Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 04-094 2004-08-24RESOLUTION NO.: 04-094 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR TENTATIVE MAP APPROVAL FOR PR 03-0340 AND AN AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 91002 / 91003 (PAHLER) APN: 009-750-010 WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map PR 03-0340 has been filed by McCarthy Engineering on behalf of Joe Pahler to subdivide an approximate 2.5 acre site into four lots for three new single family dwelling and one existing single family dwelling at 2275 Larkfield Place; and WHEREAS, this parcel is located within a planned development (PD) zoning overlay district and this application is located within the geographic area covered by a master development PD 91002 / 91003; and WHEREAS, subdivision of this property requires an amendment to Planned Development PD 91002 / 91003; and WHEREAS, public notice of the proposed Mitigated 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 August 24, 2004 to consider the Initial Study on file with the Community Development Departments and 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 with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, if the application was approved with conditions as described in that initial study and contained in the resolutions approving PR 03-0340 and amendment to Planned Development PD 91002 / 91003. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of El Paso de Robles, based on its independent judgment, that the Mitigated Negative Declaration \7 provided in Exhibit A is hereby approved for PR 03-0340 and an amendment to Planned Development PD 91002 / 91003 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 24"' day of August, 2004 by the following roll call vote: Ferravanti, Flynn, Hamon, Johnson, Kemper, Mattke, SteinbeckAYES: NOES:None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None /,)- 40?-'Of CI-til6AN TOM FLYNN ATTEST: ROBERT A. LATA, PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY I ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST FORM CITY OF PASO ROBLES l1G DIVISIONPLC PR 03-0340 / Amendment to Planned Development 91002 /1. PROJECT TITLE: 91003 Concurrent Entitlements:None City of Paso Robles 1000 Spring Street Paso Robles, CA 93446 2. LEAD AGENCY: Jamie Kirk, Kirk Consulting, Contract Planner (805)461-5765 Contact: Phone: 2275 Larkfield Place (009-750-010) 3. PROJECT LOCATION: Mr. and Mrs. Joe Pahler/ McCarthy and Associates4. PROJECT PROPONENT: John McCarthy, McCarthy and AssociatesContact Person: 805-238-9585Phone: 5. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Single-Family, two units per acre (RSF-2) Ri,B3, PD, Single Family Residential, 20,000 S.F. minimum6. ZONING: lot size Proposal to amend Planned Development 91002/91003 to allow the subdivision of a 2.5-acre parcel into four single- family residential lots between approximately 20,000 and 36,000 square feet 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 8. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The project site is located at the end of Larkfield Drive. The site is developed with a single family dwelling and associated site improvements. Vegetation on the site consists mainly of non-native grasses and native oak trees and a seasonal creek traverses through the site in a north to south direction. Neighboring Properties: North: existing +/- 8,000 s.f residential parcels. South: existing 20,000 s.f residential parcels West: existing 20,000 s.f residential parcels, East: existing 20,000 s.f residential parcels. Neighboring sites to the south and the east are under the same general plan and zoning designation, parcels to the west are under the RSF-3 general plan designation and R1 PD 2.7 zoning designation and the parcels to the north are under the RSF-4 general plan designation and a the R1 PD zoning designation. 9. RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: 10. PERSONS PARTICIPATING IN THE PREPARATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY: Jamie Kirk: Principal Planner, Kirk Consulting, John Falkenstien: City Engineer. 11. CONTEXT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR PROJECT: This environmental initial study will study the associated impacts that may occur with the subdivision the one existing parcel of a total of 2.50 acres into four single family residential lots ranging in size from 20,000 square feet to 36,000 square feet. Initial Study-Page 2 \~ 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. L Land Use & Planning E Transportation/Circulation Q Public Services H Biological ResourcesO Population & Housing E Utilities & Service Systems Q Geological Problems O Energy & Mineral Resources Q Aesthetics O Water E Hazards E Cultural Resources O Q NoiseAir Quality Q Recreation E Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.01 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. Q 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 El PRT is required but it'must analyze only the effect(s) (Ykr~ remain to be addressed. Siatire Jamie Kirk Date Principal Planner Printed Name Title Initial Study-Page 3 i.~->~'1 TAL IMPACTS:EVALUATION OF ENVRON 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 Less Than Signficant Potentially Unless Significant MitigationISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Incorporated ImpactImpact 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 ofthe area which show that the area is located in aflat area. (Note: This response probably would not require further explanation). 0L71717 Initial Study-Page 4 7 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Impact Incorporateo= I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the Proposal: 11 Ela) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source: 1,2):A Discussion: The proposed subdivision would meet the City's Zoning Code and General Plan c b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?11 11 Discussion: There are no other environmental plans or policies by other agencies besides the ( c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Source: 1,2)El 11 Discussion: The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding single family residential uses= by properties with the same zoning designation or a higher density designation..M A d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible uses)?11LI Discussion: The project site is zoned for residential purposes and the development of the subje s an impact on agricultural resources. e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)?11 11 Discussion: N/A II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (Source: Paso Robles General Plan.).Q 11 Discussion: The proposed project is consistent with the density allowed within the current Gert= designations. Therefore, there is no impact on population projections. 5I b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ElEl Discussion: The proposed project is consistent with the densities allowed in the General Plan a-.= already exists. The site is surrounded by similar development and would not be considered gro-c there is no impact on growth projections. c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Discussion: There is one existing house on the site that will be preserved. El III.GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Initial Study-Page 5 I Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than SignificantISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Incorporated Impact No ImpactImpact I. LAND USE AND PLA NG. Would the Proposal: 11 El 10QJa) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source: 1,2) Discussion: The proposed subdivision would meet the City's Zoning Code and General Plan designation. b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?QEl1111 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)Q1111 LI Discussion: The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding single family residential uses. The site is surrounded by properties with the same zoning designation or a higher density designation. d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible uses)?0111111 Discussion: The project site is zoned for residential purposes and the development of the subject project would not have an impact on agricultural resources. e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)?Q11ElEl Discussion: N/A H. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (Source: Paso Robles General Plan.)0111111 Discussion: The proposed project is consistent with the density allowed within the current General Plan and Zoning designations. Therefore, there is no impact on population projections. b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? 10ElElEl Discussion: The proposed project is consistent with the densities allowed in the General Plan and the infrastructure already exists. The site is surrounded by similar development and would not be considered growth inducing. Therefore, there is no impact on growth projections. c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 0 Discussion: There is one existing house on the site that will be preserved. 11 11 III.GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Initial Study-Page 5 F Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than SignificantISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):No ImpactImpactIncorporated Impact a) Fault rupture?01111 11 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?0ElQl 11 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?01111 11 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?011ElQl Discussion: The project site is not located in an area identified at risk for seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazards. 0e) Landslides or Mud flows?El El El Discussion: See discussion for III (f). f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?011 ElEl 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?0ElEl 11 Discussion: See the discussion in Sections III (a) and (f) above. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated. 0h) Expansive soils?El El Ql Discussion: See the discussion in Sections III (a) and (f) above. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated. 0i) Unique geologic or physical features?11 El El Discussion: N/A Initial Study-Page 6 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless - Significant Mitigation Less Than SignificantISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Incorporated ImpactImpact No Impact IV.WATER Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Source: 6,9, 20)Q11El 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?Q1111El Discussion: All development will be located outside of the 100 year flood area. c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity)?0El1111 Discussion: N/A d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Discussion: See Sec. IV a, discussion 11 0~11 El e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movement?R111ElEl Discussion: The project will require the installation of a box culvert within the intermittent streambed. The culvert has been sized appropriately to ensure that the movement of water will not be disrupted or diverted. 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? QElElQl Discussion: N/A g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Discussion: N/A R1ElQlEl h) Impacts to groundwater quality? Discussion: N/A i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? QElElQl BElElEl Discussion: N/A Initial Study-Page 7 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 10,13, 18,20)QElEl .11 Discussion: The San Luis Obispo County area is an 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 operational phase impacts will likely be less than the District's CEQA mitigation threshold value of 10 lbs of emissions per day. b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source: 10,13)0ElEl01 Discussion: N/A c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature? (Source: 10,13)0ElElEl Discussion: N/A. d) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 10) Discussion: N/A 0ElElEl VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source: 16) Discussion: 011Ql 11 The proposed project is consistent with the current General Plan and Zoning designations. The traffic trips allowed in the land use designations were evaluated in the EIR prepared for the General Plan. There are no anticipated impacts to traffic trips or congestion. Larkfield Drive is designed to accommodate the additional 30 ADT's (average daily trips)that will be generated by the project, furthermore, the project will be required to do frontage improvements along Larkfield Drive. b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Source: 16) .011ElEl Discussion: N/A c) Inadequate emergency access or inadequate access to nearby Initial Study-Page 8 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than SignificantISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact uses? (Source: 16)0ElEl11 Discussion: Emergency Services has reviewed the project and does not have concerns. The existing bridge crossing is required to meet UBC and UFC to ensure that it can carry the weight of an emergency. d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?QQl1111 Discussion: Each house will have a two car garage, parking in front of the garage door. The off-street parking provided would meet the Zoning Code requirements. e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?0ElElEl Discussion: N/A. f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?QElElEl Discussion: N/A. 0g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?El El El Discussion: N/A VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: 2a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ElElEl Discussion: The project is an infill lot that is surrounded by development on all sides. It would not appear that endangered or threatened or rare species or their habitats will have a significant impact. b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? (Source: 13)Q01 01 11 Discussion: There is several large native oak tree located on the project site. The access drive to the parcels will encroach within the critical root zone (CRZ) of several oak trees. A minimal amount of surface grading will be required to occur within the CRZ. The installation of impervious surfaces within this area could reduce the oak trees ability to absorb water and impact the root aeration. All other future development will be located outside of the critical root zone (CRZ) of the oak trees. No oak trees will be removed by the construction of future homes or site improvements. Mitigation Measure: Any grading within the CRZ for the driveway will be required to be monitored by the project arborist. Pervious pavers shall be installed for the area of the driveway that is within the CRZ. 0c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? El11El Discussion: N/A d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?0 ElQlU Initial Study-Page 9 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than SignificantISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: There is a seasonal stream that traverses the project site. The existing access drive crosses the seasonal stream. The project is proposing to replace the existing culvert with a new concrete box culvert. Mitigation Measure: The applicant will be required to obtain all necessary permits from the Army Corp of Engineers, The Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?0El1111 Discussion: This site would not appear to be a wildlife dispersal or mitigation corridor. VIII.ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?El El QEl 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? 0ElQlQl - 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)? 0ElElEl Discussion: N/A b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?0ElElEl Discussion: N/A Ql Qc) The creation of any health hazard or potential hazards?El El Discussion: N/A d) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees?11 0.E1 El Discussion: N/A Initial Study-Page 10 i _ Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: 0a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source 1, 19)El 11 El Discussion: Besides the initial construction of the project, existing noise levels would not be significantly increased. b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source 1)011El QJ 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?0ElQ El Discussion: The Emergency Services Department has reviewed the development and has provided the necessary conditions of approval to adequately address fire protection concerns. 0b) Police Protection?11 El 11 Discussion: N/A 0c) Schools?11 El 13 Discussion: N/A 0d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?El Ql El Discussion: N/A e) Other governmental services?0El1111 Discussion: N/A XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: 0a) Power or natural gas?El El El 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. Initial Study-Page 11 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than SignificantISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Incorporated Impact No ImpactImpact b) Communication systems?0ElEJEl 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. c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities?0ElElEl Discussion: N/A d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source: 7)0ElElEJ Discussion: The project will be required to hook up to City sewer services. e) Storm water drainage? (Source: 6)011ElEl Discussion: See Section IVa. f) Solid waste disposal?211ElEl Discussion: Each lot would be served by Paso Robles Waste. g) Local or regional water supplies?0ElElEl Discussion: N/A XIII.AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (Source: 1,9)El 0001 Discussion: This project is not located on a scenic vista or highway. b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (Source: 1,9)01111El Discussion: The building sites are located in areas under ten percent slope and future construction will not require excessive grading. Each lot would have to comply with the Zoning Ordinance for landscape requirements. 0c) Create light or glare? (Source: 1,9)11 El El Discussion: N/A XIV.CULTt RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 0a) Disturb paleontological resources?El El El Initial Study-Page 12 ~*- ~4- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than SignificantISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: N/A b) Disturb archaeological resources?10El11 El 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. c) Affect historical resources?0 El 011 Discussion: See XIV b. d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?El 0ElEl Discussion: N/A. e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area?0ElElEl Discussion: N/A XV.RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities?11 01Ql11 Discussion: N/A. b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?JEl1111 Discussion: N/A. XVI.A DATORY 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? El 0QlEl Discussion: It would not appear that there would be any significant impacts in this section. Initial Study-Page 13 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than SignificantISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Incorporated Impact No ImpactImpact 0b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?11 El El Discussion: N/A 10c) 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.) El11El Discussion: The project is anticipated within the City's General Plan and Zoning documents. It would appear that it meets the requirements of those documents. There would not be a significant cumulative impact. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? QElIiEl Discussion: The proposed project would meet the requirements and intent of the Zoning Code and General Plan for development within R-2 designated properties. Initial Study-Page 14 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 City of Paso Robles General Plan1 Same as above2City of Paso Robles Zoning Code Same as aboveCity of Paso Robles Environmental Impact Report for General Plan Update 3 Same as above1977 Airport Land Use Plan4 Same as aboveCity of Paso Robles Municipal Code5 Same as above6City of Paso Robles Water Master Plan Same as aboveCity of Paso Robles Sewer Master Plan7 Same as aboveCity of Paso Robles Housing Element8 9 Same as aboveCity of Paso Robles Standard Conditions of Approval for New Development APCD 3433 RobertoCourt San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District Guidelines for Impact Thresholds 10 San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 San Luis Obispo County -Land Use Element11 Soil Conservation Offices Paso Robles, Ca 9344612USDA, 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 City of Paso Robles Community Development Department 1000 Spring Street Paso Robles, CA 93446 13 Summary of Mitigation Measures Description of Impact Mitigation Measure Grading / driveway within the CRZ of several native oak trees The project arborist shall monitor construction activities within the CRZ and the portion of the driveway that is within the CRZ will be constructed with pervious pavers The applicant will be required to obtain all necessary permits from the Army Corp of Engineers, The Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the installation of the box culvert within the intermittent streambed. Improvements within the intermittent streambed Initial Study-Page 16 2t_