Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 04-003 2004-02-10RESOLUTION NO: 04-003 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PASO ROBLES GRANTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION STATUS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 91-010 -SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE FOR THE KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORE (HALFERTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY) APN: 009-814-011, 012, 013 AND 014 WHEREAS, Planned Development 91-010 Substantial Compliance has been filed by North Coast Engineering on behalf of the Halferty Development Company to determine that the 88,000 square foot Kohl's department store with 22,000 square feet of retail, is substantially compliant with the original development plan for the Woodland Plaza II Shopping Center; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is also be asked to make a finding that the proposed development will be substantially compliant with the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the shopping center in conjunction with the original approval of PD 91-010; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared for this project (attached as Exhibit A) which concludes and proposes that a Negative Declaration be approved; and WHEREAS, Public Notice of the proposed Negative Declaration was given as required by Section 21092 of the Public Resources Code; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted by the Planning Commission on February 10, 2004 to consider the Initial Study prepared for this application, and to accept public testimony regarding this proposed environmental determination; and WHEREAS, based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project and testimony received as a result of the public notice, the Planning Commission finds no substantial evidence that there would be a significant impact on the environment if the application was approved with conditions as described in that initial study and contained in the resolutions approving PD 91-010 Substantial Compliance request for Kohl's Department Store; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of El Paso de Robles, based on its independent judgment, that a Negative Declaration is hereby finds that the project as proposed does substantially comply with Planned Development 91-010 and recommended for adoption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 1 0 th day of February, 2004 by the following roll call vote: Mattke, Kemper, Steinbeck, Flynn, Johnson, FerravantiAYES: NOES:None ABSENT: Hamon ABSTAIN: None ~Jo7~/ kf NRM$ FLYN ATTEST: ROBERT A. LATA, PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY h:\darren\PD 91010 Amend\Kohl's\neg dec reso %n Y }, Planned Development PD 91-0101. PROJECT TITLE: NoneConcurrent Entitlements: City of Paso Robles 1000 Spring Street Paso Robles, CA 93446 2. LEAD AGENCY: Darren R. Nash, Associate Planner (805) 237-3970 Contact: Phone: Woodland Plaza II Shopping Center, located on the Southwest3. PROJECT LOCATION: Corner ofNiblick Road and South River Road Halferty Development Company / North Coast Engineering4. PROJECT PROPONENT: Larry WernerContact Person: (805) 239-3127Phone: 5. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Regional Commercial (RC) Regional Commercial (RC)6. ZONING: 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Company to construct an 88,000 square foot Kohl's department store with 22,000 square feet of additional retail space, is substantially compliant with the original development plan for the Woodland Plaza II Shopping Center. The Planning Commission will also be asked to make a finding that the proposed development will be substantially compliant with the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the shopping center. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The new development would be located within an existing shopping center where approximately 250,000 square feet is currently constructed and in operation. The proposed Kohl's would be 88,000 square feet along with an additional 22,000 square feet of additional retail shop space. With the original approval of PD 91-010, an Environmental Impact Report was adopted. This application is reviewing the project in relation to the EIR and making a determination that the proposed development would substantially comply with PD 91-010 and the EIR. Neighboring Properties: North: Niblick Road, Woodland Plaza I. South: JC Penny store, beyond the site boundaries is a The preserve area, Kragens Auto Parts Store,residential subdivision West: Salinas River East Parking lots. 9. RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: An Environmental Impact Report adopted with the approval of the Woodland Plaza II Shopping Center. 10. PERSONS PARTICIPATING IN THE PREPARATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY: Darren Nash: Associate Planner, John Falkenstien: City Engineer. 11. CONTEXT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR PROJECT: The new development would be located within an existing shopping center where approximately 250,000 square feet is currently constructed and in operation. The proposed Kohl's would be 88,000 square feet along with an additional 22,000 square feet of additional retail shop space. With the original approval of PD 91-010,.an Environmental Impact Report was adopted. This application is reviewing the project in relation to the EIR and making a determination that the proposed development would substantially comply with PD 91-010 and the EIR. The proposed 88,000 square foot Kohl's with the 22,000 square foot of retail shops would be within the already entitled 425,000 square foot of commercial space already entitled for the Center. This would include the possibility of a 60,000 square foot expansion for the JC Penny building, which would fall under a separate development review process. Initial Study-Page 2 ~4. L.-~-___j 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" or is "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Q Public ServicesQ Transportation/CirculationO Land Use & Planning O Utilities & Service SystemsO Biological Resources0 Population & Housing Q Energy & Mineral Resources Q AestheticsE Geological Problems E Cultural ResourcesE HazardsE Water E RecreationD NoiseElAir Quality E Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: 0y-I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D 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 significant effect(s) on the environment, but one or more effects (1) have been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) have been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or is "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effect(s) that remain to be addressed. o Signature Date Darren R. Nash Associate Planner Printed Name Title Initial Study-Page 3 (K~I~t EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 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 the project. A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate, if an effect is significant or potentially significant, or if the lead agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is warranted. 4. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated" 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 Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," 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)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 6. References to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances) have been incorporated into the checklist. A source list has been provided in Section XVII. Other sources used or individuals contacted have been cited in the respective discussions. 7. The following checklist has been formatted after Appendix I of Chapter 3, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, but has been augmented to reflect the needs and requirements of the City of Paso Robles. (Note: Standard Conditions of Approval -The City imposes standard conditions of approval on projects which are considered to be components of or modifications to the project, some of these standard conditions also result in reducing or minimizing environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. However, because they are considered part of the project, they have not been identified as mitigation measures. For the readers' information, a list of applicable standard conditions identified in the discussions has been provided as an attachment to this document.) SAMPLE QUESTION: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than SignificantISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Landslides or Mud flows? (Sources: 1, 6) Discussion: The attached source list explains that I is the Paso Robles General Plan and 6 is a topographical map of the area which show that the area is located in a flat area. (Note: This response probably would not require further explanation). E7 L7 L7 D Initial Study-Page 4 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than SignificantISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Incorporated Impact No ImpactImpact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the Proposal: Q1111Ela) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source: 1,2) Discussion: The General Plan and Zoning designation for the subject property is Regional Commercial, this project would be a permitted use within the zone and be consistent with the Master Development Plan for the Woodland Plaza II Shopping Center. Qb) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?11 El Discussion: There are no other environmental plans or policies by other agencies besides the City of Paso Robles. c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Source: 1,2)QEl11 El Discussion: The Kohls building along with the retail shops would be constructed in an existing regional shopping center where there is currently 250,000 square feet of existing commercial space in operation. d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible uses)?El Q1111 Discussion: The development of the subject project would not have an impact on agricultural resources. The EIR addressed the ability of the shopping center to be located at this location. e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)?El Q11El Discussion: N/A II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (Source: Paso Robles General Plan.)11 El 11 Q Discussion: The proposed project would not create any new residential uses. b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? . El Ql Ql 10 Discussion: There would not be a substantial growth in the area caused by this project c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Discussion: There would not be a displacement of existing housing.. El El Q 1 Initial Study-Page S 7-3E'l Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than SignificantISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Incorporated Impact No ImpactImpact III.GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Q~a) Fault rupture?rJ 1111 Discussion: This portion of San Luis Obispo County (generally the Paso Robles area) is located at the far southerly end of the Salinas Valley which also extends up into Monterey County. There are two known fault zones on either side of this valley. The San Marco-Rinconada Fault system runs on the west side of the valley. The San Andreas Fault is on the east side of the valley and runs through the community of Parkfield east of Paso Robles. The City of Paso Robles recognizes these geologic influences in the application of the Uniform Building Code to all new development within the City. Soils reports and structural engineering in accordance with local seismic influences would be applied in conjunction with any new development proposal. Based on standardly applied conditions of approval, the potential for fault rupture and exposure of persons or property to seismic hazards is not considered significant. b) Seismic ground shaking?QLI11 LI Discussion: See the response to Section III(a). Based on that response, the potential for exposure of persons or property to seismic hazards is not considered significant. c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?QEl11 LI Discussion:. The City's General Plan contains public safety policies that would require special attention to projects with potential for liquefaction. Also, see the response to Section III(a). Based on the above discussion, the potential for exposure of persons or property to seismic hazards, including liquefaction is not considered significant. d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?11 El QLI Discussion: The project site is not located in an area identified at risk for seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazards. e) Landslides or Mud flows?LI LI Q LI Discussion: See discussion for III (f). f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?11 LI Q LI Discussion: See the discussion in Section III(a). In addition to standard erosion control measures being part of a future development, all grading would be subject to standard conditions of approval ensuring that soils conditions are suitable for the proposed structures and improvements. As such, no significant impacts are anticipated. g) Subsidence of the land?LI QI 0 D Discussion: See the discussion in Sections III (a) and () above. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated. h) Expansive soils?LI LI Q~D Discussion: See the discussion in Sections III (a) and (f) above. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated. i) Unique geologic or physical features?LI El 11 0 Initial Study-Page 6 I ~ :i Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Incorporated Impact No ImpactImpact Discussion: N/A IV.WATER Would the proposal result in: Q Ela) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Source: 6,9, 20)11 Discussion: It is a standard condition that the developer mitigates additional storm drain run-off generated by their project. Appropriate drainage facilities shall be designed in accordance with current City Standards, and design plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? Discussion: N/A 0~11 El11 c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity)?0ElElEl Discussion: N/A d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Discussion: See Sec. IV a, discussion QDlEl Ql e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movement?El 11 El Discussion: N/A f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? El El QEl Discussion: N/A g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Discussion: N/A El El El B h) Impacts to groundwater quality? Discussion: N/A i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? El El El R1 El El El Q Discussion: N/A Initial Study-Page 7 -U. t1~~~~' Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than SignificantISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Incorporated ImpactImpact No Impact V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: Source: 14 a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 10,13, 18, 20)0 ElElQl Discussion: The San Luis Obispo County area is a non-attainment area for the State standards for ozone and suspended particulate matter. The SLO County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) administers a permit system to ensure that stationary sources do not collectively create emissions which would cause local and state standards to be exceeded. The potential for future project development to create adverse air quality impacts falls generally into two categories: Short term and Long term impacts. Short term impacts are associated with the grading and development portion of a project where earth work generates dust, but the impact ends when construction is complete. Long term impacts are related to the ongoing operational characteristics of a project and are generally related to vehicular trip generation and the level of offensiveness of the onsite activity being developed. The new development would be located within an existing shopping center where approximately 250,000 square feet is currently constructed and in operation. The proposed Kohl's would be 88,000 square feet along with an additional 22,000 square feet of additional retail shop space. With the original approval of PD 91-010, an Environmental Impact Report was adopted. This application is reviewing the project in relation to the EIR and making a determination that the proposed development would substantially comply with PD 91-010 and the EIR. The proposed 88,000 square foot Kohl's with the 22,000 square foot of retail shops would be within the already entitled 425,000 square foot of commercial space already entitled for the Center. This would include the possibility of a 60,000 square foot expansion for the JC Penny building, which would fall under a separate development review process. Based on this project being within the already entitled 425,000 square feet, the existing mitigations and conditions of approval apply to the project would still apply and address any air quality impacts. b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source: 10,13)0ElEl11 Discussion: N/A c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature? (Source: 10,13)11 0ElEl Discussion: N/A. d) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 10) Discussion: N/A El El El 0 VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source: 16) Source: 14 El El 0 El Discussion: Based on this project being within the already entitled 425,000 square feet, the existing mitigations and conditions of approval apply to the project would still apply and address any traffic related impacts. The City Engineer is requiring that some improvements be made to Niblick Road, but it is not anticipated that with the construction of this project that the Initial Study-Page 8 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):No ImpactIncorporated ImpactImpact traffic trips would be increased, beyond the trips that were identified in the original Development Plan and EIR for the Woodland Plaza II center. 01111Elb) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Source: 16) Discussion: N/A 11 0Elc) Inadequate emergency access or inadequate access to nearby uses? (Source: 16)11 11 Discussion: The Emergency Services Department has reviewed this project and is satisfied with the circulation. 011ElQld) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? Discussion: The parking for the shopping center is beyond what the Zoning Code would require. 10e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?ElEl11 Discussion: With the construction of this phase of the shopping center, a bike path will be constructed along the western boundary of this center. f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 11 11 11El Discussion: There will be bike racks installed for this project. Abus stop is located within the Woodland Plaza I Shopping Center directly north of this site, across Niblick Road. g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?011ElEl Discussion: N/A VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (Source: 14) 11 0ElEl Discussion: Based on this project being within the already entitled 425,000 square feet, the existing mitigations and conditions of approval would still apply to the project, there would not be any additional impacts with the approval of this project, beyond the existing EIR for the Shopping Center. b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? (Source: 13)El 011 El Discussion: There are two oak trees that will be impacted by the construction of the house on Lot 3 and Lot 2. There is a 4-inch oak tree on Lot 3 that would be removed with the construction of the house. There is a 12-inch oak tree on Lot 2 that will be preserved. Initial Study-Page 9 _- _f Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Incorporated Impact No ImpactImpact c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?Q ElElEl Discussion: There are some oak trees located in the gully along the northern side of the site. Any work in this area around the trees would need to be done in a manner to comply with the City Oak Tree Ordinance. 0d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?El ElEl Discussion: There is no evidence of wetland habitat on this site. 0e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?El 11 El Discussion: This site would not appear to be a wildlife dispersal or mitigation corridor. VIII.ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 0a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?El El El Discussion: N/A b) Use non-renewable resource in a wasteful and inefficient manner?QElElEl Discussion: N/A c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? QElElEl Discussion: N/A IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? El 0ElEl Discussion: N/A b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?El El 0El Discussion: N/A c) The creation of any health hazard or potential hazards?El El 0El Discussion: N/A d) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or El El 0El Initial Study-Page 10 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Incorporated Impact No ImpactImpact trees? Discussion: N/A X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: Qa) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source 1, 19)5 511 Discussion: Besides the initial construction of the project, existing noise levels would not be significantly increased. 0b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source 1)5 5 5 Discussion: There would be construction noise during the construction phase of the project, but would still be within the allowable tolerances as required by Chapter 17, the Building Code. For a residential project in a residential zone, it is not anticipated that there would be any severe noise levels. XI.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection?Q511 51 Discussion: The Emergency Services Department has reviewed the development and has provided the necessary conditions of approval to adequately address fire protection concerns, b) Police Protection?11 05S Discussion: N/A c) Schools?S 51 51 Q Discussion: N/A d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?5 51 11 0 Discussion: N/A e) Other governmental services?S S S 0 Discussion: N/A Initial Study-Page I1 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):No ImpactIncorporated ImpactImpact XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: 0ElEl11a) Power or natural gas? Discussion: Southern California Gas Company provides service to the Paso Robles area. The project is not anticipated to interfere with gas services or create an unmet demand. QElElElb) Communication systems? Discussion: The Pacific Bell Company provides service to the Paso Robles and County areas. The project is not anticipated to interfere with phone/communication services. 0ElElc) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities?El Discussion: N/A 0ElEld) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source: 7)11 Discussion: The project will be required to hook up to City sewer services. QElElEle) Storm water drainage? (Source: 6) Discussion: See Section IVa. QElElf) Solid waste disposal?El Discussion: A trash enclosure is required for this project and is shown on the site plan. The enclosure shall be constructed out of decorative masonry block and have metal "view obscuring" doors. QElg) Local or regional water supplies?El El Discussion: N/A XIII.AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (Source: 1,9)011ElEJ Discussion: With the review of this project with the DRC, much attention was given to the architecture of this building, including the west elevation, which will be prominent from the War Memorial Bridge. Highway 101 is quite a ways away from the site, but there will be some views of the building. With this in mind the DRC required some architectural enhancements to the west elevation including a tower element and the addition of columns. Also there will be a decorative privacy wall (5-feet in height) as well as a significant amount of landscaping. b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (Source: 1,9)QElElEl Discussion: Same as above. Initial Study-Page 12 r s ": Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):No ImpactIncorporated ImpactImpact 011ElEJc) Create light or glare? (Source: 1,9) Discussion: All exterior light fixtures will be required to be shielded. XIV.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: QEl11Ela) Disturb paleontological resources?j Discussion: N/A 0 El1111b) Disturb archaeological resources? Source: 14 Discussion: The Paso Robles area has been classified as territory occupied by the Migueleno Salinan and the Obispeno Chumash Native California populations. Past community populations have been evidenced at several sites within the Paso Robles area and unincorporated portions of the surrounding County. If, during any future construction excavation, any buried or isolated cultural materials are unearthed, work in the affected area should stop until these materials can be examined by a qualified Archeologist and appropriate recommendations made regarding their treatment and/or disposition. Such examination should be conducted under the coordination of the City of Paso Robles. With the EIR for the shopping center there were areas designated as cultural preserve areas. This project would stay out of those preserve areas and comply with all mitigation measures associated with the original EIR. c) Affect historical resources?QEl 01El Discussion: See XIV b. d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?0ElEl 11 -Discussion: See response to XIVb. e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area?0ElEl 0 Discussion: See response to XIVb. XV.RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities?El El 0(El Discussion: N/A. b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?El El 011 Initial Study-Page 13 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):No ImpactIncorporated ImpactImpact Discussion: N/A. XVI.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 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 drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Source: 14 0 El11El Discussion: All of the conditions of approval within Resolution 92-073 and the mitigation measures required for the original Woodland Plaza II project would apply to this project. With those conditions in place the impacts would be less than significant. 0b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?11 1111 Discussion: N/A c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Source: 14 El El 0El Discussion: All of the conditions of approval within Resolution 92-073 and the mitigation measures required for the original Woodland Plaza II project would apply to this project. With those conditions in place the impacts would have no impact. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? El El El 0 Discussion: All of the conditions of approval within Resolution 92-073 and the mitigation measures required for the original Woodland Plaza II project would apply to this project. With those conditions in place the impacts would have no impact. Initial Study-Page 14 V iiiII EARLIER ANALYSIS AND BACKGROUND MATERIALS. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). Earlier Documents Prepared and Utilized in this Analysis and Background / Explanatory Materials Reference #Document Title Available for Review at: City of Paso Robles Community Development Department 1000 Spring Street Paso Robles, CA 93446 1 City of Paso Robles General Plan Same as above2City of Paso Robles Zoning Code Same as above3City of Paso Robles Environmental Impact Report for General Plan Update Same as above41977 Airport Land Use Plan Same as above5City of Paso Robles Municipal Code Same as above6City of Paso Robles Water Master Plan Same as above7City of Paso Robles Sewer Master Plan Same as above8 9 City of Paso Robles Housing Element Same as aboveCity of Paso Robles Standard Conditions of Approval for New Development APCD 3433 Roberto Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 10 San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District Guidelines for Impact Thresholds San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 11 San Luis Obispo County -Land Use Element Soil Conservation Offices Paso Robles, Ca 93446 12 USDA, Soils Conservation Service, Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, Paso Robles Area, 1983 San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District Letter dated January 14, 2003 13 City of Paso Robles Community Development Department 1000 Spring Street Paso Robles, CA 93446 i. City of Paso Robles Community Development Department 1000 Spring Street Paso Robles, CA 93446 Environmental Impact Report for the Woodland Plaza H Shopping Center 14 Summary of Mitigation Measures Description of Impact Mitigation Measure N/A N/A Initial Study-Page 16