Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-021 RESOLUTION NO. 2007-021 000 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2006-0039 PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2006-0017 AND ZONE CHANGE 2006-0125 (PLN 2006-1139) (Citywide/City of Atascadero) WHEREAS, an application has been received from the City of Atascadero (6907 El Camino Real), to consider a project consisting of a General Plan Amendment consisting of text changes to LOC Policy 8.2. of the Land Use Element of the General Plan; and, WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration 2006-0039 were prepared for the project and made available for public review in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to enact this amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens; and, WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to the preparation and public notice of environmental documents, as set forth in the State and local guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been adhered to; and, WHEREAS, a timely and properly noticed Public Hearing upon the subject General Plan Amendment application was held by the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero at which hearing evidence, oral and documentary, was admitted on behalf of said General Plan Amendment; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero, at a duly noticed Public Hearing held on April 3, 2007, studied and considered General Plan Amendment 2006-0017, after first studying and considering the Proposed Negative Declaration prepared for the project, and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero held a public hearing on May 8, 2007 following the close of the review period to consider the Initial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration; and, NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Atascadero, hereby resolves to certify Proposed Negative Declaration 2006-0039 based on the following Findings, and as shown in Exhibit A: wo City of Atascadero Resolution No. 2007-021 Page 2 of 3 1. The Proposed Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and, 2. The Proposed Negative Declaration was presented to the City Council, and the information contained therein was considered by the City Council, prior to recommending action on the project for which it was prepared; and, 3. The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment when mitigation measures are incorporated into the project; and, 4. The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals; and, 5. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable; and, 6. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly; and, On motion by Council Member Beraud and seconded by Mayor Luna, the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Beraud, Brennler and Mayor Luna lrirr NOES: Council Members Clay and O'Malley ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None ADOPTED: May 8, 2007 CI OF ATA ADERO, CA Dr. George Luna, Mayor ATTEST: ,a Marcia McClure Torgerson, C.M.C., Cittklerk APPROVA,�ED AS TQ Fes_K: , ,,,, patrickEnrig ,, ty Attorney City of Atascadero Resolution No. 2007-021 Page 3 of 3 Exhibit A: Proposed Negative Declaration 2006-0039 �lrr+ Due to the length of this document, it has not been reproduced as an attachment, however, it may be reviewed in the office of the City Clerk Now mesomion IVo. LUU/-UL'I txnlDli A .Proposed Negative Declaration 2006-0039 CITY OF ATASCADERO / RFCE1 ED l JAN � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JUiivi) By NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATI NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Environmental Coordinator of the City of Atascadero has completed a review of the following oroiect and is oronosing the following environmental determination: Applicant: City of Atascadero, 6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422, Phone: 461-5000 Project Title: Zone Change 2006-0125, General Plan Amendment 2006-0017, PLN 2006-1139 Hearing Date: Creek Setback Zoning Ordinance and General Plan Amendment Project Citywide Location: 6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422 Project The project consists of a proposed Creek Setback Ordinance to be included in Chapter 4, Site Description: Development Standards of Title 9, Planning and Zoning Ordinance, in the Atascadero Municipal Determination: Code. Following General Plan Policy 8.2, revisions to the General Plan are proposed which would replace the interim creek setbacks. The updates are intended to establish a 35 foot setback along Atascadero Creek, Graves Creek, and Boulder Creek reservations, a fifty foot setback along the Salinas River, and a twenty foot setback along all other blue line creeks, wetlands, and significant drainage courses. The Planning Commission would be able to approve exceptions to the creek setbacks in the form of a Minor Conditional Use Permit with a biologist and a geomorphologist report if the project can meet the required findings to show that the creek and surrounding habitat will not be significantly affected. Environmental Begins: January 30, 2007 Review Dates: Ends: February 28, 2007 Hearing Date: To be Determined Hearing City Hall, Council Chambers Location: 6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422 Proposed Based on the initial study prepared for the project, a Negative Declaration is Environmental proposed. The proposed Negative Declaration is available for public review from Determination: 1/30/07 through 2/28/07 at 6907 El Camino Real, Community Development Department from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Any interested person may review the proposed Negative Declaration and project files. Questions should be directed to Callie Taylor, Assistant Planner at 461-5000, Ext. 3448. %!55lo-7 Warren Frace, Community Development Director Date NcE W,: NN 2006-1139 Print laic: 0125/071:55 PM 6907 EL CAMINO REAL • ATASCADERO, CA 93422 • (805) 461-5000 • FAX 461-7612 CITY OF ATASCADERO PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION #2006-0039 6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422 805/461-5000 Applicant: City of Atascadero, 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422 Phone: 805-461-5000 Project Title: Zone Change 2006-0125, General Plan Amendment 2006-0017, PLN 2006-1139, Creek Setback Zoning Ordinance and General Plan Amendment Project Citywide Location: Project The project consists of a proposed creek setback ordinance to be included in Chapter 4, Site Description: Development Standards of Title 9, Planning and Zoning Ordinance, in the Atascadero Municipal Code. Following General Plan Policy 8.2, revisions to the General Plan are proposed which would replace the interim creek setbacks. The updates are intended to establish a 35 foot setback along Atascadero Creek, Graves Creek, and Boulder Creek reservations, a fifty foot setback along the Salinas River, and a twenty foot setback along all other blue line creeks, wetlands, and significant drainage courses. The Planning Commission would be able to approve exceptions to the creek setbacks in the form of a Minor Conditional Use Permit with a biologist and a geomorphologist report if the project can meet the required findings to show that the creek and surrounding habitat will not be significantly affected. Findings: I . The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment. 2. The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals. 3. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. 4. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly, Determination: Based on the above findings, and the information contained in the initial study 2006-0039 (made a part hereof by reference and on file in the Community Development Department), it has been determined the above project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. Prepared By: Date Posted: Public Review Ends Attachments: Callie Taylor, Assistant Planner January 30, 2007 February 28, 2007 Initial Study 2006-0039 Nq I lac PIN 201vi.1139 Prim Dale: 0125/07156 PM 6907 EL_ CAMINO REAL • ATASCADERO, CA 93422 a (805) 461-5000 • FAX 461-7612 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Environmental Review 2006-0039 Applicant: City of Atascadero, 6907 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422 Phone: 805-461-5000 Project Title: Zone Change 2006-0125, General Plan Amendment 2006-0017, PLN 2006-1139, Contact Person and Creel: Setback Zoning Ordinance and General Plan Amendment Project Citywide Location: 6907 El Camino Real Atascadero, CA 93422 Project The project consists of a proposed creek setback ordinance to be included in Chapter 4, Site Description: Development Standards of Title 9, Planning and Zoning Ordinance, in the Atascadero Municipal Zoning: Code. Following General Plan Policy 8.2, revisions to the General Plan are proposed which would Surrounding Land replace the interim creek setbacks. The updates are intended to establish a 35 foot setback along Uses and Setting: Atascadero Creek, Graves Creek, and Boulder Creek reservations, a fifty foot setback along the Salinas Other public agencies River, and a twenty foot setback along all other blue line creeks, wetlands, and significant drainage whose approval is courses. The Planning Commission would be able to approve exceptions to the creek setbacks in the required (e.g., permits, form of a Minor Conditional Use Permit with a biologist and a geomorphologist report if the project financing approval, or can meet the required findings to show that the creek and surrounding habitat will not be significantly participation agreement) affected. Lead Agency Name City of Atascadero and Address: 6907 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422 Contact Person and Callie Taylor, Assistant Planner Phone Number: City of Atascadero 6907 El Camino Real Atascadero, CA 93422 General Plan Citywide Designation: Zoning: Citywide Surrounding Land Citywide Uses and Setting: Other public agencies Tribal Council whose approval is Department of Fish and Game required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement) 01/25/07 Neg Dec PLN 2006-1139 Draft of Proposed General Plan Amendment: Goal LOC 8. Watershed areas of Atascadero shall be protected. Policy 8.2: Establish and maintain setbacks and development standards for creek side development. Program: A-dGpt and-a:� Maintain a creek setback ordinance that will which establishes building setbacks and development standards along the banks of Atascadero Creek, Graves Creek, Boulder Creek. blue line creeks, -and-the Salinas River, jurisdictional wetlands and anV other significant drainage courses to ensure the uninterrupted natural flow of the streams and protection of the riparian ecosystem with flexible standards for the downtown area. bes-ponsibdit; . C-DD-PIar--C }n+egom rr issic�r� C+t-y-EeunG,i T-4meframe: Adogt 9Fdir�a+ era 200 2. P-rior-tc--adoptior,--cf--3-c-reek--setuavk-or:diaaRce an iRteri+x35-feet-geek set-bac;~ shrati-bE-4n- r- feQt-a4GRg-Atascadero Creek, Graves Creek. and Boulder Creek shall have a 35 -foot setback-urpt+4-Man;h 1. 2-8951i. All other 7.5 min USGS quadrangle blue line creeks, jurisdictional wetlands. and other significant drainage courses shall. have an-int&;im 20 -foot setback. The Salinas River shall have a 50 -foot setback. The int--Rm-setbacks shall be subject to the following: a) On Atascadero Creek, Graves Creek. and Boulder Creek setbacks shall be measured from the edge of the creek reservation. b) All other blue line creeks setbas. the Salinas River, and any other significant drainage courses shall have setbacks be -measured from the ordinary high water mark. c) The Planning Commission may approve exceptions to the i creek setbacks in the form of a Minor Conditional Use Permit with a biologist and a geomorphologist report. if the finding r n ho Made that Gree FP@fa @41—a$aS-afce iMpFGV-,-Men—nt^Wil not ben g@ti ely im P@Gte l by t -he -exception-. Draft of Proposed Zoning Ordinance: 9-4.111 Blue Line Creek Setbacks (a) Definition: Blue -line creek: A creek. stream or watercourse indicated by a solid or broken blue line on a U.S. Geologic. Survey 7.5 minute series quadranale map. (b) Development setbacks for creekside development are as follows: (1) Atascadero Creek. Graves Creek. and Boulder Creek. Thirty-five (35) foot setback measured from the edae of the creek reservation: (2) Where Atasc,rdero Creek. Graves Creek. and Boulder Creek chamlels are located outside of creel: reservations. a twenty (20) foot setback measured from the ordinary hiuh water mark shall be required: (3) Blueline creeks. Twentv (20) foot setback measured from ordinary hiLTh water marks: (4) Sit,nificant draina(7e courses. Twenty (20) foot setback measured frorn ordinary hi(h %,%ater mark for other si(vinifrcant drainage courses as identified by Army Corps of Engineers Department of Fish and Game and/or qualified biologist: (�) Jurisdictional Wetlands. Twenty (20) foot setback measured from jurisdictional wetland boundary as defined by a qualified biologist: (6) Salinas River. Fifty (50) foot setback measured from the ordinan, high water mark. (c) lm . rovements permitted within setbacks: (l ) Bridues (2) Enuineered drainage outlet: (3) Minor landscape features not requiring grading: (4) Non-invasive landscapin1n (5) Raised decks; (6) TraiIs: (7) Transparent fencing which does not block water flow. (d) Imnrovemems not permitted within_ setbacks include. but are not limited to: (1) Detention basins: (2) Gradinu (cut or fill): (3) Over -excavation: (4) Parking, driveways, other vehicular surfaces_ 5) Retaining walls: (6) Septic Systems (see section 8-5.103 Table 4.3 for septic setback requirements): (7) Structures (except as listed in section (c) above): (8) Underground utilities. (e) Exceptions. (1) Structures that were legally permitted before the effective date of this ordinance shall be permitted to remain: (2) The Planning Commission may approve exceptions to creek setbacks for Atascadero Creek. Graves Creek. Boulder Creek. and the Salinas River with a minor Conditional Use Permit. A biologist and a geomorphologist report shall be required. (i) Requirements for biologist andeco �morpholoeist reports: (A) Qualified-biologist and LTeomoMhologist: (B) Topographical and vegetation survey of creek channel with one (1) foot contour lines at one (1) to twenty (20) foot scale from bank to bank to include one himdred (100) feet up and down steam from property lines. Su►ti ev shall identifv thirty five (35) foot setbacks; (C) Engineered grading and drainage plan of the entire site which includes the creek survev shall be provided; (D) Written analysis of the project impacts with an assessment of the potential impacts to the creek flow bank stability, riparian vegetation and habitat. eater quality and anv structures resulting from the reduced setback shall be provided; (I;) Mitiaation measures. (ii) Required findings for Planning Commission approval; (A) Creek channel and storm water flows will not be significantly impacted: (B) Habitat and riparian vegetation will not be simificantly impacted; (C.I.Native trees and canopies will not be significantly impacted; (I)) Water quality will not be- significantly impacted: (F) Bank stability will not be significantly impacted; (I) Proposed improvements will not be subject to damage caused by creek bank mi,-,ration. Map: Ataseadero Creek, Graves Creek, Boulder Creek, & the Salinas River CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. I -Aesthetics Services C Biological Resources FTransportation/Traffic Hazards & Hazardous Utilities / Service Systems Materials CMineral Resources CAgriculture Resources FCultural Resources CHydrology / Water Quality C Noise CAir Quality CGeology /Soils CLand Use / Planning CPopulation / Housing CPublic Services Recreation FTransportation/Traffic C Utilities / Service Systems F Mandatory Findings of Significance 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. ❑ 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 MITIGATED 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. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant effect" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ 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 all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Callie Taylor, Assistant Planner c.L�4 ,,- i 1, -� :-? /a 01/26/07 Neg Dec PLN 2006-1139 -� k" 4.44 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY 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 following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts, 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from 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) Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached. Other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. Neg Dec PLN 2006-1139 01125107 .III(✓ �` _i- CITY OFATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Initial Study 2006-0039 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact ZCH 2006-0125, GPA 2006-0017, PLN 2006-1139 Creek Setback Ordinance & General Plan Amendment Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation 1. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ 0 Z b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings ❑ ❑ ❑ within a state scenic highway? Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ❑ ❑ ❑ Williamson Act contract? SOURCES: Project Description DISCUSSION: 1.a) As proposed, the Zoning Ordinance text amendment and General Plan update will establish clear creek setbacks to replace the interim setbacks, which will aid in the protection of scenic vistas. 1.1b) The text amendments will not damage scenic resources; rather it is designed to protect scenic resources by creating an avenue to enforce setbacks from creek reservations, the Salinas River, and other blue line creeks, wetlands, and significant drainage courses. 1.c) The proposed text amendments are written to enforce creek setbacks, promote water quality, and protect creek habits and vegetation, thus improving and protecting the quality of the creeks and natural surroundings. 1.d) The text amendment will not create any change to lighting or nighttime views. 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland ❑ ❑ ❑ of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, ora ❑ ❑ ❑ Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, ❑ in 11 ❑ due to their location or nature, could result conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? SOURCES: Project Description, Land Use Element EIR. DISCUSSION 2.a. The affected zones have no changes with regard to prime farmland. 2.b. The project will not affect any Williamson Act contract. 2.c. The project will not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses 01125/07 Page 3 PLN 2006-1139.MND.ct1139 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Initial Study 2006-0039 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant ZCH 2006-0125, GPA 2006-0017, PLN 2006-1139 Impact Mitigation Impact Creek Setback Ordinance & General Plan Amendment Incorporation 3. AIR QUALITY -- The significance criteria established by the Air Quality Control District in its CEQA Guidelines may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable ❑ ❑ ❑ air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially❑ El ❑ to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any is ❑ 1:1 Elcriteria pollutant for which the project region non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ Z concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ❑ ❑ ❑ of people? SOURCES: Project Description. DISCUSSION: 3.a -e) The text amendment will not have an effect on current air quality standards. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or identified ❑ 1:1 Elthrough habitat modifications, on any species as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat in local ❑ El 1:1or other sensitive natural community identified or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected Clean Water Act ❑ ❑ 1:1wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? o1izsio7 Page 4 PLN 2006-1139.MND.ct1139 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Initial Study 2006-0039 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact ZCH 2006-0125, GPA 2006-0017, PLN 2006-1139 Impact Mitigation Impact Creek Setback Ordinance & General Plan Amendment Incorporation d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native ❑ ❑ ❑ resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with ❑ ❑ established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or ❑ impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ❑ ❑ F e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ❑ ❑ ❑ biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ Plan, ❑ ❑ Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? SOURCES: Project description DISCUSSION: 4.a.b.c.d. The proposed amendments will not have as adverse affect on any species, riparian habitat, or wetland. The amendment is designed to protect the creeks and wetlands and preserve habitat for wildlife. The riparian areas around the blue line creeks, the Salinas River, wetlands, and other significant drainage ways will be protected with the adoption of the General Plan Amendment and concurrent Zoning Ordinance. 4.e. The amendments are consistent with the current General Plan and the tree ordinance. 4f. The proposed ordinance includes provisions for Planning Commission to approve a reduced creek setback on a project by project basis for Atascadero Creek, Graves Creek, and Boulder Creek if the applicant can provide biologist and geomorphologist reports and meet the required findings to show that the creek and surrounding habitat will not be significantly affected by the reduced creek setback. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES --Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ❑ a historical resource as defined in '15064.5? ❑ ❑ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ❑ an archaeological resource pursuant to'15064.5? ❑ ❑ c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ resource or site or unique geologic feature? ❑ d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ❑ outside of formal cemeteries? ❑ ❑ F SOURCES: Project description DISCUSSION: 5.a.b. The text amendments will not damage cultural resources. The setback ordinance will establish creek setbacks to protect the creek reservations and any cultural resources in that area by adopting a 35 foot setback along Atascadero Creek, Grave's Creek, and Boulder Creek reservations, a 50 foot setback along the Salinas River, and 20 foot setbacks along other blue lines, wetlands, and other significant drainage courses. The setback ordinance will provide increased protection for cultural sites along the waterways by preventing grading and structures within the proposed setbacks. 5.c.d. As required by Senate Bill 18, the City has referred the General Plan Amendment for Tribal Consultation for review and comment on the proposed amendments. A working copy of the proposed amendments was sent to the Northern Chumash Tribal Council, the Salinas Tribal Council, the Native American Heritage Commission, and the PSHA Services Cultural Resource Specialist. The City is currently working with those contacts to include any necessary provisions to protect Native American cultural resources which are located along the waterways. 01125107 Page 5 PLN 2000-1139.MND.d1139 DISCUSSION: 6.a. The proposed ordinance will have no affect on earthquake faults. 6.b.c.d. The text amendment will not have an effect on soil or geology. The proposed setbacks will limit structures along the creeks where soils are generally not as stable. Grading will not be allowed within 35 feet of the creek reservations in order to prevent silt and erosion from entering the waterways. The proposed amendment would allow the Planning Commission to approve exceptions to creek setbacks for Atascadero Creek, Graves Creek, Boulder Creek, and the Salinas River with a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow the setback to be reduced to 20 feet from the reservation line. In order to meet the reduced setback, a geomorphologist report shall be required to show that bank stability and water quality will not be significantly impacted and proposed improvements will not be subject to damage caused by creek bank migration. 6.e. The proposed ordinance and amendments will not have any affect on septic system regulations- Septic systems and alternative wastewater disposal systems are regulated by the Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin, Region 3, and will be unaffected by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments. 01125107 Page 6 PLN 2006-1139.10ND.c11139 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Initial Stud 2006-0039 Study Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Less Than Significant No Impact ZCH 2006-0125, GPA 2006-0017, PLN 2006-1139 Impact Mitigation Incorporation Impact Creek Setback Ordinance & General Plan Amendment 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated F1❑ ❑ on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ Z iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including ❑ El Elliquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ Z b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or ❑ ❑ ❑ that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B ❑ Elof El z the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of ❑ El 1:1septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? SOURCES: Project description. DISCUSSION: 6.a. The proposed ordinance will have no affect on earthquake faults. 6.b.c.d. The text amendment will not have an effect on soil or geology. The proposed setbacks will limit structures along the creeks where soils are generally not as stable. Grading will not be allowed within 35 feet of the creek reservations in order to prevent silt and erosion from entering the waterways. The proposed amendment would allow the Planning Commission to approve exceptions to creek setbacks for Atascadero Creek, Graves Creek, Boulder Creek, and the Salinas River with a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow the setback to be reduced to 20 feet from the reservation line. In order to meet the reduced setback, a geomorphologist report shall be required to show that bank stability and water quality will not be significantly impacted and proposed improvements will not be subject to damage caused by creek bank migration. 6.e. The proposed ordinance and amendments will not have any affect on septic system regulations- Septic systems and alternative wastewater disposal systems are regulated by the Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin, Region 3, and will be unaffected by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments. 01125107 Page 6 PLN 2006-1139.10ND.c11139 CITY OFATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Initial Study 2006-0039 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant ZCH 2006-0125, GPA 2006-0017, PLN 2006-1139 Impact Mitigation Impact Creek Setback Ordinance & General Plan Amendment Incorporation 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would the croject: No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, disposal ❑ ❑ ❑ use, or of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the through reasonably foreseeable F-1 F-1 F-1environment upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely1-1 hazardous materials, substances, ❑ ❑ F7 or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of materials sites compiled to Government F1 F-1 F]hazardous pursuant Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a has not been two ❑ ❑ ❑ plan adopted, within miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people living or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would result in hazard for living F-1 El Elthe project a safety people or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an emergency response F-1 F-1 Eladopted plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, or death involving fires, including F-1 F-1 Elinjury wildland where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? SOURCES: Project description. DISCUSSION 7a -h. The text amendments alone will not create an impact to hazards or hazardous materials. The amendments deal only with setbacks to the creeks and waterways and do not affect on hazards or hazardous materials. 3. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.-- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 11 F] F-1 N 01/25/07 Page 7 PLN 2006-1139.MND.ct1139 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ -« = CITY OF ATASCADERO `�T,�sunr ' INITIAL STUDY Initial Study 2006-0039 Potentially Less Than Less Than No (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the Significant Significant with Significant Impact ZCH 2006-0125, GPA 2006-0017, PLN 2006-1139 Impact Mitigation Impact purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Incorporation Creek Setback Ordinance & General Plan Amendment residents of the state? 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ 0 Z b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or ❑ of an agency with jurisdiction over the project 1:11:1regulation F F (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the resource that would be of value to the region and the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? residents of the state? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑ natural community conservation plan? ❑ ❑ SOURCES: Land Use Element; Circulation Element; project description; Land Use Element EIR DISCUSSION: 9.a. The proposed amendment does not have the potential to divide an established community. 9.b.c. Goal LOC 8 of the City's current General Plan states "Adopt and maintain a creek setback ordinance that will establish building setbacks and development standards along the banks of Atascadero Creek, Graves Creek, blue line creeks, and the Salinas River to ensure the uninterrupted natural flow of the streams and protection of the riparian ecosystem with flexible standards for the downtown area." This General Plan Amendment and concurrent Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment are designed to meet this goal. The General Plan Amendment will replace the interim creek setbacks and the Zoning Ordnance will further clarify the setbacks by clearly outlining what is allowed and not allowed within the setbacks, and describing any exceptions to the setbacks. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral F F resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important delineated local F1 ❑ 1:1mineral resource recovery site on a general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? SOURCES: Project description. DISCUSSION: 10.a.b. The text amendment will not have an effect on mineral resources. 11. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in in the local ❑ ❑ ❑ excess of standards established general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive levels? ❑ ❑ 1:1ground-borne vibration or ground -borne noise c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels levels the ❑ ❑ Elin 2,7 the project vicinity above existing without 01/25/07 Page 9 PLN 2006-1139.MND.ct1139 71 -sU'— CITY OF ATASCADERO INITLAL STUDY Initial Study 2006-0039 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significantwith Significant Impact ZCH 2006-0125, GPA 2006-0017, PLN 2006-1139 Impact Mitigation Impact Creek Setback Ordinance & General Plan Amendment Incorporation b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ F-1 F1substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of previously -existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a F-1 F] ❑ stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site area, including through the alteration of the course of a ❑ ❑ F-1or stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems F-1 F-1 F-1capacity or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ Z g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood F-1 1-1 ❑ Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ ❑ ❑ i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a ❑ ❑ F-1injury result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ F-1 (� /I SOURCES: Project description DISCUSSION: 8.a. The ordinance amendment will not violate any water quality standards. The ordinance will promote water quality and waterway protection. 8.b. The amendment will not affect ground water levels. 8.c -d. The amendment would prevent significant alteration of watercourses by not permitting any grading within 20 feet of any blue line creek or significant drainage course, 35 feet of any creek reservation, and 50 feet of the Salinas River. 8.e. The amendment alone will not contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. 8.f. The amendment does not have the potential to degrade water quality. 8.g.h.i.j. GIS mapping shows that the proposed setbacks would generally place development outside the 100- year flood plane. Any future projects will go through plan check on a project by project basis to ensure that structures and improvements are outside the flood plane in addition to the creek setbacks. 01/25/07 Page 8 PLN 2006-1139.MND.ct1139 project? fiYsz — CITY OFATASCADERO ��-:---� INITIAL STUDY Initial Study 2006-0039 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact ZCH 2006-0125, GPA 2006-0017, PLN 2006-1139 Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation Creek Setback Ordinance & General Plan Amendment ❑ project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient ❑ levels in the levels ❑ 1:1directly noise project vicinity above existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ has been two ❑ ❑ where such a plan not adopted, within miles of ❑ ❑ F7 a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? El ElZ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would ❑ living in the ❑ 1:1the project expose people or working project area to excessive noise levels? SOURCES: Project description DISCUSSION: 11 a -f.) The text amendments will not create additional noise levels inconsistent with current standards. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either ❑ by homes ❑ 1:1directly (for example, proposing new and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,❑ housing ❑ ❑ F7 necessitating the construction of replacement elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the❑ El ElZ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? SOURCES: Project description; General Plan Land Use Element. DISCUSSION: 12.a -c.) No persons will be displaced through this text amendment nor will it induce population growth 13. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? 01/25/07 Page 10 PLN 2006-1139.MND.ct1139 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Initial Study 2006-0039 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact ZCH 2006-0125, GPA 2006-0017, PLN 2006-1139 Impact Mitigation Impact Creek Setback Ordinance & General Plan Amendment Incorporation Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ F]to Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Z Parks? ❑ ❑ F1 I Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ Z SOURCES: Project description; Land Use Element EIR. DISCUSSION: The text amendments will not create additional impacts to City services. 14. RECREATION - a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require ❑ ❑ ❑ the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? SOURCES: Project description; Parks and Recreation Element. DISCUSSION: 14.a.b. The text amendments are not associated with the uses of recreational facilities. An exception is included in the proposed Zoning Ordinance to allow structures that were legally permitted before the effective date of the ordinance to remain. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation the traffic load the F-1 F-1 F]to existing and capacity of street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of by the F-1 ❑ ❑ service standard established county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either increase in traffic levels in location that ❑ F-1 F-1an or a change results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature dangerous intersections) ❑ ❑ El(e.g., 1771 sharp curves or or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 01/25107 Page 11 PLN 2006-1139.MND.ct1139 CITY OFATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Initial Study 2006-0039 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant ZCH 2006-0125, GPA 2006-0017, PLN 2006-1139 impact Mitigation Impact Creek Setback Ordinance & General Plan Amendment Incorporation e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact SOURCES: Land Use Element; Circulation Element; Project Description. DISCUSSION: 15.a -f. The proposed text amendments will not create an impact on traffic or circulation. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS --Would the p roj e ct: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? SOURCES: Project description; Land Use Element. ❑ ❑ ❑ Z. E E VN SOURCES: Land Use Element; Circulation Element; Project Description. DISCUSSION: 15.a -f. The proposed text amendments will not create an impact on traffic or circulation. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS --Would the p roj e ct: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? SOURCES: Project description; Land Use Element. ❑ ❑ ❑ Z. E E z DISCUSSION: 16.a -g. The proposed text change does not affect utilities or service systems. 1 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality F-1 F] ❑ of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish 01/25/07 Page 12 PLN 2006-1139.MND.c11139 z z DISCUSSION: 16.a -g. The proposed text change does not affect utilities or service systems. 1 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality F-1 F] ❑ of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish 01/25/07 Page 12 PLN 2006-1139.MND.c11139 a CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Initial Study 2006-0039 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact ZCH 2006-0125, GPA 2006-0017, PLN 2006-1139 Impact Mitigation Impact Creek Setback Ordinance & General Plan Amendment Incorporation 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? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually El F-1 F-1limited, 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)? c) Does the project have environmental effects that will F-1 F-1 F-1cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? DISCUSSION: The proposed Zoning Ordinance and General Plan text amendments will replace the interim setbacks and provide a section in Title 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for detailed explanation of the setbacks, including definitions, a list of improvements permitted and not permitted within setbacks, and any exceptions. The proposed project has been analyzed as required by CEQA. It has been determined that the text change will not have an adverse impact on the environment. Working copies of the proposed amendments are attached to this document for review. SOURCES: General Plan Land Use Element, City of Atascadero, 2002 Zoning Ordinance, part of Municipal Code, City of Atascadero, as amended through 1999. Land Use Element Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Crawford, Multari, & Clark, adopted 2002 PROJECT SOURCES: Project Description Proposed draft ordinance and General Plan amendment 01/25/07 Page 13 PLN 2006-1139.MND.ct1139