Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 04-127 2004-11-23RESOLUTION NO: 04-127 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ADDRESSING TRACT 2609, REZONE 04-005, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD 04-023 (HARROD BUILDERS) APN: 009-750-001 WHEREAS, Tract 2609, an application filed by North Coast Engineering on behalf of Harrod Builders to divide a 8.5 acre parcel into twenty (20) single-family residential lots; and WHEREAS, Tract 2609 is located on the northern side of Meadowlark Road between Beechwood Dr. and Oriole Way; and WHEREAS, in conjunction with Tract 2609, the applicant submitted an application for Rezone 04-005, to change the Zoning designation from R,B3-PD to R1,PD-3 establish Planned Development Overlay zoning over the site; and WHEREAS, PD 04-023 has been filed to establish the home design and the use of model homes for the project; 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 was prepared and circulated for public review and comment; and WHEREAS, at its November 23, 2004 meeting, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the project, to accept public testimony on the proposal (including all of the applications filed) and the environmental determination therefore; and WHEREAS, public notice of intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was given as required by Section 21092 of the Public Resources Code; and WHEREAS, based on the information and analysis contained in the Initial Study and the attachments thereto, a determination has been made that the proposed project qualifies for adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of El Paso de Robles, using its independent judgment and analysis, does hereby: 1. Find and determine that the proposed project, Tract 2609, Rezone 04-005, PD 04-023, will not have a significant impact on the environment. This finding and determination was made based upon the substantial evidence presented at the public hearing, including the whole record before the Planning Commission (including the Initial Study, the Staff Report and attachments thereto, and any public comments or testimony received thereon). 2. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Planned Development. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 2 3rd day ofNovember, 2004, by the following roll call vote: Mattke, Steinbeck, Flynn, JohnsonAYES: NOES:None Kemper, Ferravanti, HamonABSENT: ABSTAIN: None 69AIRlAN 0FLYNN ATTEST: ROBERT A. LATA, PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY q~iiNI tea .rp.t ;9 WI 16OOM 'era m E + F ` 4~i~r10 Elu A W., 7 .1a-EMEN ;~A- -'~ ~ r r gzi J -NNIS EIRE 1 A . GAF Vic"VOW,U ez fF Aa en-1 _ _;mss Cool Valley Estates1. PROJECT TITLE: Tentative Tract 2609 Rezone 04-006 Planned Development 04-023 Concurrent Entitlements: City of Paso Robles 1000 Spring Street Paso Robles, CA 93446' 2. LEAD AGENCY: Darren Nash, Associate Planner John Falkenstien, City Engineer (805) 237-3970 Contact: Phone: 8.5 acre site located on the north side of Meadowlark Road, between Beechwood and Oriole (APN: 009-750-001) PROJECT LOCATION: 3. PROJECT PROPONENT:Harrod Builders / North Coast Engineering Contact Person: Phone: Larry Werner (NCE) (805) 239-3127 5. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RSF-3 (Residential Single family -3 units to the acre) 6. ZONING:R-1 (Residential single-family), proposed to re-designate the parcel to R1, PD-3 to bring the zoning in compliance with the General Plan designation of RSF-3.0 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:.Proposal to subdivide and develop approximately 8.5 acre site into 20 single-family residential lots. The project is proposed in one (1) development phase. Rezone 04-006 is being applied for in order to bring the current zoning into conformance with the General Plan designation of RSF -3. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:The property considered under this environmental initial study is approximately 8.5 acres located in a rural area of east Paso Robles that is undergoing a conversion from agriculture and grazing to residential neighborhoods. Farming is active only on the south side of the property, across Meadowlark Road (in the County). Residential neighborhoods are on the remaining three sides, with one empty lot connecting with the subject property in the northwest corner. The property is an annual grassland habitat with and intermittent blue line stream draining northwest across towards the Salinas River. One large valley oak remains near the stream, with a few blue and valley oaks persisting near the existing residence. The stream is conveyed onto the property through a culvert under Meadowlark Road, at an approximate elevation of 815 feet over a distance of 560 linear feet of stream within the property lines. The elevation of the stream bottom as it leaves the property at 809.57. Remnant wetland vegetation was identifiable on the property, however the entire property, including the stream channel, has been plowed in the past. 9. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED): To be determined. 10. PERSONS PARTICIPATING IN THE PREPARATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY: Darren Nash, Associate Planner Robert A. Lata, Community Development Director John Falkenstien, City Engineer Terry Minshull, Emergency Services 11. RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: The following studies were performed for this project: • Oak Tree Report, by A&T Arborists, June 11, 2004 • Oak Tree Report Addendum, by A&T Arborists, June 16, 2004 • Tree Preservation Report, by Carolyn Leach Consulting, LLC, September 10, 2004 • Wetland Delineation, Althouse & Meade, Inc, November 2003 Initial Study-Page 2 1. 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. O Land Use & Planning 1 Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services Q Population & Housing 0 Biological Resources l Utilities & Service Systems E Geological Problems E Energy & Mineral Resources E Aesthetics E Water 0 Hazards E Cultural Resources 0 Air Quality E Noise E Recreation E Mandatory Findings of Significance Initial Study-Page 3 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: 13I 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. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. El 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. El I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect(s) on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures hat are imposed upon the proposed project. (See item #11 above, for a specific El referen e t that EIR.) /( 3 d Signature Date Darren Nash Associate Planner Printed Name Title Initial Study-Page 4 / 7 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 at the end of the checklist. 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 Potential Unless Less Than SignificantlyMitigationISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Significa Incorporated Impact No Impact nt 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). LU 0L7L Initial Study-Page 5 1 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Incorporated Impact No ImpactImpact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the Proposal: Q Ela) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?11 El Discussion: The project is considered an infill project, single family residential development exists on three sides. The project would finish out an area of the City that is currently developed with residential neighborhoods. The proposed project would meet the General Plan designation of Residential Multi-family, 3 units per acre. In conjunction with the project, zoning designation would be changed to R1,PD-3, Residential Single Family, 3-units per acre. This zoning designation would bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan. Qb) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?11 ElEl Discussion: There would not be a conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies. 2c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?El 11 El Discussion: This project would continue the pattern of residential development that has been established in this area of the City for many years. The project is surrounded on three sides with existing single family development with a similar of increased density. The property to the south across Meadowlark Road is in the Annexation process. Annexation No.87 is known as the Beechwood Annexation and would continue the City boundaries along with development to the south to Creston Road. The Beechwood Annexation would have a mix of single family and multi-family designations along with some neighborhood commercial. d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible uses)?El El QEl Discussion: The development of this project is not an impact based on the sites general plan and zoning designations calling for single family development. e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)?El El QEl Discussion: Not anticipated as an issue. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections?El El QEl Discussion: The project would meet the General Plan Designation of RSF-3, 3 units per acre. b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? Ql Q~Ql Ql Discussion: Utilities and streets are currently stubbed out to the site. Subdivision for single family development is anticipated for this site. c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?El El El Q Initial Study-Page 6 's Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Incorporated Impact No ImpactImpact Discussion: There is currently one single family home that will be removed with this development. The home which was lived in by the previous owner of the 8.5 acre site for many years. The loss/replacement of this house will not be a significant impact and will not be displacing affordable housing. III.GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Q EJElEla) Fault rupture? 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. No unusual factors are expected to be present for this project area. Q ElElb) Seismic ground shaking?El 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. 0c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?El 11El 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?QElElEl Discussion: The project site is not located in an area identified at risk for seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazards. Qe) Landslides or Mud flows?El El El Discussion: The topography of the project site is characterized by rolling terrain and slopes that vary from 0-4% to excess of 24%. The project will be required to design the homes for the lots to conform with the natural slope of the lot, no pad grading is allowed (except for lots less than 10 percent natural slope, where pad grading could be used if appropriate). As such, potential impacts would be considered less than significant. f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?QQlQl El Discussion: See the discussion in Section III(e). 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. As such, impacts are less than significant. Qg) Subsidence of the land?El El El Initial Study-Page 7 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than SignificantISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Incorporated ImpactImpact No Impact Discussion: See the discussion in Sections III (e) (f) and (g) above Qh) Expansive soils?El El 11 Discussion: See the discussion in Sections III (e) (f) and (g) above. Qi) Unique geologic or physical features?El El El Discussion: See the discussion in Sections III (e) through (h) above. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated based on past identified analysis within the Specific Plan and its EIR. IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?El QEl El Discussion: The property is mostly vacant except for one single family home with accessory out-buildings/barns. The development of the project area will increase the historic drainage flows associated with this site. However, the quantities of storm water associated with the requested incremental increase in development intensity is not anticipated to be significant. The developer must document to satisfaction of the city engineer prior to map recordation that the overall drainage flows for the site can be adequately detained or appropriately channeled so as not to increase off-site historic flows. The development of this subdivision with the required storm water drainage and detention improvements will improve the drainage patterns on this site. b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding?El El Q El Discussion: The incremental change in the development pattern for the project area is not expected to affect exposure of persons to flooding. The project will improve existing drainage patters that currently exist. c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity)?El QEl El Discussion: The physical site construction will increase impervious surfaces on the site and thus increase storm water runoff as discussed in Item IV(a). However, incremental increases associated with the proposed change in land use is not expected to be significant. d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?El El Q El Discussion: The physical site construction will increase impervious surfaces on the site and thus increase storm water runoff as discussed in Item IV(a). The drainage calculations provided prior to map recordation must be able to show that this increase runoff can be adequately detained (e.g. through further development and enhancement of two stock ponds that are existing on the site). With this standard mitigation measure in place, storm water impacts are expected to be mitigatible to a less than significant level. e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movement?El El Q El Discussion: No significant impacts resulting from the incremental increase in land use intensification are anticipated. Initial Study-Page 8 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than SignificantISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Incorporated Impact No ImpactImpact 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? QElEl El Discussion: The project's water use needs are consistent with those residential demands anticipated the City's General Plan. Impact is considered less than significant since the proposed density is consistent with the general plan and zoning for the site. Qg) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?El El El Discussion: See the discussion in item(f) above. Impacts are considered less than significant since the project is consistent with the residential density contemplated in the general plan. h) Impacts to groundwater quality?QElEl El Discussion: The project is to connect to City sewer, with no septic usage. Impacts are considered less than significant since the project is consistent with the residential density contemplated in the General plan. i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies?QElEl El Discussion: See the discussion in Section IV (f) above. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 13)El El C1 El 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. The project was forwarded to the APCD on June 15, 2004. No comments were received by the City. Besides the possibility of dust during construction it is not anticipated that there will be a significant affect from air quality issues. Standard dust control measures will be implied during the construction phase of this subdivision. b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?11 QEl El Discussion: There would not appear to be significant impacts associated with sensitive pollutant receptors. c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature?El Q~El Ql Discussion: Impacts to air movement, moisture or temperature are not anticipated to be significant. d) Create objectionable odors?El QEl El Discussion: Impacts are not anticipated. Initial Study-Page 9 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Incorporated Impact No ImpactImpact VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: 0 ElEla) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?El Discussion: Impacts are considered less than significant since the project is consistent with the residential density contemplated in the General Plan. 0b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ElElQl With the development of this subdivision the road improvements to Beechwood, Meadowlark, and OrioleDiscussion: will be completed along this project frontage. 0c) Inadequate emergency access or inadequate access to nearby uses? ElElEl Discussion: Impacts are considered less than significant since the project is consistent with the residential density contemplated in the General Plan.e d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?QElEl El Discussion: The design of interior street sections and ability to provide on street parking within the project area is consistent with the City's adopted rural hillside section. Impacts of this project are not considered significant. e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?0ElEl El Discussion: The applicant proposes detached 5-foot concrete sidewalks throughout the internal local street system. f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?QEl11 El Discussion: The proposed project would not appear to conflict with the City's bicycle master plan or other alternative transportation documents. g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?El Ql Q El Discussion: Ability to impact rail or waterborne traffic is considered less than significant. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.(Source 10, 11)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 0El11 El Initial Study-Page 10 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Incorporated Impact No ImpactImpact birds)? Discussion: Within the Wetland Delineation report performed by Althouse & Meade, Inc in November 2003, rare species were considered for the project, no rare plants or animals are expected to occur on the property. b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)?QEl El 11 Discussion: Two Arborist Reports were conducted for this project. One by A&T Arborists (with an addendum), the second by Carolyn Leach Consulting, Inc. There are three native oak trees on the site. All will be preserved except for one tree which is proposed to be removed. The City Council will be review the request to remove the 31-inch diameter Blue Oak. Both Arborists determined that the tree to be removed is in poor health and not a good candidate to preserve. See attached arborist reports for more specific information. Mitigation measures are required by both Arborists and have been included in the resolutions for approval for this project. The Project Requirements (mitigation measures) are also listed within the Arborists Reports attached to this Environmental Initial Study. c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?El QEl El Discussion: See the above discussion in items VII a and b. d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?QEl El El Discussion: A Wetland Delineation report was performed by Althouse & Meade in November 2003. Ten individual sampling sites were chosen were studied. Of the ten sites studied four sites met the criteria for a wetland. (Sites 1, 5, 7,9 - See Wetland Delineation Report on file). The following mitigation is required based on the report from Althouse & Meade: 1. Compensatory mitigation shall be performed for impacts to waters and wetland areas on the property. Mitigation shall conform to the standards required by the regulatory agencies. Agencies with jurisdiction include the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Clean Water Act sections 401 and 404), and may include the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG code 1600). Compensatory mitigation may include establishment of additional wetland area on the project site, habitat enhancement, or offsite enhancement of wetlands or waters. 2. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit any necessary permits shall be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers and/or the Department of Fish and Game. e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?El 0El Ql Discussion: The site is an infill site. It is not anticipated that there would be a significant impact to dispersal and mitigation corridors. Initial Study-Page 11 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Incorporated Impact No ImpactImpact. VIII.ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Q El11Ela) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? Discussion: The proposal is consistent with the City's Mineral and Energy Resource Conservation policies in as much as it does not jeopardize the conflict with any efforts for water and mineral resource extraction in the area. QEl Elb) Use non-renewable resource in a wasteful and inefficient manner? El Discussion: Any new development occurring within this project area would be subject to all Uniform Building Code standards and energy conservation standards required by that code. Qc) 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? El El El Discussion: There are no know mineral resources associated with this site that would be compromised as a result of this proposal. No impacts are anticipated. 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)? QElEl El Discussion: This project, as described, in and of itself would not have the potential to release or create hazardous substance concerns. b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?QEl11 El Discussion: The fire department has reviewed the project design and indicated that there are no significant access concerns as it is designed. c) The creation of any health hazard or potential hazards?QElEl El Discussion: As discussed in Items IX (a) and (b), above, health or other hazards are anticipated to be less than significant. d) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees?QElEl El Discussion: See discussion IX (B) above. Impacts are not considered to be significant as the project is designed. X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: Initial Study-Page 12 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than SignificantISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Incorporated ImpactImpact No Impact a) Increases in existing noise levels?QElEl El Discussion: There would not be an increase in existing noise levels besides the construction phase of the project. b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?QElEl 11 Discussion: See the discussion within Section X(a), above. 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?El 0El El1 Discussion:. All fire suppression measures would be subject to approval by the Fire Chief. Based on discussions with the Emergency Services personnel, the incremental impacts associated with the build-out of the project would be reduced to a less than significant level based on standard / codified requirements for placement of hydrants and fire access. b) Police Protection?El El Q El Discussion: Impacts are considered less than significant since the project is consistent with the residential density contemplated in the General Plan. c) Schools?El El QEl Discussion: Impacts are considered less than significant since the project is consistent with the residential density contemplated in the General Plan. d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?El El Q El Discussion: Maintenance impacts are considered less than significant. e) Other governmental services?El El Q 01 Discussion: Impacts are considered less than significant since the project is consistent with the residential density contemplated in the General Plan. XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas?El El 0 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 13 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than SignificantISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Incorporated Impact No ImpactImpact Qb) Communication systems?El El El 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?2ElEl El Discussion: Impacts are considered less than significant since the project is consistent with the residential density contemplated in the General Plan. d) Sewer or septic tanks?0ElEl El Discussion: All homes will be required to hook-up to City sewer and water. There is not an impact to these services based on the project density being within the parameters of the General Plan. e) Storm water drainage?2El El Discussion: Impacts are considered less than significant since the project is consistent with the residential density contemplated in the General Plan. f) Solid waste disposal?El QEl El Discussion: The City's land fill is located on the north side of Highway 46, east of Airport Road. The incremental change in proposed land use is not anticipated to significantly impact that land fill facility. g) Local or regional water supplies?El QEl El Discussion: Impacts are considered less than significant since the project is consistent with the residential density contemplated in the General Plan. XIII.AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?11 Q~0 El Discussion: The project is not located on a scenic highway or vista. The development of this 8.5 acre site would finish out a residential neighborhood in this area of the City. b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?El El Q El Discussion: See the discussion in Item XIII (a), above. The potential for aesthetic impacts are of set with the recommended development standards for future home construction, oak tree preservation and additional street tree planting. c) Create light or glare?El QEl El Discussion: Impacts are considered less than significant since the project is consistent with the anticipated patterns of development and policies contained in the General Plan. Initial Study-Page 14 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Less Than Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Incorporated Impact No ImpactImpact XIV.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 0ElElEla) Disturb paleontological resources? Discussion: No known paleontological resources exist in this area, or were identified in the Specific Plan EIR. 0 Elb) Disturb archaeological resources?El 11 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. The 1987 Union/46 Specific Plan EIR conducted an archaeological site investigation and determined that the potential for archaeological resources on this site were very low. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. 0c) Affect historical resources?El El El Discussion: There are no known historical structures located on this site. Impacts are considered insignificant. d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?0ElEl El Discussion:. As noted in Item XIV (b), impacts are not anticipated. e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area?0ElEl El Discussion: As discussed in Item XIV (b) and (d), impacts are not anticipated. XV.RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities?0ElEl El Discussion: Impacts are considered less than significant since the project is consistent with the residential density contemplated in the General Plan b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?0ElEl El Discussion: Impacts are considered less than significant since the project is consistent with the residential density contemplated in the General Plan. 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 0ElEl El Initial Study-Page 15 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than SignificantSignificant MitigationISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources):Incorporated Impact No ImpactImpact 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? Discussion: Based on the discussions within preceding sections of this document, the project is designed to be consistent with the adopted General Plan EIR. As such, the impacts that were identified, and the mitigation measures incorporated into the project and/or its approvals are expected to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Qb) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?QlElEl Discussion: Based on the discussions within this document, the design of this project is consistent with the General Plan development framework and would therefore not diminish ability to meet long term environmental goals identified either within the General Plan. 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.) QEl11 El Discussion: The project is designed to be consistent with the General Plan and its EIR where cumulative impacts were discussed, and therefore not considered to be significant based on the conclusions and policies of those documents. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? PElEl El Discussion: The project is consistent with the development framework of the General Plan and will not have adverse affects upon human beings. Initial Study-Page 16 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 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 above8City of Paso Robles Housing Element Same as above9City of Paso Robles Standard Conditions of Approval for New Development attached10Oak Tree Report by A&T Arborist with addendum attached11Oak Tree Report by Carolyn Leach Consultants Same as above12Wetland Delineation Report by Althouse & Meade dated November 2003