural uses including orchards, tree crops, plant nurseries and other similar
uses. The use prohibits permanent structures or improvements.
3. Accessory structures (temporary and readily removable structure).
4. Flood control channels, levees, spreading basins, roads, bridges, and diversion drains (in
accordance with Orange County Flood Control District requirements).
5. General office uses including business, professional, real estate, etc.
6. Professional Offices
7. Medical and Dental Offices -Only permitted in APN: 666-232-01/02/03/05/06/07 and 666-252-
01/02/03/04/05/06/07/08/09/1 0/11/12/13/14/17 (Industrial Park General Plan Land Use only).
C. Conditional Uses Permitted:
1. Horse stables, commercial or non-commercial (per Section 9-3.620 of Title 9).
2. Public utility facilities.
3. Archery ranges.
4. Agricultural operations (sponsored/operated by non-profit organization).
D. Area Plan Requirements: see Planning Sector A-1.
E. Development Standards: per Planning Sector A-1 and as follows:
1. Minimum lot size : 15,000 square feet.
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH ERRATA
Ortega Cottages
Code Amendment (CA) 15-004
Final
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
with Errata
Development Services Department
City of San Juan Capistrano
32400 Paseo Adelanto
San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
Prepared
December 21, 2015
EXHIBIT B
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -2-City of San Juan Capistrano. California
1. PROJECT: Code Amendment (CA) 15-004, amending Ortega Planned Community Comprehensive
Development Plan (COP) 78-01, Sector "C" area w1th an Industrial Park General Plan Land Use
designation, addressing Medical and Dental uses.
2. LEAD AGENCY: City of San Juan Capistrano
3. CONTACT PERSON & PHONE: Laura Stokes, Housing Coordinator I Assistant Planner, 32400 Paseo
Adelanto, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675, (949) 443-6313, lstokes@sanjuancapistrano.org
4. PROJECT LOCATION: 27282 through 27514 Calle Arroyo, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675.
5. APPLICANT: Dunbar Ortega, LLC.
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: 4.0 Industrial Park.
7. ZONING: Planned Community (PC) Ortega Planned Community Comprehensive Development Plan
(COP) 78-01, Sector "C".
8. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An amendment to the Ortega Planned Community Comprehensive
Development Plan (COP) 78-01, Sector "C" area with an Industrial Park General Plan Land Use
designation, addressing Medical and Dental and to allow medical and dental office uses, whereas Sector
"C" does not currently permit the Medical and Dental use.
tnitial Study/Environmen!al Checklist -3-City of San Juan Capistrano. California
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -4-City of San Juan Capistrano, California
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -5-City of San Juan Capistrano, California
Exhibit 2
Project Vicinity
9. SURROUNDING LAND USE(S) & PROJECT SETTING: The property is designated 4.0 -Industrial Park
on the Land Use element of the San Juan Capistrano General Plan and is zoned "PC" (Planned
Community) and subject to the provisions of Comprehensive Development Plan 78-01, Ortega Planned
Community. The project site is surrounded by five (5) different Land Use designations, 5.0 Public
Institutional to the north, 5.3 Assisted Care Facilities to the north, 4.0 Industrial Park to the northwest,
Planned Community to the west, and 1.0 General Open Space to the south and east. The site is situated
within Planning Sector "C" of the Ortega Planned Community, and is surrounded by additional Ortega
Planned Community to the north and west, specifically Sector "D" and "8-2" to the north, Sector "B" to the
north west, and Sector "8-3" to the west, and is boarded by the General Open Space zone district on the
south and east. The project site is an existing 28.9 gross acre site located at the southern terminus of
Rancho Viejo Road and bordering Calle Arroyo to the north and San Juan Creek to the south.
10. OTHER REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS: None
11. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: None
12. CONSULTATION:
A. Federal, State, and Other Local Agencies:
Not Applicable
B. City of San Juan Capistrano
Keith Till, Interim City Manager
Cindy Russell, Chief Financial Officer
Jeff Ballinger, City Attorney
Sergio Klotz, Acting Development Services Director
David Contreras, Acting Assistant Development Services Director
Lt. Scott Spalding, Orange County Sheriff's Department
George Alvarez, City Engineer
Eric Bauman, Utilities Engineer
C. Documents & resources:
City of San Juan Capistrano, General Plan.
City of San Juan Capistrano, Title 9, Land Use Code.
City of San Juan Capistrano, Environmental Review Guidelines.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
Comprehensive/Specific Development Plan, Ortega Planned Community COP 78-01
U.S.G.S. Topographic Quadrangle, San Juan Capistrano.
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:
0 Aesthetics 0 Agricultural Resources 0 Air Quality
0 Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology & Soils
0 Hazards & Hazardous Mats. 0 Hydrology & Water Quality 0 Land Use & Planning
0 Mineral Resources 0 Noise 0 Populat[on & Housing
0 Public Services 0 Recreation 0 Transportation & Traffic
0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -6-City of San Juan Capistrano, California
14. DETERMINATION. (To be completed by lead agency) Based on this initial evaluation:
181 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 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.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed
in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to
be addressed.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
15. ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINATION (Section 9-2.201 ofSJC Municipal Code):
The initial study for this project has been reviewed and the environmental determination is hereby
approved:
~ aaht &u,t -:----~-~.c..._/' 'i......_'.J....>t/lf"-----
oavl<iContreras, Acting Developm nt Services Director Date
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:
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.
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -7-City of San Juan Capistrano, California
3) Once the City has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers
must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less
than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier
Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(0).
In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general
plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Include a source list and list of individuals contacted or consulted.
8) This form is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and all Initial
Studies performed on projects within the city must use this format.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify, a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to
evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less
than significance.
j ..,
2:-t; <:"l:c.e cl: ti ~11~ 2:J,gS £~~ " "' "~ i ~ .S> ~ .§ !1., i.~~ ~in ..J ·~i~ -'"'-:!!
16.1 AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 D 0 ~
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building along a State-D 0 D ~
designated scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site 0 0 0 ~ and its surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would D 0 0 ~ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -8-City of San Juan Capistrano, California
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The code amendment does not include
any development proposal but would regulate the use of medical and dental offices within the area of
Sector "C" ofthe Ortega Planned Community Comprehensive Development Plan~ whicll has an Indus na!
Pack General Plan Lg.!nd U~e designation. No aesthetic resources would be impacted as a result of this
code amendment.
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 code amendment.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? No Impact.
Refer to Responses 14.1 a and 14.1 b, above.
d) Create a new source of substantia/light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area? No Impact. The proposed code amendment does not set forth specific standards for internal
and external illumination. However illumination standards are regulated per Municipal Code Section 9-
3.529.
'i "0 ,.,-;~~~ c c t; -c: :Z~~ ~ .. II "' u ~ f ;~i D. c: !E :4 ~ !C ~ ~ .! g. Q. ~c:,., .!!~~ 0 ~UI~ ..J '~i~ z
16.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide
Importance as depicted on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland 0 0 0 l8J
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the CA. Resources Agency?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act 0 0 0 (8J Contract?
c. Conflicts with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code section 12220 (g), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned 0 0 0 l8J
Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section
51101 (g)?
d. Results in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-0 0 0 lZJ forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-0 0 0 l8J
agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The code amendment does not impact
agricultural uses and would not result in conversion of existing farmland to non-agricultural uses.
Therefore, the 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) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The proposed
code amendment generally regulates properties that are zoned for Ortega Planned Community
Comprehensive Development Plan Sector "C" which have an Industrial Park General Plan Land Use
desiqnation; agricultural designations generally do not have medical office uses, and no Williamson Act
contracts apply. Therefore, implementation of the code amendment would not result in any conflicts with
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -9-City of San Juan Capistrano, California
existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract. No impacts are anticipated in this regard.
c) Conflicts with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220 (g), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51101(g)? No Impact. As previously
stated, the proposed project area is not located within an agricultural area. Thus, implementation of this
code amendment would not result in changes in the environment, which would result in the conversion of
farmland to non-agricultural use. No impacts are anticipated in this regard.
d) Results in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. No forest land
is proposed to be lost or converted. No impacts are anticipated in this regard.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No
Impact. As previously stated, the proposed code amendment is not located within an agricultural area.
Thus, implementation of this project would not result in changes in the environment, which would result in
the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. No impacts are anticipated in this regard.
l 1l b1:' ;cg~ .:c ~ 1li .. ~-~~ ~ ~~tl 'g~'G c. .. " .. ~ ~ .~ 0 = 'g. a. .5 ~iWl !r ·~i ~ ., ·-E a -""-z
16.3 AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality D D D f8l plan?
b. Violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected D D D rg] air quality violation?
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under the
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including D D D f8l
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? D D D f8l
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? D D D f8l
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). A consistency determination is important in local
agency project review by comparing local planning projects to the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)
in several ways. It fulfills the CEQA goal of fully informing local agency decision makers of the
environmental costs of the project under consideration at a stage early enough to ensure that air quality
concerns are addressed. Only new or significant amendments to General Plan elements, Specific Plans
and significantly unique projects need to go under a consistency review due to the AQMP strategy being
based on projections from local General Plans. The proposed Code Amendment is a change to land use
provisions which would not create significant air quality impacts. Therefore, projects that are consistent
with the local General Plan and do not create significant air quality impacts are considered consistent with
the air quality-related regional plan. Because the proposed code amendment is consistent with the goals
of the City of San Juan Capistrano General Plan, and would not produce long-term significant quantities of
criteria pollutants or violate ambient air quality standards, the proposed code amendment is considered to
be consistent with the AQMP and a more detailed consistency analysis is not warranted.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
No Impact. Because the proposed code amendment consists of a proposed amendment to the land use
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -10-City of San Juan Capistrano, California
provisions, the code amendment would not directly or indirectly result in any air quality emissions.
Furthermore, the development of new structures in the District to accommodate office commercial land
uses would require discretionary review which would be subject to project-specific CEQA review.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? No Impact. Refer to Responses a
and b.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. Sensitive populations (i.e.,
children, senior citizens and acutely or chronically ill people) are more susceptible to the effects of air
pollution than are the general population. Land uses considered sensitive receptors typically include
residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, hospitals, convalescent homes, and retirement
homes. No project is associated with the code amendment, only regulation of uses which would not affect
any sensitive receptors.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The proposed code
amendment would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
l 'i ~~ <=C:c]! cE ti ~~i ! il-2 ~ 5~u a 1-!t ~ .E Q) c i,§,Eg ~c .. ~~s .2' g. 0 ...Jell~--'"'-z
16.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or 0 0 0 [g)
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the
USFWS?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, 0 0 0 ~ policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game
(DFG) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not 0 0 0 [g) limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or 0 0 0 ~ migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological 0 0 0 [g) resources, such as tree preservation policy/ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, 0 0 D ~
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the USFWS? No Impact. The code
amendment would not result in site grading or weed abatement activities that could affect habitat.
Therefore, the proposed 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
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -11-City of San Juan Capistrano. California
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community Identified in
local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The proposed code amendment regulates land use, 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 are
anticipated.
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. No wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, would be impacted by this code amendment. The proposed code amendment regulates
land uses. Thus, the project would not result in impacts to wetlands.
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildHfe species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? No Impact. Approval of the 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 land uses in lhe area of Sector
"C" of the Ortega Planned Community Comprehensive Development Plan, wh1ch have An lncfu~rrial Park
General Plan Land Use designatio .
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation
policy/ordinance? No Impact. No development project is associated with the proposed code amendment.
The ordinance proposes to regulate land uses in the areas of Sector "C" of the Ortega Planned
Community Comprehensive Development Plan, which have an Industrial Park General Plan Land Use
Q.Q§lgnatlon, to regulate medical and dental office uses.
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The 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 Plan (NCCP). However, the City is not a
signatory to the Implementation Agreement for the sub-region and more importantly, the code amendment
is a regulatory document and would not result in conservation planning impacts.
l , ., b~ ~~.n c:'!: i :l!!Jtl .. "' j~ [ ~·.,~~ ;~~ .!E ~~§ !l ·n~ XL§,~ 0 ..IUl-z
16.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical D D D t8:l resource as defined in ' 15064.5 of CEQA?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an D 0 D t8:l archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5 of CEQA?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site D D D ~ or unique geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside offormal D D D [81 cemeteries?
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -12-City 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 code amendment does not propose a development project, grading or
land disturbances. Therefore, the 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 '
15064. 5 of CEQA? No Impact. Refer to Response to a. above.
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No
Impact. Paleontological sites are abundant in southern Orange County, especially along the coast and in
creek areas. Because the proposed 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
development project is associated with the proposed code amendment. Therefore, the disturbance of
human remains would not occur.
.... j 'i c~ -c C:~cs ~ ~~ti ~ .. 0 £~-u ..: u ·-Q, t-!E3,e-.E 0 c .. ill c ·-0 ~ '6, [ -"'a. ... !!"" l! 0 ~iil.E -ltJ:::E-3iil.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 D D D ~
based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Refer to DM&G
Pub. 42)?; or, (ii) strong seismic ground shaking?; or, (iii) seismic-
related ground failure, including liquefaction?; or, (iv) landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? D D 0 [21
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-0 D D ~ site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-8 of the 1994 D D D ~ USC, creating substantial risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not D D D ~
available for the disposal of waste water?
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) No Impact. The City
of San Juan Capistrano is located within the seismically active southern California region and would
likely be subjected to groundshaking, thus exposing existing facilities to seismic hazards. No known
active seismic faults traverse the City of San Juan Capistrano. However, the City is located within 50
miles of several known potential sources of strong shaking, including the offshore segment of the
Newport-! nglewood 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-
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -13-City of San Juan Capistrano, California
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly referred to as "Special Studies Zones"). Furthermore the
County of Orange General Plan indicates that the project site is not within an Alquist Priolo Special
Study Zone. Impacts are not anticipated. The proposed project which involves changes in land use
provisions would not result in potential impacts to new uses.
2) Strong seismic ground shaking? No Impact. Southern California is a seismically active region likely to
experience, on average, one earthquake of Magnitude 7 .0, and ten ( 1 0) 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 code amendment is a regulatory
document with no development project 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. According to the City of San Juan Capistrano General Plan, Figure S-1, Geological
Hazards, the project area is susceptible to high liquefaction potential. However, the proposed code
amendment does not involve any physical development and therefore, would not result in liquefaction
impacts.
4) Landslides? No Impact. Landslides are mass movements of the ground that include rock falls,
relatively shallow slumping and sliding of soil, and deeper rotational or transitional movement of soil or
rock. Landsliding is considered likely within the Capistrano Formation which comprises much of the
City's hillside slopes. However, according to the City of San Juan Capistrano General Plan, the
project site is not located within a known or highly suspected landslide area. The code amendment
does not propose development projects but is a document to regulate land uses in the ~_Qf. Sector
"C" of the Ortega Planned Community Comprehensive Development Plan, which have an Industrial
Park Gen~@l Plan Land Use designation, therefore, no landslide impacts would occur.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the Joss of topsoil? No Impact. No construction is proposed as a part
of this code amendment; therefore, no 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 water extractions or similar practices are proposed by the code amendment.
Refer to Response 4.6a, above.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property? No Impact. According to the Orange County and Western Part of
Riverside County Soil Survey, dated September 1978, the project site has a low shrink-swell potential.
Further, this code amendment will have no impact as no physical improvements are proposed that would
alter existing conditions.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The proposed code
amendment does not include the installation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -14-City of San Juan Capistrano, California
16.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that
may have a significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
0 0 D
D 0 D
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment? No Impact. Global warming poses a potential threat to the economic well-being, public
health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global
warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to
the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of
coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an
increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems.
In 2006, the Legislature passed and the governor signed Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions
Act of 2006, which set a 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal into law. AB32 directed the
California Air Resources Board to begin developing discrete early actions to reduce greenhouse gases
while also preparing a scoping plan to identify how best to achieve the 2020 limit for greenhouse gas
emissions (GHG). The reduction measures needed to meet the 2020 GHG target are to be adopted by the
start of 2011 . The State Legislature also directed the California Air Resources Board to consult with the
Public Utilities Commission in the development of carbon dioxide (C02) emissions reduction measures,
including limits on emissions of greenhouse gases applied to electricity and natural gas providers
regulated by the Public Utilities Commission. The Legislature has also directed that such measures meet
the statewide emissions limits for greenhouse gases to be established pursuant to AB 32. Because the
proposed code amendment involves changes in land use provisions, it would not result in potential
impacts.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases? No Impact. The proposed code amendment is not in conflict with any plan, policy, or
regulation adopted to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases because the proposed code amendment
involves changes in land use provisions, it would not result in potential impacts.
... -l "i c:~ -c: fi~gi! ll !~t) .. .. a. ~!iii =~~ c: !E .. ~ !E "' 5 ~.~~ c: ·-i"a. 51'~ .!!' E c G.!ll-..J 'ut2-..J!I)_ z
16.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through D 0 D (gJ 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 0 D D l2l
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 D D l2l
or proposed school?
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -15-City of San Juan Capistrano, California
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as
a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
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?
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
0
0
0
0
D
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 D
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 code amendment would not involve the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and would not result in such impact.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. The
proposed code amendment would not result in a release of hazardous materials into the environment.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The proposed code amendment
addresses land uses in the areas of Sector "C" of the Ortega Planned Community Comprehensive
Development Plan. which have an Industrial Park General Plan land Use designation, 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 Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment? No Impact. The proposed code amendment regulates land uses in iA-the areas of
Sector "C" of the Ortega Planned Community Comprehensive Development Plan, wllich llav an Industrial
Park General Plan Land Use uesiqnation, 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 land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area? No. Impact. The proposed code amendment regulates land uses
in ffi the areas of Sector "C" of the Ortega Planned Community Comprehensive Development Plan, which
have an Industrial Park General Plan Land Use designation. 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 code amendment proposes to amend
the municipal code to regulate kennffi& medical and dental uses in in the areas of Sector "C" of the Ortega
Planned Community Comprehensive Development Plan, wt1ic11 11~~oJnduslrial Park G oeral Plan Land
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -16-City of San Juan Capistrano, California
Use designation, 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 or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? No Impact. The proposed code amendment would have no impacts on emergency
response plans or emergency evacuation plans. No revisions to adopted emergency plans would be
would be required as a result of the proposed project.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of foss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No
Impact. The code amendment would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of wildland fires
because the project site does not adjoin OCFA-designated wildland areas.
"} ..,
b'C :i"'!is c:'C 1:l :!Btl ~ :'!·-"' .. .. fj~~ ... ~~ [ .. .. 3, ~ s ll 6,;;; § ~c,. ~~.5 .!!' E 0 _.·c;;::~_ "'-z
16.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 0 0 0 ~
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., 0 0 0 ~ 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)?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a 0 0 0 ~ manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-
site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or 0 0 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 storm water drainage systems or provide 0 0 0 ~
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 0 0 ~
g. Place housing within a 1 00-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other 0 0 0 ~
flood hazard delineation map?
h. Place within a 1 00-year flood hazard area structures which would 0 0 0 ~ 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 0 0 0 ~
or dam?
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 0 0 0 ~
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -17-City of San Juan Capistrano, California
,.,-l 'i o:::E -0::: liigt! u iii .. l~ti "' 'E~~ j!: "'.C 0 0.
,!t:o, ~~ .~~ a 'c a. .5
g_ ~ .5 ~·~i~ .!!' E 0 ..JU)_ z
k. Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters
considering water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved
oxygen, turbidity and other typical stormwater pollutants (e.g. heavy D D D ~
metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, and trash)?
I. Result in significant alternation of receiving water quality during or D D D ~ following construction?
m. Could the proposed project result in increased erosion downstream? 0 D D ~
n. Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased
runoff? D D 0 ~
0. Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage
patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes? D D D ~
p. Tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean
Water Act Section 303(d) list? If so, can it result in an increase in any D D D ~ pollutant for which the water body is already impaired?
q. Tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? If so, can it 0 D D [8l exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions?
r. Have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water 0 D D 181 quality to either marine, fresh, or wetland waters?
s. Have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality? 0 0 D [81
t. Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or
groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of D D D [81
beneficial uses?
u. Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? D D 0 ~
v. Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction or post 0 0 0 ~ construction?
w. Result in a potential for discharge of storm water pollutants from areas
of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment
maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials D D D ~
handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor
work areas?
X. Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the 0 0 D ~ beneficial uses of the receiving waters?
y. Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or D 0 0 ~ volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm?
z. Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or 0 D 0 ~ surrounding areas?
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No Impact. No development is
proposed as part of this code amendment, therefore no impacts are anticipated.
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -18-City of San Juan Capistrano, California
b) · Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e .g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact. The code amendment would not
have the potential to substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge.
The code amendment 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 or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
No Impact. The code amendment would not result in changes in the amount of runoff as no development
project is proposed, therefore, no alteration of absorption rates and no changes in drainage patterns
associated with the proposed 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. Surface runoff
velocities, volumes and peak flow rates would not be impacted by this code amendment because it would
not contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of water.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact. Storm water quality is generally affected by the
length of time since the last rainfall, rainfall intensity, urban uses of the area, and the quantity of
transported sediment. Typical urban water quality pollutants usually result from motor vehicle operations,
oil and grease residues, fertilizer/pesticide uses, and careless material storage and handling. The majority
of pollutant loads are usually washed away during the first flush of the storm occurring after the dry-
season period. However, no development projects are proposed with the code amendment, therefore, no
impacts to water quality would occur.
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The proposed code
amendment does not propose housing. Therefore, no flood related impacts would occur.
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No
Impact. The project site is located within a 1 00-year flood hazard area. However, the code amendment
does not propose any new structures. Refer to Response 4.8c and Response 4.8d, above, for additional
discussion.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. As previously stated, the code
amendment is a regulatory document that does not propose any new building structures or land uses
within the 1 00-year flood plain.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mildflow? No Impact. There are no anticipated impacts to the proposed
project from seiche, tsunami or mudflow, as no topographical features or water bodies capable of
producing such events occur as a result of the proposed code amendment.
k) Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters? Consider water quality parameters such
as temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical stormwater pollutants (e.g. heavy metals,
pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances,
and trash}? No Impact. Potential pollutant discharges to receiving waters would have no increase due to
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -19-City of San Juan Capistrano, California
no additional impervious surfaces added nor any use which would include increases pollutant discharges
as a part of this project.
I) Result in significant alternation of receiving water quality during or following construction? No Impact. The
code amendment would regulate the land uses in-in lh areas of Sector "C" of the Ortega Planned
Community Comprehensive Development Plan~h ich have an Industrial Park General Plan Land Use
designation, and would not result in any water quality impacts.
m) Could the proposed project result in increased erosion downstream? No Impact. The proposed 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 development
project is proposed with the code amendment and no Increase in impervious surfaces and associated
runoff would occur.
o) Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates
or volumes? No Impact. The code amendment does not include 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.
p) Tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? If so,
can it result in an increase in any pollutant for which the water body is already impaired? No Impact. No
development project is proposed with the code amendment. The code amendment regulates land use in
in.·ll'e ~reas of Sector "C" of the Ortega Planned Community Comprehensive Development Plan. which
have an lndust[lal Park General Plan Land Use designation; therefore, no water quality impacts would
occur.
q) Tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? If so, can it exacerbate already existing sensitive
conditions? No Impact. See Response top) above.
r) Have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water quality to eirher marine, fresh, or
wetland waters? No Impact. The code amendment regulates medical and dental office uses in in·lhe
areas of Sector "C" of the Ortega Planned Community Comprehensive Development Plan~ which h9V!:1 'l.n
Industrial Park General Plan Land Use designation, and would not result in discharges into surface
waters. No development project is proposed with the 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 code amendment
would regulate medical and dental office uses in iA · the areas of Sector "C" of the Ortega Planned
Community Comprehensive Development Plan. which have an Industrial Park General Plan Land Use
designation, and does not involve excavation, drilling, or cuts that could intercept or affect groundwater,
and does not involve sub-surface fuel tanks or similar features that could affect groundwater.
t) Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality
objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? No Impact. The proposed code amendment does not
include a development proposal 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, or riparian habitat? No Impact. The proposed code amendment does not include
a development project; therefore, no aquatic, wetland or riparian habitats would be impacted as a result of
the code amendment.
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -20-City of San Juan Capistrano, California
v) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction or post construction? No Impact. The proposed
code amendment does not include a development project 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 code amendment does not include a development project and no discharge of stormwater
pollutants would occur as a result of a regulatory document.
x) Result in the potential for discharge of storm water to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? No
Impact. The code amendment does not include a development project; therefore, no discharge of
stormwater would occur.
y) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff to cause
environmental harm? No Impact. The proposed code amendment does not include a development project
and will neither increase the volume nor the velocity of storm water 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
code amendment does not include any development project proposal; therefore, no erosion to any
properties would occur.
l ,
~'E ccc! " c t; ~~ti ~ ~ .2 5 ~~t; .. <>. ';;!Eil:-§ ~·~ ftl XI c: ·-o iJ'c ~ ~u;f ..J ·~i .s .2' E 0 ...J(I)_ z
16.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community? 0 0 0 [8.]
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 0 0 0 [8.]
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? 0 0 0 [8.]
a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The proposed code amendment does not
include a development project and is a regulatory document. 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) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The
proposed code amendment is consistent with the General Plan, Title 9 Zoning Code, and the Ortega
Planned Community Comprehensive Development Plan 78-01, therefore, no impacts or conflicts to
existing regulatory documents would occur as a result of approving this code amendment.
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 code amendment would not conflict with
any habitat conservation plan
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -21-City of San Juan Capistrano, California
j .,
~~ qd c " x .. .. .!l! 0 t> ~~~~ =~u f !~ [ In 'c .Sfl !a'ij,[ ~~§ ill .!!"" ~ ju;E 0 ...IW~-z
16.11 MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that D D D t8l would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other 0 D D ~
land use plan?
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state? No Impact. The proposed code amendment does not include a development
project. Therefore, the amendment to regulate land uses in in-the areas of Sector "C" of the Ortega
Planned Community Comprehensive Development Plan, which have an Industrial Park Gener I Plan
Land Use designalion, 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 14.1 Oa, above.
j I! bE r:::cc-E tl ii .. .2 !] ~I ~tl a ~~~ 1-!5 :, § .S"c. ~ ij,:;; l! " .. "'"' cf~.5 ...J 'iii:::l:-iii.li ~
16.12 NOISE. Would the project:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or D D IZI 0
applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne D 0 0 t8l vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the D 0 D I2J project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels 0 0 0 I2J in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or D 0 D I2J public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive D 0 0 t8l
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? Less Than Significant
Impact. The proposed code amendment does not include a development project and would therefore not
create any impacts in terms of ambient noise levels. Noise impacts are regulated by the City's General
Plan Noise Element and Title 9, Land Use Code regulations.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -22-City of San Juan Capistrano, California
No Impact. The code amendment does not include a development proposal; therefore, no construction
and demolition activity would occur to generate excessive ground borne 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 code amendment is a regulatory ordinance that does not include a
development project, 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 code
amendment would set forth land use regulations fef-in !he areas of Sector "C" of the Ortega Planned
Community Comprehensive Development Plan~hich have an Industrial Park General Plan Land Use
designation . and would not result in short-term increased noise levels as no development project is
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 working in
the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. As previously stated the proposed code
amendment is a document to regulate medical and dental office uses in irt·lhe areas of Sector "C" of the
Ortega Planned Community Comprehensive Development Plan, which have an lndustrral Park General
Plan Land Use d,!.'lslgnallo , 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.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The proposed code amendment is a document to
regulate medical and dental office uses In in-ll1e areas or Sector "C" of the Ortega Planned Community
Comprehensive Development Plan. wl11cl1 have an Industrial Park General Plan Land Use designation,
and would not expose people to excessive noise levels.
16.13 POPULATION & HOUSING. Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The
proposed code amendment would not induce growth through the extension or expansion of major capital
infrastructure. No impacts to population and housing would occur.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? No Impact. The proposed code amendment would not require the removal existing housing, and
therefore would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.12a and 4.12b, above.
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -23-City of San Juan Capistrano, California
l "D ... -il8~ c:c ~ 'iii .. .. ;!:!t; ~u;O =~~ Q. !~ CIJ ~~:~ ~""-.5
0 .2' ~ ""-!! .2' E 0 II.Cil-.... 'iii :1-...JCI)_ z
16.14 PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire Protection? 0 0 0 ~
Police Protection? 0 0 0 ~
Schools? 0 0 0 f8J
Parks? 0 0 0 ~
Other public facilities? 0 0 0 ~
1) Fire protection? No Impact. Proposed code amendment would not result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities.
2) Police protection? No Impact. There are no significant impacts related to police protection or service
anticipated with implementation of the proposed code amendment.
3) Schools? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed code amendment would not result in the need for
the construction of additional school facilities. Therefore, no impacts in this regard will occur.
4) Parks? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed code amendment will not affect any existing park
facilities nor increase the demand for additional recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts to parks are
anticipated as a result of this project.
5) Other public facilities? No Impact. No significant impacts to other public facilities are anticipated to occur
with code amendment implementation.
16.15 RECREATION. Would the project:
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have
an adverse physical effect on the environment?
0
0
0 0
0 0
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
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist City of San Juan Capistrano, California
Impact. Implementation of the proposed code amendment will not generate an increase in demand on
existing public or private parks or other recreational facilities that would either result in or increase
physical deterioration of the facility.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. Implementation of
the proposed code amendment does not include recreational facilities.
'i " ~'E c~a~ "" ti ~ .~ ti 1! .. ., ~ .... ..
~ ~ ,g, 0 =~~ "' !l,~ ~.~~ §
~ii5s .'J ·~!B 0 ... JIJI-z
16.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel, and relevant components of the 0 0 0 r2l
circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets,
highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel 0 D 0 ~ demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion/management agency for designated roads or highways?
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety 0 0 D ~
risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm 0 0 D ~
equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 ~
f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the 0 D 0 ~
performance or safety of such facilities?
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel, and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not
limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
No Impact. The code amendment would result in the development of land uses that could result in an
increase in vehicular trips. The code amendment is a regulatory document to regulate land uses in ffi..the
areas of Sector "C" of the Ortega Planned Community Comprehensive Development Plan, wllich have an
!.fld!,tstri<:'ll Park General Plan Land Use d_e, 19.0~lio 1l and would not result in traffic-related impacts.
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion/management agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact. Refer to Response
4.15a, above.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location
that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The code amendment is a regulatory document to
regulate land uses in ifl-the areas of Sector "C" of the Ortega Planned Community Comprehensive
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -25-City of San Juan Capistrano, California
Development Plan, which have an Industrial Park General Plan Land Use desjgnalion and would not
result in traffic-related impacts.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. No public roadways are proposed as part of the
code amendment, therefore, no impacts regarding design features or incompatible uses would occur.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed code amendment does not include a
development project. Adequate emergency access is required for all properties within the City of San
Juan Capistrano and regulated by the 2013 California Building Code and Orange County Fire Authority
(OCFA).
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities,
or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No Impact. Project implementation
would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Impacts
are not anticipated in this regard. The proposed code amendment does not propose a development
project; therefore, no impacts to parking would occur. The Title 9, Land Use Code regulates parking
standards and requirements.
l I! be C:~c:J! :a~ u ~~~ 2ho .. =!Eu a. i!g-~~ .5 z -~ ~ ·~i~ m~~ 0 O..fl)_ ..J -z
16.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional 0 0 0 ~ 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 0 0 0 [81
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 0 0 0 [81
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 0 0 0 [81
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 0 0 0 [81 the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 0 0 0 ~ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g. Com ply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related 0 0 0 [8l to solid waste?
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No
Impact. No improvements are associated with the proposed code amendment and therefore would not
exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -26-City of San Juan Capistrano, California
proposed code amendment does not include a development proposal 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 stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The
proposed code amendment does not include a development proposal 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 project. No impacts would occur.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that
it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.16a, above.
f) Be served by a landfifl with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs? No Impact. The proposed code amendment does not include a development proposal 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.
l 11 ~i C'Cc"f ~ tl ~ ~.2 0 .. ~~g ~it~!?-~~ l .! a, Q. c . 0 c Cl. ~i4~ ~ ·~i .5 ~§ 0 z
16.18 MANDAT.ORY 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-0 0 0 [gJ sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? 0 0 0 ~
c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable (Cumulatively considerable@ means the
project's incremental effects are considerable when compared to the 0 0 0 ~
past, present, and future effects of other projects)?
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will have
substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly? 0 0 0 ~
17. The initial study for the subject project was prepared by:
2-3-/lo
Date:
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -27-City of San Juan Capistrano, California