Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 04-107 2004-09-14RESOLUTION NO.: 04-107 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLA NG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PASO ROBLES ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 03-020 FOR PHASE I COMMERCIAL PROJECT 4TH AND SPRING STREETS MASTER PLAN (PACIFIC MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT) (APN: 009-261-002 AND 009-261-003) WHEREAS, Planned Development 03-020 has been filed by Pacific Management & Development; and WHEREAS, Planned Development 03-020 is a proposal to construct a 20,500 commercial/office building; and WHEREAS, the General Plan land use designation is CC (Community Commercial) and the Zoning Ordinance district is C-2 PD (General Commercial), and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Statutes and Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the City's Procedures for Implementing CEQA, an Initial Study and a Draft Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public review and comment; and WHEREASno nublic comments or resnonses were received in regard totheDraftNegative Declaration and Initial Study; and r ---- r --o--- WHEREAS, Public Notice of the proposed Negative Declaration was posted as required by Section 21092 of the Public Resources Code; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted by the Planning Commission on September 14, 2004 to consider the Initial Study, the proposed Negative Declaration prepared for the proposed project, and to accept public testimony on the Planned Development and environmental determination; and WHEREAS, based on the information and analysis contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project and testimony received as a result of the public notice, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that there would be a significant impact on the environment as a result of the development and operation of the proposed project. This finding is based on the Mitigation Monitoring Program included in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of El Paso de Robles, based on its independent judgment, that it does hereby adopt a Negative Declaration for Planned Development 03- -i 020 in accordance with the Statutes and Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's Procedures for Implementing CEQA. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 14' day of September, 2004 by the following roll call vote: Commissioners -Ferravanti, Johnson, Kemper, Hamon, Mattke, Steinbeck, Chair Flynn Commissioners -None Commissioner -None Commissioners -None AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: xIRxiN TFLYNN ATTEST: W4 rbw ROBERT A. LATA, PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY Attachment 17 ;J l rra k5 e; u ' wtt INTA ~ U Y 14xANDtFRLN JSIL fi~LI~S j COMM'.fir CIL .ROJ ECT 1. GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION Phase 1- 4 th and Springs Streets Development Plan (PD 03-020) PROJECT TITLE: City of Paso Robles -1000 Spring Street, Paso Robles, CA 93446LEAD AGENCY: Contact: Telephone: Susan Zaleschuk, City Planner (805) 237-3970 009-261-002; 009-261-003; and PTN 009-261-004 (APN)PROJECT LOCATION: Applicant: Pacific Management & Development 1232 Park Street, Suite 202 Paso Robles, CA 93446 Representative: PROJECT PROPONENT: LEAD AGENCY CONTACT/ INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY:Susan Zaleschuk, City Planner (805) 237-3970 (805) 237-3904 szaleschuk@prcity.com Telephone: Facsimile: E-Mail: Community Commercial (CC)GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial Light Industrial (C-3 PD)ZONING: 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is located at the corner of 4 th and Spring Streets. This project is the first phase of a larger 4-phased master planned area that includes property to the south and east of the site. The other phases of the overall project are not a part of this application. However, road improvements for the intersection of 4 th and Spring Streets and between 4 th Street and Pine Avenue will need to be constructed with this first phase of development, which will serve the remaining phases of the larger development plan. The project, phase 1, includes a 20,500 s.f. two- and three-story commercial building, with offices (13,300 s.f.) and a bank (7,200 s.f.) anticipated on an existing vacant, infill property. The site plan only includes a building pad for future commercial development with similar uses, and a potential to build approximately 6,000 s.f. of commercial development. The pad is not proposed to be developed at this time, and required environmental review for that pad will be conducted when the pad building is proposed. The site is proposed to have ingress/egress from Spring Street into the site at two locations, with only right-in, right-out movements. The main entrance to the project is proposed to be on 4 th Street. This entrance includes a left turn lane in, and through- and right turn lanes to exit 1-, --- ? this egress. Parking for the project is proposed on-site, with some parking proposed on the abutting property to the east, which is also a part of the master plan. A joint reciprocal access and parking agreement will be included with the project to share parking as appropriate. The site plan indicates two drive-thru lanes to the north of the property for the proposed bank. The phase 1 parking lot will be improved with the project including paving, stripping, landscaping and lighting. 3. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL MAY BE REQUIRED (For example, issuance of permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None. ENVIRONMENTAL4. EARLIER ANALYSIS AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: This Initial Study incorporates by reference the City of El Paso de Robles General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH#2003011123). 5. CONTEXT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR THE PROJECT: This Initial Study relies on expert opinion supported by the facts, technical studies, and technical appendices of the City of El Paso de Robles General Plan EIR. These documents are incorporated herein by reference. They provide substantial evidence to document the basis upon which the City has arrived at its environmental determination regarding various resources. 6. PURPOSES OF AN INITIAL STUDY The purposes of an Initial Study for a Development Project Application are: A. To provide the City with sufficient information and analysis to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or a Negative Declaration for a site specific development project proposal; B. To enable the Applicant of a site specific development project proposal or the City as the lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an Environmental Impact Report is required to be prepared, thereby enabling the proposed Project to qualify for issuance of a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration; C. To facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; D. To eliminate unnecessary EIRs; E. To explain the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant; F. To determine if a previously prepared EIR could be used for the project; G. To assist in the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report if one is required; and H. To provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding of no significant effect as set forth in a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the a project. 7. EXPLANATION OF ANSWERS FOUND ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Initial Study-Page 2 A. Scope of Environmental Review This Initial Study evaluates potential impacts identified in the following checklist. Potential environmental impacts identified can be mitigated to a less than significant level.The project is consistent with the applicable development standards of the C-3 PD zoning district and CC land use designation. B. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers to the questions presented on the following Environmental Checklist Form, except where the answer is that the proposed project will have "No Impact." The "No Impact" answers are to be adequately supported by the information sources cited in the parentheses following each question or as otherwise explained in the introductory remarks. 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 and/or general standards. The basis for the "No Impact" answers on the following Environmental Checklist Form is explained in further detail in this Initial Study in Section 9 (Earlier Environmental Analysis and Related Environmental Documentation) and Section 10 (Context of Environmental Analysis for the Project). 2. All answers on the following Environmental Checklist Form must take into account the whole action involved with the project, including implementation. 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 9 (Earlier Environmental Analysis and Related Environmental Documentation) 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). See Section 4 (Earlier Environmental Analysis and Related Environmental Documentation) and Section 11 (Earlier Analysis and Background Materials) of this Initial Study. 6. References to the information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances) have been incorporated into the Environmental Checklist Form. See Section 11 (Earlier Analysis and Related Environmental Documentation). Other sources used or individuals contacted are cited where appropriate. 7. The following Environmental Checklist Form generally is the same as the one contained in Title 14, California Code of Regulations; with some modifications to reflect the City's needs and requirements. 8. Standard Conditions of Approval: The City imposes standard conditions of approval on Projects. These conditions are considered to be components of and/or modifications to the Project and some reduce or minimize environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. Because they are considered part of the Project, they have not been identified as mitigation measures. For the readers' information, the standard conditions identified in this Initial Study are available for review at the Community Development Department. 9. Certification Statement: The statements made in this Initial Study and those made in the documents referenced herein present the data and information that are required to satisfy the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) -Statutes and Guidelines, as well as the City's Procedures for Implementing CEQA. Further, the facts, statements, information, and analysis presented are true and correct in accordance with standard business practices of qualified professionals with expertise in the development review process, including building, planning, and engineering. Initial Study-Page 3 I 8. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The proposed project may potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, and may involve at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or is "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," if so indicated on the following Environmental Checklist Form (Pages 8 to.15) E Transportation/Circulation E Public ServicesE Land Use & Planning Q Utilities & Service SystemsE Biological ResourcesQ Population & Housing E AestheticsE Energy & Mineral ResourcesQ Geological Problems E Cultural ResourcesE HazardsO Water E RecreationE NoiseE Air Quality E Mandatory Findings of Significance 9. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that: The proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment; and, therefore, a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 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. Therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. El ElThe proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment; and, therefore an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ElThe 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." Therefore, an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it will analyze only the effect or effects that remain to be addressed. Date:Signature: eL~L.~L July 30, 2004 ,I Susan Zaleschuk, City Planner Initial Study-Page 4 r Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation 10 Environmental Checklist Form Less Than Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact `. 1 3nE .r t [. as wrg p osal a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Sources: I & 8)0IiElEl Discussion: The proposed project is consistent with the C3-PD Zoning District and CC land use designation in the General Plan Land Use Element, and they are permitted uses in compliance with all applicable development standards. 0b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (Sources: 1 & 3) 11 ElEl Discussion: The proposed project complies with the EIR recently certified for the City General Plan Update, 2003. c) Be incompatible with existing land uses in the vicinity? (Sources: 1& 3)0El11El Discussion: The project is proposed for commercial uses including offices and a bank. Surrounding existing uses are retail, office and restaurants. Thus, the project is consistent with existing land uses in the vicinity. d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible uses)?0ElElEl Discussion: This is an urban infill site. There are no agricultural resources on or near the project site. Therefore, the project could not impact agricultural resources or operations. e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (Sources: 1 & 3) 0ElElEl Discussion: The project is proposed in a commercial infill location and will not disrupt or divide the established community. IrI Pc)P <' © D?4M 11K , fo a RANs j 0a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (Sources: I & 3)ElQlQl Discussion: The proposed project does not include a residential component nor is it large enough to result in creating a significant number of new jobs that could affect cumulative population projections. 0Elb) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (Sources: I & 3) El El Discussion: This is an urban infill site and will be served by all city services which currently exist along Spring Street and 4'h Street. Initial Study-Page 5 I Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation 10 Environmental Checklist Form Less Than SignificantISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Incorporated Impact No ImpactImpact c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (Sources: 1, 3, & 5)0UElLI Discussion: There is no housing currently existing on the project site, thus the project will not displace any existing housing. I _ E_ t IZB E Ivolter asls 4 0a) Fault rupture? (Sources: 1, 2, & 3)El El El Discussion: The potential for and mitigation of impacts that may result fromfault rupture in the project area are identified and addressed in the General Plan EIR, pg. 4.5-8. There are two known fault zones on either side ofthis valley. The Rinconada Fault system runs on the west side ofthe valley. The San Andreas Fault is on the east side ofthe 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. Review of available information and examinations indicate that neither of thesefaults is active with respect to ground rupture in Paso Robles. Soils reports and structural engineering in accordance with local seismic influences would be applied in conjunction with any new development proposal. Based on standard conditions of approval, the potentialfor fault rupture and exposure of persons or property to seismic hazards is not considered significant. In addition, per requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, only structures for human habitation need to be setback a minimum of 50feet of a known active tracefault. The proposed structures are not intended for human habitation. b) Seismic ground shaking? (Sources:, 2, & 3)0ElEl El Discussion: The City is located within an active earthquake area that could experience seismic ground shaking from the Rinconada and San Andreas Faults. The proposed structure will be constructed to current UBC codes. The General Plan EIR identified impacts resulting from ground shaking as less than signficant and provided mitigation measures that will be incorporated into the design of this project including adequate structural design and not constructing over active or potentially active faults. 0c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Sources: 1, 2 & 3)ElElEl Discussion: Per the General Plan EIR, theproject site is not located in an area with soil conditions that have a high risk for liquefaction or other type of ground failure. 0Eld) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Sources: 1, 2, & 3)El 11 0ElEle) Landslides or Mudflows? (Sources: 1, 2, & 3)El Discussion: d. and e. The project site is not located near bodies ofwater or volcanic hazards, nor is the site located in an area subject to landslides or mudflows. Initial Study-Page 6 10 Environmental Checklist Form Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than SignificantISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, & 4)El 0ElEl Discussion: Per the General Plan EIR, the project site is not located in an area known to have unstable soil conditions, thus impacts resulting from grading and excavation are anticipated to be less than significant. In addition to standard erosion control measures that are a part of development, all grading would be subject to standard conditions of approval ensuring that soils conditions are suitable for the proposed structures and improvements. Soil reports are also required to be submitted with the building and grading plans. As such, no significant impacts are anticipated. g) Subsidence of the land? (Sources: 1, 2, & 3)El El QEl Discussion: Per the General Plan EIR, the project site is not located in an area subject to subsidence from either groundwater extraction or liquefaction, thus impacts would be less than signficant from development ofthis project. h) Expansive soils? (Sources: 4)QElEl El Discussion: Per the General Plan EIR, Paso Robles is an area that has moderately expansive soils. This issue will be addressed through implementation of appropriate excavation and compaction ofsoils. Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils will be less than significant. i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Sources:I & 3)El El 0El Discussion: There are no unique geologic or physicalfeatures on or near the project site. ;AE Qloliepropsal esut u j' _ Qa) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Sources:1, 3, & 7)ElEl El Discussion: The project includes structures and parking lots which will increase the amount of surface runoff and decrease absorption rates. However, site drainage will be conveyed to the existing storm water system which flows into the Salinas River and recharges groundwater resources. b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (Sources: 1, 3, & 7)QElElEl Discussion: There is no potential to expose people or property to water related hazards due to this project since it is not near a water source and it is not in or near a flood zone. c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Sources: 1, 3, & 7)QElElEl Discussion: The project will utilize the existing storm water system and historicalflow to the Salinas River. The volume of discharge that may result from this project could not be of a quantity to alter water quality in terms oftemperature, Initial Study-Page 7 _i 10 Environmental Checklist Form Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than SignificantISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact dissolved oxygen or create signficant turbidity. Qd) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (Sources: 1, 3, & 7)LII El El Discussion: The resulting project surface water is not large enough to significantly affect the amount of surface water in any water body. Qe) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movement? (Sources: 1, 3, & 7)ElElEl Discussion: This project could not result in changes in currents or water movement since it is not large enough to signficantly affect changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movement. Q Elf) 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? (Sources: 1,3, & 7) El El Discussion Build-out of the City is anticipated in the General Plan and evaluated in the GP EIR. This project is in compliance with build-out scenario and anticipated impacts to water demand. The project will implement water conservation measures through use ofwater conservation landscape and irrigation measures, and building fixtures. R0g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (Sources: 1, 3, & 7) El ElEl Discussion: This project could not result in alterations to the direction or rate of groundwater flow since this project does not directly extract groundwater or otherwise affect these resources. 0Elh) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Sources: 1, 3, & 7)ElEl Discussion: The project will not affect groundwater quality since this project does not directly extract groundwater or otherwise affect these resources, and the proposed uses do not utilize materials or methods that would result in reduced groundwater quality. This project will not change existing water quality from discharging in surface waters with implementation of standard storm water discharge infrastructure that is in compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Q ElEli) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (Sources: 1, 3, & 7) El Discussion: Refer to response f Initial Study-Page 8 10 Environmental Checklist Form Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than SignificantISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact J i A a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources: 1, 3, & 7)QUEl El Discussion: The proposed project is consistent with the growth projections anticipated in the recent General Plan Update and EIR since it is an existing urban infill site. The project is consistent with the building envelope development standards applicable used in the analysis of the build-out potential of Land Use Element and related analysis on air quality. An air quality emissions evaluation was conducted utilizing the URBEMIS 2002 program. With operational mitigation measures incorporated into the project, the summary results indicate that the project is below the adopted thresholds of signficance for San Luis Obispo County. See attached air quality data. b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Sources: 1, 3, & 7)0ElElEl Discussion: There are no sensitive receptors such as schools, hospitals, etc. within the near vicinity that could be impacted by this project. c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature? (Sources: 1, 3, & 7)0El El Discussion: This project does not have the potential to signficantly alter air movement, moisture, or temperature since the project incorporates parking lot and periphery shade trees to help cool site temperatures. This will reduce potential changes to moisture or temperature to less than signficant levels. 0d) Create objectionable odors?El ElEl Discussion: This project does not have the potential to create objectionable odors since the future uses (offices) a CT:'id =ae " ` t " " .* * Q ElElEla) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Sources: 1, 3, & 7) Discussion: A trip generation analysis was conducted using the ITE Manual, 6'h Edition, and results indicate that the proposedproject of this scope may result in an increase of approximately 652 average daily trips, and approximately 41 A.M. peak hour and 84 P.M. peak hour trips. The level of service (LOS) on the segment of Spring Street and P Street to 13'h Street is currently LOS A, as well as on 4'h Street. The addition ofthis project on the roadway system will stay within an acceptable capacity of LOS A. The General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analysis on circulation at build-out included infill development offuture commercial development, including this property. 0ElElElb) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Sources: 1, 3, & 7) Initial Study-Page 9 .,.,i.,~,- 10 Environmental Checklist Form Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than SignificantISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The proposed project does not include road improvements that may result in safety hazards or in incompatible uses. The project will be required to construct frontage improvements on both streets and road improvements on 4'h Street which will be a benefit to safety design features. c) Inadequate emergency access or inadequate access to nearby uses? (Sources:1, 3, & 7)QElLiiLI Discussion: The project is adequately served by public streets for emergency services. d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (Sources: 1, 3, 7, & 8) 0IiElQl Discussion: The Site Plan indicates 82 parking spaces which is the number of required spaces per Zoning Ordinance requirements for the proposed uses. Additional parking will be required when the building pad is proposed for development. e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (Source: 7 )QElLiiEl Discussion: The project includes curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements along propertyfrontages. The project will not affect travelways for pedestrians or bicyclists. f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Sources: 1 & 8) QLI Discussion: The project would not conflict with or otherwise affect adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. Bus turnouts are proposed along 4'h Street. g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts?QElElEl Discussion: The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic. The site is near an existing railroad undercrossing, which is planned to be improved in the future, but is not a part of this project. "BY©LOt1( [ZF +t7 Rt ES idih e praP°Sat re 'i 0Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)?El 11El Discussion: There are no endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats located on or near the proposed project site. QElElElb) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? Initial Study-Page 10 f 10 Environmental Checklist Form Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Potentially Significant Less Than SignificantISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: There are no locally designated species such as oak trees on the project site. c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?QElElEl Discussion: There are no locally designated natural communities on the project site. d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?El QElLI Discussion: There are no wetland habitats on the project site. e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?QElElEl Discussion: There are no wildlife dispersal or migration corridors on or near the project site. V1 1I'N" .E N I R G Y II:S( RI : {,<l -th'&proposa3l ->,. a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (Sources: 1 & 7)Q~Ii ElEl Discussion: The structures will be designed and constructed according to applicable UBC codes and Title 24 energy conservation requirements, thus it will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. Qb) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (Sources: 1 & 7)El El El Discussion: The project will not use non-renewable resource in a wasteful and inefficient manner. QIElLIc) 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? (Sources: 1 & 7) El Discussion: The project is not located in an area of a known mineral resources that would be offuture value to the region and the residents of the State. 1X HAZARDS % y ild fiat t ,ti eltniv c lvr - QIElElEla) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? Discussion: The project will not result in a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances since the uses Initial Study-Page 11 10 Environmental Checklist Form Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than SignificantSignificant MitigationISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Incorporated ImpactImpact No Impact do not generally uses these types ofsubstances. b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources: 1 & 7)QElElEl Discussion: The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan since it is not a designated emergency response location to be used for staging or other uses in an emergency. c) The creation of any health hazard or potential hazards?0ElLIEl Discussion: The project and future uses will not likely result in creating any health or other hazards. d) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees?0ElEli El Discussion: The project site is an urban infill site surrounded by urban development on a barren, vacant property, and will not result in increased fire hazards due to brush, grass or trees. X. NOSF V1Wbuldt~rpp JJlze1 a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Sources: 1,7, & 8)LUfLJn~LJ nLJ Discussion: The project will not likely result in a significant increase in operational noise levels. It may result in short- term construction noise. However, construction noise will be limited to specific daytime hours per city regulations. Qb) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source: 3)El El El See Discussion Xa. above. TDT 4 ' &; R Pr .atat F ;e QLIEla) Fire protection? (Sources: 1, 3, 6, & 7)El QElElElb) Police Protection? (Sources: 1, 3, & 7) QElElElc) Schools? (Sources: 1, 3, & 7) QElEld) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (Sources: 1, 3, & 7) El QElElEle) Other governmental services? (Sources: 1,3, & 7) Discussion: a.-e. The project applicant will be required to pay development impact fees as established by the city per AB 1600 to mitigate impacts to public services. Initial Study-Page 12 t 10 Environmental Checklist Form Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than SignificantSignificant Mitigation ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Ai1~1IJA W6 ~~ye 2~ 2 a) Power or natural gas? (Sources: 1, 3, & 7)QElElEl b) Communication systems? (Sources: 1, 3, & 7)QElElU c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (Sources: 1, 3, & 7)QElUEl d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Sources: 1, 3, 7, & 8)QElLIEl e) Storm water drainage? (Sources: 1, 3, & 7)QElElEl f) Solid waste disposal? (Sources: 1, 3, & 7)QzElElEl Qg) Local or regional water supplies? (Sources: 1, 3, & 7)El El El Discussion: a.-g. The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or result in substantial alterations to utilities and service systems since it is replacing a previously developed site. Existing water and sewer lines may need to be upgraded to accommodate the full build-out ofthe master development plan, in which case this project will be required to pay its pro-rata share of costs to upgrade these lines. '.XI I AES I HE IC s `ti ' 1 PENOM a u -l' O Qa) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (Sources: 1, 3, & 7)ElElEl Discussion: The project is not located in a scenic vista or scenic highway area. QElElb) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (Sources: 1, 3, & 7) El Discussion: The project will well designed for the site and surrounding development pattern. The architecture is well articulated, and breaks up large walls with offsets, varying roof lines and heights, and use of materials. Thus, it will not likely have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. QElElElc) Create light or glare? (Sources: 1, 3, 7, & 8) Discussion: All light fixtures will be shielded and downcast as required per city regulations. ,YIDC ,U I JR A RES C q Scl he , s> ElElEla) Disturb paleontological resources? (Sources: 1, 3, & 7) Initial Study-Page 13 10 Environmental Checklist Form Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than SignificantISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Sources: 1, 3, & 7)QLI Li Discussion: a.-b. The project site is not located in an area with know paleontological or archaeological resources. If these types of resources are found during grading and excavation, appropriate procedures will be followed including halting activities and contacting the County Coroner. c) Affect historical resources? (Sources: 1, 3, & 7)QLILIIi Discussion: There are no existing historical resources on the project site. d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Sources: 1, 3, & 7)QUUEl Discussion: The project is not proposed in a location where it could affect unique ethnic cultural values. e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (Sources: 1, 3, & 7)QLIEl Discussion: Discussion: There are no existing religious or sacred uses on or near the project site. RCS 1rl0lfi: 1uld'h oMosa n f'.9.,.. ..w 3 _ e .. k...,: Qa) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (Sources: 1, 3, & 7) LI LI 11 Discussion: The project is non-residential and will not affect the demand for parks and recreationalfacilities. 0b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Sources 1, 3, & 7)LII U o Discussion: The project will not affect existing recreational opportunities. xvt.WNNR:MME~ewE 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? (Sources: I & 3) QQiLIIEl Discussion: The proposed project does not have any existing natural resources located on it, nor is the site located near any plant, animal or habitat resources or historical resources that could be negatively affected by this project. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? (Sources: 1 & 3) Initial Study-Page 14 QElLiEl 10 Environmental Checklist Form Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than SignificantISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):t No ImpactIncorporated ImpactImpact Discussion: With mitigations incorporated for traffic impacts and building design to current UBC code standards the project will not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. 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.) (Sources: 1 & 3) QIiLILI Discussion: With mitigations incorporated for traffic impacts and building design to current UBC code standards the project will not result in signmficant cumulative impacts. Qd) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Sources: I & 3) El Eli LI Discussion: :With mitigations incorporated for traffic impacts and building design to current UBC code standards the project will not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Initial Study-Page 15 11. 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). The earlier documents that have been used in this Initial Study are listed below. Document Title Available for Review AtReference Number City of Paso Robles Community Development Department 1000 Spring Street, Paso Robles, CA 93446 City of Paso Robles Community Development Department 1000 Spring Street, Paso Robles, CA 93446 City of Paso Robles General Plan Seismic Safety Element for City of Paso Robles 2 City of Paso Robles Community Development Department 1000 Spring Street, Paso Robles, CA 93446 Final Environmental Impact Report City of Paso Robles General Plan3 4 USDA-NRCS, 65 Main Street-Suite 108 Templeton, CA 93465 Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, California Paso Robles Area 5 City of Paso Robles Community Development Department 1000 Spring Street, Paso Robles, CA 93446 Uniform Building Code 6 City of Paso Robles Community Development Department 1000 Spring Street, Paso Robles, CA 93446City of Paso Robles Standard Conditions of Approval For New Development 7 City of Paso Robles Community Development Department 1000 Spring Street, Paso Robles, CA 93446 City of Paso Robles Zoning Code 8 City of Paso Robles Community Development Department 1000 Spring Street, Paso Robles, CA 93446 City of Paso Robles, Water Master Plan 9 City of Paso Robles Community Development Department 1000 Spring Street, Paso Robles, CA 93446City of Paso Robles, Sewer Master Plan 10 City of Paso Robles Community Development Department 1000 Spring Street, Paso Robles, CA 93446 Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map Attachments: Exhibit A -Site Plan and Elevations Exhibit B -- Air Quality Emissions